Which team will Mendis torment the most

[Uppercut]

No, it wouldn't. In India, like in Sri Lanka, the batsmen are very very good players of spin. That does not mean the conditions/pitch do not suit spinners - in fact they do, very much. Check the stats for visiting spinners and those that are home, they are usually very different because of this fact and because not only are the home spinners more used to bowling there but their batsmen are more adept at facing spin at home. I think I did a statistical analysis about this a while ago. The only two places where spin averages better than pace are India and Sri Lanka. That's not a coincidence.

To be fair, the lineup Mendis destroyed was the Indian one which is generally considered (not least by your argument right there) to be the best at playing spin in the world. Not easy to blame the pitches in that context.

 

[weldone]

Yep. I think he will be lucky to have half the career that Murali (or Warne) has had. But, as you say, lets wait and see.

What do you mean by half the career? Something like 350 wickets @ below 25? Then also he'll definitely go down as one of the top 7-8 or so spinners in the history of the game...

 

[Evermind]

Mendis not fit to tie Hauritz's shoelaces unless he takes a 10-fer at Perth IMO.

 

[Migara]

IMO Mendis is too overrated. I am worried that he'll be found out by the batsmen. As Iverson and Gleeson has experianced. Only thing that Mendis has in advantage is he's a sensationaly accurate bowler than his two predecessors.

 

[Migara]

Mendis not fit to tie Hauritz's shoelaces unless he takes a 10-fer at Perth IMO.

Post of the thread.

 

[Matt79]

I tried Mendis' bowling action today (well, actually Iverson's, based on photos) with a kid's plastic ball (ie. the ones you get in those pits of balls at places like Ikea - immortalised in the Simpsons). Slightly larger than a tennis ball, but weighs virtually nothing. Had no control and I don't think I imparted much in the way of revs, and now my hand aches. Amazing that he can consistently bowl a cricket ball with that action...

 

[cowboysfan]

mendis is the real deal folks.he doesnt need to spin the ball a great deal to pick up wickets.he bowls at different speeds and lengths and that gets him a big chunk of his wickets.i dont know if the batsmen are scared of him or not but i have never seen so many batsmen misjudge a spinners speed and length as they for mendis.

 

[cowboysfan]

I tried Mendis' bowling action today (well, actually Iverson's, based on photos) with a kid's plastic ball (ie. the ones you get in those pits of balls at places like Ikea - immortalised in the Simpsons). Slightly larger than a tennis ball, but weighs virtually nothing. Had no control and I don't think I imparted much in the way of revs, and now my hand aches. Amazing that he can consistently bowl a cricket ball with that action...

you should check out a picyure of his hand and fingers.they are huge.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, you need big hands and exceptionally long and strong fingers (damn my regular proportions!), and according to Gleeson to build up gradually - like a ping pong ball, squash ball, golf ball, bigger plastic or rubber ball, tennis ball, then a compo and cricketer over months if not years... So basically, its something that can't be taught or replicated, unless you find a child with big hands and get them started years before the finished product will emerge.

Players have torn tendons in their hand trying to bowl bent-finger spinners with a cricket ball in the past.

It will be interesting to see how he goes - neither Iverson nor Gleeson went on to dominate in the manner their FC careers or early test performances, especially Iverson's suggested.

 

[tooextracool]

Hmmm, maybe. Although I find it difficult to argue about the spin bowling merits of Giles and Croft with respect to top batting sides.

Why not, they both have stellar records in the subcontinent. Whether you rate them overall or not, it doesnt make a difference IMO. They both bowled with the kind of style that has generally achieved the most success in the subcontinent - i.e. give the ball some air, vary your pace and let the pitch do whatever it does instead of experimenting. Croft and Such were arguably the best spinners in all of England, far better than Giles. Unfortunately, Such couldnt hold a candle to Giles' batting ability while Croft was strongly disliked by the selectors.

I disagree that Sri Lanka have been the best players of spin on the past decade. I would still put India at the top, followed by Australia (post 2001), then Sri Lanka.

I think this Indian side is overrated in their ability for playing spin. I think it was different in the 90s when you had the likes of Sidhu, Azharuddin, Tendulkar etc who were as good as it gets against spin.Sidhu used to eat spinners for breakfast, lunch and dinner really. The likes of Kambli and Jadeja were not too far behind against spin either.
In the current side, only Tendulkar and Sehwag are really good against spin. Gambhir is still an unknown IMO. Laxman, Dravid, Ganguly, Yuvraj are all average players of spin at best.
You only have to look at the number of spinners who have had one off successes in India. Boje, Udal, Krejza, Clarke and even Swann had some success.

