Best spinner other than Warne & Murali

[tooextracool]

err why because Warnie couldn't succeed against them ?

nope because they played fairly often as poorly as they did against SA and india in 93/94.

and a 1-0 is a failure, right ?? Let me guess according to you a 1-1 draw is a bigger success than 1-0 win right ??

err what? do you understand english?
1-0 beating a minnow is nowhere near as good as a 1-1 draw against one of the best teams at home.

 

[tooextracool]

And how does that prove that Kumble/spinners failed against them. You certianly are a tool who after losing the argument about Kumble's performance is trying to change the discussion about South African Performance.

and once again your comprehension of the english language is beyond belief.
the argument is not about kumbles performance, get that through your head. the argument is that SA were pretty good against spin.

It's funny that you claim that you have proved me wrong, and it took you only 3 days to cook that crap. .

because of course i spent the previous 3 days thinking about this argument didnt i. unfortuantely for you i dont usually log on here for more than a couple of hours or so, and when i do log on here i make it a point to respond to the first thread i see, not just to your posts of insanity.

 

[Sanz]

nope because they played fairly often as poorly as they did against SA and india in 93/94.

Yeah right about the time when SA drew that series against SL in SL, They had lost a series to Pakistan, England 3 series in a row, they barely won a series against India where India were without VVS, SRT, Kumble(basically Dravid, and Ganguly were the only batsmen worth their salt). Really very good performance at home.

err what? do you understand english?
1-0 beating a minnow is nowhere near as good as a 1-1 draw against one of the best teams at home.

SL became a great home team only after 2002.

 

[Sanz]

and once again your comprehension of the english language is beyond belief.
the argument is not about kumbles performance, get that through your head. the argument is that SA were pretty good against spin.

err check out the topic of the thread.

 

[Sanz]

good to see your immense knowledge of SL cricket showing up once again. every single time in which kalu has played test cricket in the last few years(and probably for his entire career), hes played as the wicket keeper, not a batsman. the reason he was picked was to reduce the burden on sangakkara so that he could focus on his batting up the order.

Yes so that Sangakkara could focus on his batting, doesn't that mean that there isn't available one batsman who can really bat an international level and they have to bring a 40 year old guy to keep wickets.

believe it or not if it werent for chandanas leg spin he wouldnt make it in the test side, because there are better batters in the country than him.

Name one ?

wow what a convincing argument.
btw have you ever watched samaraweera bat?

Smarweeva, isn't he the quy who came into the team as a spinner and not as a batsman ? Yes I have watched him play and he is no where near Mahanama as a batsman.

Rest of your post is just garbage and a repeat of your prev. posts so no point wasting my time over it.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah right about the time when SA drew that series against SL in SL, They had lost a series to Pakistan, England 3 series in a row, they barely won a series against India where India were without VVS, SRT, Kumble(basically Dravid, and Ganguly were the only batsmen worth their salt). Really very good performance at home. .

or maybe just maybe that all those sides were fairly good?
i think a 1-1 draw against that SA side is quite a performance. the england side too that toured the subcontinent was a very good one. and the pakistan side as we all know on their day can be quite a handful. i dont see how you can criticise the SL side for winning a test series against india 2-1 though, weak side or not.

SL became a great home team only after 2002.

doubt it, considering that the nucleus of that side- sangakkara, jayawardhene,attapattu,jayasuriya, tillekratne, vaas, murali etc were playing before and after 2002.

 

[tooextracool]

err check out the topic of the thread.

its a shame that after being on the forum for more than 1.5 years now, you still havent realised that topics evolve.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes so that Sangakkara could focus on his batting, doesn't that mean that there isn't available one batsman who can really bat an international level and they have to bring a 40 year old guy to keep wickets. .

err what?
for the 10th time kaluwitharana doesnt come into the side because they cant find another batsman, he comes into the side as a keeper so that sangakkara can be relieved of his keeper duties.

Name one ?

a player who has a better test average than 26 and an FC average of 31? there'd be several in domestic cricket, but the ones at the top of my head are naveed nawaz, michael vandort, chamara de silva and if things really get dire hashan tillekratne.

Smarweeva, isn't he the quy who came into the team as a spinner and not as a batsman ? Yes I have watched him play and he is no where near Mahanama as a batsman..

yes because hes far better.
yes he did make his way into the side as a spinner but his batting as improved remarkably since that he rarely gets thrown the ball these days. an average of 47 after a significant number of tests is something that should be taken quite seriously IMO.

Rest of your post is just garbage and a repeat of your prev. posts so no point wasting my time over it.

probably cause you have no answer to them.

 

[Sanz]

or maybe just maybe that all those sides were fairly good?

Yeah right that's why the same Sri Lankan Side (which according to you was very good at home) thrashed Pakistan in Pakistan in Test(2-1) and ODI(3-0) series both. Not only that even in 1996 they thrashed Pak in Pak but lost to them at home some in 1994 & 1996, 2000. So much for being good at home

i think a 1-1 draw against that SA side is quite a performance. the england side too that toured the subcontinent was a very good one. and the pakistan side as we all know on their day can be quite a handful.

Let me get this -since 1996 SL until 2001 didn't win a single series against Pak, England, SA. They lost 2 straight series at home to Pakistan,lost to England a mediocre team, Drew with SA. Their only series win at home came against Zimbabwe, NZ and an 1-0 victory over australia and a 2-1 win over India. Their series win over australia was more of luck than them being an unbeatable home team. 2 of the tests were washed out, the first test the SL team won had two aussie players SR Waugh and Jason Gillespie got injured and didn't play in the test afterwords, so Aus played with 3 bowlers and without their main batsman. Rest of the two tests were washed out.

i dont see how you can criticise the SL side for winning a test series against india 2-1 though, weak side or not.

So winning against a side that has Kumble, SRT, Sehwag, VVS is same as winning against an Indian side without them, isn't it ?

doubt it, considering that the nucleus of that side- sangakkara, jayawardhene,attapattu,jayasuriya, tillekratne, vaas, murali etc were playing before and after 2002.

It is only since 2001-2002 season SL started to dominate at home and have lost only one test series and that too only to australia. Other than that they have won against every team except NZ who were lucky that one whole day game was lost @ Kandy due to rain.

Except Sangakkara(who made his debut in 2000) almost all other players you named have been playing much before 2000, Attapattu, Jaisuriya, Vaas, Jayvardhane all of them have been playing regularly since 1996/97.

 

[Sanz]

err what?
for the 10th time kaluwitharana doesnt come into the side because they cant find another batsman, he comes into the side as a keeper so that sangakkara can be relieved of his keeper duties.

Well if they had another batsman as good as Sangakkara, they wouldn't have to worry about that, do they ?

a player who has a better test average than 26 and an FC average of 31? there'd be several in domestic cricket, but the ones at the top of my head are naveed nawaz, michael vandort, chamara de silva and if things really get dire hashan tillekratne.

Vandort/Naveed/Chamara better than Mahanama ?? Once again your entire argument based on Stats you read out on Howstat, not to forget they are incorrect. Mahanama averages 29 in International cricket and 35 in FC. did you know that Marvan Attapattu made his debut in 1990 but couldn't get regularly into the SL team until Mahanama retired ?
And about Hasan Tilekratne, he is dropped from the team. Not to forget that he is also a WK and much like Sankkara was relieved of his keeping to concentrate on his baating. I mean if they really had any good batsman available, why would they pick wicket keepers and then relieve them of their duties so that they could concentrate on their batting ? Imagine 3 wicketkeepers playing in a team. Its like saying play Brad Haddin in the Aussie team so that Gilchrist can cocentrate on his batting. How ridiculous.

yes because hes far better.
yes he did make his way into the side as a spinner but his batting as improved remarkably since that he rarely gets thrown the ball these days. an average of 47 after a significant number of tests is something that should be taken quite seriously IMO.