 

[tooextracool]

The point is that when you're averaging considerably less than pretty much any bowler ever has in FC, List A, test, ODI and T20 cricket after a sizeable portion of matches, saying it's because "hes played all his games on a spinners paradise" is pretty daft. Sri Lanka pitches vary from raging turners to flat no-resulters to low, slow ones and so on.

I wouldnt dismiss his FC record but it needs to be taken in context. Has he played even a single game in any format outside the subcontinent? Maybe a couple in the WI thats pretty much it. Yes there is variety in Sri Lankan pitches, but even if they arent raging turners, their pitches offer far more to the spinners than places like Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. If Murali played all his FC cricket in Australia, hed be struggling to average in the 20s.
As far as Mendis is concerned, I think as long as people dont have a clue as to what he is doing, he will probably take wickets all over the world. But he remains an unknown quantity at this point and there are huge question marks about how good he might be once his magic tricks start to wear off.

 

[cowboysfan]

I wouldnt dismiss his FC record but it needs to be taken in context. Has he played even a single game in any format outside the subcontinent? Maybe a couple in the WI thats pretty much it. Yes there is variety in Sri Lankan pitches, but even if they arent raging turners, their pitches offer far more to the spinners than places like Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. If Murali played all his FC cricket in Australia, hed be struggling to average in the 20s.
As far as Mendis is concerned, I think as long as people dont have a clue as to what he is doing, he will probably take wickets all over the world. But he remains an unknown quantity at this point and there are huge question marks about how good he might be once his magic tricks start to wear off.

magic tricks ?what does that even mean?.is bowling straight a magic trick?.is bowling at different speeds and length a magic trick?.

 

[tooextracool]

magic tricks ?what does that even mean?.is bowling straight a magic trick?.is bowling at different speeds and length a magic trick?.

Bowling straight and bowling at different speeds and lengths is absolutely fabulous but it would be incredibly naive to assume that is what has given him 154 FC wickets at 15.49.

By tricks Im referring to the range of deliveries and actions and grips with which he bowls with. The biggest trick he can pull is of course if he manages to routinely take wickets once everybody knows how his tricks are performed.

 

[Jigga988]

I think ATM Mendis will continue to get wickets at the rate at which he is getting them now, but I think the defining moment in his career will be when Murali leaves. Whether he could cope with being the only good spinning option in an attack that has always relied on a quality spinner is debatable. I reckon he could struggle being the lone spinner in places like Aus NZ and SA.

There's also whether batsman would figure him out, but I don't think this is all that possible, no large amount of batsmen figured out Murali and if anything Mendis will be harder to pick due to the fact that he doesnt show much when facing the batsmen.

All in all, I reckon he has a chance of doing something brilliant but it is soooooo early to judge him, give him a nother three years then we could gage how well he could do, a lot has to do with character and I don't think thats been tested yet.

 

[JBH001]

What do you mean by half the career? Something like 350 wickets @ below 25? Then also he'll definitely go down as one of the top 7-8 or so spinners in the history of the game...

Haha, yes, although still nowhere near as good as Murali or Warne.

Really though, all I am saying is that all the Mendis love is premature. Wait and see how he goes over the next year or two and then all the hyperbole might seem more like reality. That said, I would be surprised to see Mendis get better than 300 wickets at 30 (the equivalent of a Harbhajan or a Vettori).

 

[Beamer]

Tbh the idea of Mendis bowling at Chattergoon, Marshall, Findlay and dunderhead tailenders like Powell gives me the shivers.

I'm pretty sure he will have a field day against us no matter where the match is played.

 

[JBH001]

Why not, they both have stellar records in the subcontinent. Whether you rate them overall or not, it doesnt make a difference IMO. They both bowled with the kind of style that has generally achieved the most success in the subcontinent - i.e. give the ball some air, vary your pace and let the pitch do whatever it does instead of experimenting. Croft and Such were arguably the best spinners in all of England, far better than Giles. Unfortunately, Such couldnt hold a candle to Giles' batting ability while Croft was strongly disliked by the selectors.

I'll take your word for it. As I said, I cant be arsed talking about Giles and Croft. In any case, neither Giles or Croft were stellar in the subcontinent, as you say. Merely good (and certainly better than their overall career) and, for that matter, Croft never played in India or Pakistan, just Sri Lanka.