I wont take him seriously until he performs outside of Sri Lanka. The guy has played at least 10 tests abroad and doesn;t even have 500 runs against his name.

probably cause you have no answer to them.

Yeah man I dont have answer to your repititive posts.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah right that's why the same Sri Lankan Side (which according to you was very good at home) thrashed Pakistan in Pakistan in Test(2-1) and ODI(3-0) series both. Not only that even in 1996 they thrashed Pak in Pak but lost to them at home some in 1994 & 1996, 2000. So much for being good at home

as i said earlier, anything before 96 dont count, so the 94 series doesnt actually prove anything. i presume you mean the 97 series in SL, which was a 0-0 draw. and as i said earlier in the 00 series, pakistan played very well. its not particularly surprising though that pakistan lost to SL in pakistan, because pakistan have always been very ordinary at home- we saw that when even india toured pakistan recently.

Let me get this -since 1996 SL until 2001 didn't win a single series against Pak, England, SA. They lost 2 straight series at home to Pakistan,lost to England a mediocre team, Drew with SA. Their only series win at home came against Zimbabwe, NZ and an 1-0 victory over australia and a 2-1 win over India. Their series win over australia was more of luck than them being an unbeatable home team. 2 of the tests were washed out, the first test the SL team won had two aussie players SR Waugh and Jason Gillespie got injured and didn't play in the test afterwords, so Aus played with 3 bowlers and without their main batsman. Rest of the two tests were washed out..

jason gillespie wouldnt have made much of a difference given that SL were chasing 95 in the 2nd inning on a blatant turner. both played in the first inning and SL still outbatted and outbowled australia. even in the 2nd test match SL had the upper hand. it was only in the third test were australia looked like they had a chance of winning.
as far as england of 2000/01 being a mediocre team is concerned, you really should start watching more cricket. they werent brilliant, but they had quality players like thorpe, gough, white and 2 fairly good spinners in croft and giles.
and if that argument is valid, then you could say that india werent a very good team at home after 97 either, given that they lost to SA in 00/01, drew with pakistan in 99, were lucky to win 1-0 against a depleted england side, and couldnt beat SL in 97/98.

So winning against a side that has Kumble, SRT, Sehwag, VVS is same as winning against an Indian side without them, isn't it ?

err sehwag hadnt even made his debut yet, so theres no point including him.
and yes, its not the same as winning against an indian side with those 3, but the fact is that they still won, which is all you can expect them to do. just because they didnt have those 3 players doesnt mean they should have whitewashed india.

It is only since 2001-2002 season SL started to dominate at home and have lost only one test series and that too only to australia. Other than that they have won against every team except NZ who were lucky that one whole day game was lost @ Kandy due to rain. .

nope as said earlier, the players were the same before and after. fact is you could still use the same argument to claim that SL arent a very good home team now, considering that australia whitewashed them in SL, couldnt beat NZ, struggled to beat a very ordinary england side in 03/04 etc.

Except Sangakkara(who made his debut in 2000) almost all other players you named have been playing much before 2000, Attapattu, Jaisuriya, Vaas, Jayvardhane all of them have been playing regularly since 1996/97.

exactly, and SL have been a strong team at home since 96/97

 

[tooextracool]

Well if they had another batsman as good as Sangakkara, they wouldn't have to worry about that, do they ?

why? because whoever the other quality batter is he would be able to take over the keeping duties?

Vandort/Naveed/Chamara better than Mahanama ?? Once again your entire argument based on Stats you read out on Howstat, not to forget they are incorrect. Mahanama averages 29 in International cricket and 35 in FC. did you know that Marvan Attapattu made his debut in 1990 but couldn't get regularly into the SL team until Mahanama retired ?
And about Hasan Tilekratne, he is dropped from the team. Not to forget that he is also a WK and much like Sankkara was relieved of his keeping to concentrate on his baating. I mean if they really had any good batsman available, why would they pick wicket keepers and then relieve them of their duties so that they could concentrate on their batting ? Imagine 3 wicketkeepers playing in a team. Its like saying play Brad Haddin in the Aussie team so that Gilchrist can cocentrate on his batting. How ridiculous.

well done with the reading there sherlock. the argument wasnt even about mahanama, it was about upul chandana. well done in missing the entire point.

I wont take him seriously until he performs outside of Sri Lanka. The guy has played at least 10 tests abroad and doesn;t even have 500 runs against his name.

his average away from home is 35, which is hardly that poor, especially when you consider that mahanama averages 24 away from home without a single century. yet you took him so very seriously. samaraweera has a century in pakistan, an 88 in NZ, a 70 in australia which is pretty good for someone who hasnt played much and is barely even rated.

 

[Sanz]

as i said earlier, anything before 96 dont count, so the 94 series doesnt actually prove anything. i presume you mean the 97 series in SL, which was a 0-0 draw. and as i said earlier in the 00 series, pakistan played very well. its not particularly surprising though that pakistan lost to SL in pakistan, because pakistan have always been very ordinary at home- we saw that when even india toured pakistan recently.

I am amazed to see the way you have selected 96 to suit your argument and yes Pakistan played well to win in Sri Lanka, so did England & SA. And I am surprised to hear that Pakistan have always been a poor home team. . I suggest you look at their home record. Pakistan have been one of the best home teams.It is only since match fixing and retirement of their main players like Akram, Younis, Anwar etc they struggled in for few years but aonce again they have started to do well, won against SA, NZ, BD, drew against SL.

jason gillespie wouldnt have made much of a difference given that SL were chasing 95 in the 2nd inning on a blatant turner.

You conveniently forgot Steve Waugh. I am sure he wouldn't have made any difference either. They were schasing 95 because Australia were two batsmen short in their second innings and one bowler short in the first inning.

both played in the first inning and SL still outbatted and outbowled australia. even in the 2nd test match SL had the upper hand.

Gillespie was after bowling in the first bowling inning itself, he still could have bowled and just because SL had upper hand in the 2nd inning doesn't mean they were going to win it.

as far as england of 2000/01 being a mediocre team is concerned, you really should start watching more cricket. they werent brilliant, but they had quality players like thorpe, gough, white and 2 fairly good spinners in croft and giles.

And your point is ? Yes they had some quality players, but that doesn't mean they were a good team. It's like saying that India is a great team because it has great players like Dravid, SRT, VVS, Anil, Sehwag etc.

and if that argument is valid, then you could say that india werent a very good team at home after 97 either, given that they lost to SA in 00/01, drew with pakistan in 99, were lucky to win 1-0 against a depleted england side, and couldnt beat SL in 97/98.

Well that would be true but you have got the year wrong. India were a pretty ordinary team from 1999 until 2000-01 Australia series. That is mainly because India had a captain in SRT, were going through match fixing allegations.

err sehwag hadnt even made his debut yet, so theres no point including him.
and yes, its not the same as winning against an indian side with those 3, but the fact is that they still won, which is all you can expect them to do. just because they didnt have those 3 players doesnt mean they should have whitewashed india.

err..they didn't really whitewash India. India won the second test and made the series 1-1 only to lose the final test. So to say that SRT, Anil, VVS, Srinath wouldn't have made any difference is utterly foolish.

nope as said earlier, the players were the same before and after. fact is you could still use the same argument to claim that SL arent a very good home team now, considering that australia whitewashed them in SL, couldnt beat NZ, struggled to beat a very ordinary england side in 03/04 etc.

err let's see since the 2001 season SL have lost only 4 tests, drew 5 and won 15. (62.5 % won)
Between 1996 and 2001 SL lost 6, drew 9, won 9(37.5 % won) If you think that there is no difference in the above then I guess that this argument is over.

exactly, and SL have been a strong team at home since 96/97

Not really.Check out their records.

 

[Sanz]

why? because whoever the other quality batter is he would be able to take over the keeping duties?