I think this Indian side is overrated in their ability for playing spin. I think it was different in the 90s when you had the likes of Sidhu, Azharuddin, Tendulkar etc who were as good as it gets against spin.Sidhu used to eat spinners for breakfast, lunch and dinner really. The likes of Kambli and Jadeja were not too far behind against spin either.
In the current side, only Tendulkar and Sehwag are really good against spin. Gambhir is still an unknown IMO. Laxman, Dravid, Ganguly, Yuvraj are all average players of spin at best.
You only have to look at the number of spinners who have had one off successes in India. Boje, Udal, Krejza, Clarke and even Swann had some success.

Yes, Sidhu was a monster. I watched a good number of Murali's matches against India in the 90s and Sidhu used to take him apart regularly. If I recall correctly, Murali said that he decided to revise the length he was bowling after having been smashed by Sidhu yet again in the 97 (or 98) tour of India. He felt that he was bowling too full and allowing batsmen too much of an opportunity to tonk runs against him. Right after that he started to become a lot more successful - his successful development of a good top spinner at the same also helped. You are right, however, that the 90s side were better players of spin than the current crop.

Strangely though, I would also say that the Sri Lanka side of the 90s were better players of spin than the current mob. Of the Indian side I would agree that Sehwag and Tendulkar are the best players of spin, but I would put Gambhir there as well. He is pretty good imo. Also, I would hesitate to suggest that Laxman, Dravid, and Ganguly are average at best players of spin, more that they are competent, if not in the same league as a Sehwag or Tendulkar. Yuvraj however is a poor player of spin.

I am not sure what you imply by your last comment about one off successes. As far as I know, all those successes happened on pitches favourable to spin, and as you note in your comments about Giles and Croft, all they would have to do was bowl "with the kind of style that has generally achieved the most success in the subcontinent - i.e. give the ball some air, vary your pace and let the pitch do whatever it does instead of experimenting." I dont see how succumbing to these bowlers in good conditions makes them much poorer players of spin than their predecessors (especially if you tie in the fact that they may not have taken these secondary bowlers seriously).

 

[tooextracool]

I'll take your word for it. As I said, I cant be arsed talking about Giles and Croft. In any case, neither Giles or Croft were stellar in the subcontinent, as you say. Merely good (and certainly better than their overall career) and, for that matter, Croft never played in India or Pakistan, just Sri Lanka.

I think Giles record compares favorably in the subcontinent than Warne and Murali. Thats an impressive feat IMO. He wasnt a stellar bowler, but in those conditions he was a fairly good spinner.

Yes, Sidhu was a monster. I watched a good number of Murali's matches against India in the 90s and Sidhu used to take him apart regularly. If I recall correctly, Murali said that he decided to revise the length he was bowling after having been smashed by Sidhu yet again in the 97 (or 98) tour of India. He felt that he was bowling too full and allowing batsmen too much of an opportunity to tonk runs against him. Right after that he started to become a lot more successful - his successful development of a good top spinner at the same also helped. You are right, however, that the 90s side were better players of spin than the current crop.

My memories of Sidhu involve him plodding around for most of the day and then someone like Warne would come on and he would tear him apart. He used to struggle abroad but at home he was a remarkable player.

Strangely though, I would also say that the Sri Lanka side of the 90s were better players of spin than the current mob. Of the Indian side I would agree that Sehwag and Tendulkar are the best players of spin, but I would put Gambhir there as well. He is pretty good imo. Also, I would hesitate to suggest that Laxman, Dravid, and Ganguly are average at best players of spin, more that they are competent, if not in the same league as a Sehwag or Tendulkar. Yuvraj however is a poor player of spin.

Yeah Sri Lanka with De Silva and Ranatunga were better players of spin than they are now. However, I believe that Dilshan and Samaraweera are fairly good players of spin as well. Just about anyone in their side is a good player of spin IMO.

I am not sure what you imply by your last comment about one off successes. As far as I know, all those successes happened on pitches favourable to spin, and as you note in your comments about Giles and Croft, all they would have to do was bowl "with the kind of style that has generally achieved the most success in the subcontinent - i.e. give the ball some air, vary your pace and let the pitch do whatever it does instead of experimenting." I dont see how succumbing to these bowlers in good conditions makes them much poorer players of spin than their predecessors (especially if you tie in the fact that they may not have taken these secondary bowlers seriously).

Well I dont think Krejza's 8fer on a first innings pitch was a raging turner, it was a regular subcontinental wicket with a little bit of life. Only Clarke's success happened on a pitch that was turning square, the rest were working with typical subcontinental conditions. As I see it, I doubt some of these bowlers would have had the kind of success against India in the 90s.