No because there is so much depth in the Srilankan batting line up is that they had to play three wicketkeeper batsmen, two of them relieved of their keeping duties to concentrate on their batting and not to forget include an offsipinner who is relieved of his bowling duties as well, says a lot about the batting talent in Sri Lanka..

his average away from home is 35, which is hardly that poor, especially when you consider that mahanama averages 24 away from home without a single century. yet you took him so very seriously. samaraweera has a century in pakistan, an 88 in NZ, a 70 in australia which is pretty good for someone who hasnt played much and is barely even rated.

Once again if you are going to look stats to compare performances of Mahanama with current batsmen then you dont know much about his batting.

 

[dinu23]

as i said earlier, anything before 96 dont count, so the 94 series doesnt actually prove anything. i presume you mean the 97 series in SL, which was a 0-0 draw. and as i said earlier in the 00 series, pakistan played very well. its not particularly surprising though that pakistan lost to SL in pakistan, because pakistan have always been very ordinary at home- we saw that when even india toured pakistan recently.

so accoring to u, SL winning in Pakistan had nothing to do with SL playing well. that's rich.

 

[tooextracool]

I am amazed to see the way you have selected 96 to suit your argument and yes Pakistan played well to win in Sri Lanka, so did England & SA. And I am surprised to hear that Pakistan have always been a poor home team. . I suggest you look at their home record. Pakistan have been one of the best home teams.It is only since match fixing and retirement of their main players like Akram, Younis, Anwar etc they struggled in for few years but aonce again they have started to do well, won against SA, NZ, BD, drew against SL.

oh wow, they beat BD, who would have thought that?
no wait your right, bangladesh nearly embarrased them at multan when they had them on the ropes but couldnt get inzy out.
NZ of course, the quality side without bond, astle and oram in that one off game in 00/01?
that proves a lot.
and incase you still havent realise SA are hardly anything special these days, particularly away from home.
no maybe im supposed to stand up and applaud the fact that they came out with a 1-1 draw against SL without murali?
but lets took a look at some of pakistans other fantastic achievements at home in the last decade shall we?
pak vs SL 94/95 - SL win 2-1
pak vs NZ 96/97 - 1-1 draw(remembering that NZ were one of the worst sides of that decade)
pak vs SA 97/98- SA win 1-0
pak vs zim 98/99 - zim win 1-0
pak vs Aus 98/99- aus win 1-0
pak vs SL 99/00 - Sl win 2-1
pak vs Eng 00/01- eng win 1-0
asian test championship 01/02 - SL win
pak vs ind 03/04 - ind win 2-1

quite a record that.

You conveniently forgot Steve Waugh. I am sure he wouldn't have made any difference either. They were schasing 95 because Australia were two batsmen short in their second innings and one bowler short in the first inning..

actually gillespie bowled in the first innings.
in any case, even in the 2nd game despite the rain, SL outplayed Australia and did have the upper hand.

Gillespie was after bowling in the first bowling inning itself, he still could have bowled and just because SL had upper hand in the 2nd inning doesn't mean they were going to win it...

rubbish, gillespie bowled 12 overs in the first innings and went wicketless. even glenn mcgrath only bowled 6 overs more.
as far as SL not going to win it is concerned, they had their 2 best batters at the crease, and you'd have to be out of your mind if you thought they wouldnt get 95 runs.

And your point is ? Yes they had some quality players, but that doesn't mean they were a good team. It's like saying that India is a great team because it has great players like Dravid, SRT, VVS, Anil, Sehwag etc.

almost all the players in that side were quite competent if not very good against spin-atherton, tresco, hussain, thorpe, white, hick and their bowlers white, gough, croft and giles were all quite capable in the subcontinent and lets not forget a quality captain.. their record in the sub continent at the time isnt a fluke by all means. they beat pakistan and SL, and despite a weakened side caused all sorts of problems in india.

Well that would be true but you have got the year wrong. India were a pretty ordinary team from 1999 until 2000-01 Australia series. That is mainly because India had a captain in SRT, were going through match fixing allegations.

i'll give you the SA series in 00/01, where they didnt play all that well, but not the other 3(2 of which didnt happen between 99-00/01 anyways)

err..they didn't really whitewash India. India won the second test and made the series 1-1 only to lose the final test. So to say that SRT, Anil, VVS, Srinath wouldn't have made any difference is utterly foolish..

yes i know they didnt whitewash india, good god. fact is 2-1 is a perfectly acceptable result, weak side or not. and while SRT and co would have made a difference theres no way anyone can claim that had they played india would have won that series.

err let's see since the 2001 season SL have lost only 4 tests, drew 5 and won 15. (62.5 % won)
Between 1996 and 2001 SL lost 6, drew 9, won 9(37.5 % won) If you think that there is no difference in the above then I guess that this argument is over.

because that proves so much doesnt it?
first of all, the 2001 onwards includes 6 games against substandard opposition
and lets not forget that most of the teams have gotten worse since 2001(SA,England when they toured in 03 and a few other). not to mention the fact that some of the wickets like the one against india in 97/98 were dead flat.

Not really.Check out their records.

i have.

 

[tooextracool]

No because there is so much depth in the Srilankan batting line up is that they had to play three wicketkeeper batsmen, two of them relieved of their keeping duties to concentrate on their batting and not to forget include an offsipinner who is relieved of his bowling duties as well, says a lot about the batting talent in Sri Lanka

i presume the 3rd keeper batsman is tillakaratne who gave up the gloves some 10 years ago?
and how in the world does allowing quality players to focus on their batting prove that mahanama can make his way in the current side? there may not be that many quality batsman in SL, but the fact still remains that mahanama would not be able to replace any of the current SL batters, not the spinners and wicketkeepers.

Once again if you are going to look stats to compare performances of Mahanama with current batsmen then you dont know much about his batting.

because there have been so many quality players who average 24 away from home isnt it?
get off it, anyone who watched mahanama bat would know that mahanama was nothing more than ordinary.

 

[tooextracool]

so accoring to u, SL winning in Pakistan had nothing to do with SL playing well. that's rich.

i didnt say that at all. SL played well, but pakistan played poorly. simple as that. maybe i should state that SL are a quality team in subcontinental conditions then?

 

[Sanz]

oh wow, they beat BD, who would have thought that?
no wait your right, bangladesh nearly embarrased them at multan when they had them on the ropes but couldnt get inzy out.
NZ of course, the quality side without bond, astle and oram in that one off game in 00/01?
that proves a lot.
and incase you still havent realise SA are hardly anything special these days, particularly away from home.
no maybe im supposed to stand up and applaud the fact that they came out with a 1-1 draw against SL without murali?
but lets took a look at some of pakistans other fantastic achievements at home in the last decade shall we?
pak vs SL 94/95 - SL win 2-1
pak vs NZ 96/97 - 1-1 draw(remembering that NZ were one of the worst sides of that decade)
pak vs SA 97/98- SA win 1-0
pak vs zim 98/99 - zim win 1-0
pak vs Aus 98/99- aus win 1-0
pak vs SL 99/00 - Sl win 2-1
pak vs Eng 00/01- eng win 1-0
asian test championship 01/02 - SL win
pak vs ind 03/04 - ind win 2-1

quite a record that.

How does that prove that Pakistan have always been poor at home. all it proves that between late 98 and early 2002 they lost all the series they played. This I attribute to the match fixing that was going on around that time. Other than that they were pretty good at home. Even with a inexprienced lineup of Farhat/Umar/Kamal/Hameed/Malik/Youhana(No Inzi) they outscored and beat the SA which included players like Smith/Gibbs/Kirsten/Kallis/Pollock/Dippenar/Mcenzie. They annihilated NZ and I dont see how Astle was going to make a difference.

actually gillespie bowled in the first innings.
in any case, even in the 2nd game despite the rain, SL outplayed Australia and did have the upper hand.
rubbish, gillespie bowled 12 overs in the first innings and went wicketless. even glenn mcgrath only bowled 6 overs more.
as far as SL not going to win it is concerned, they had their 2 best batters at the crease, and you'd have to be out of your mind if you thought they wouldnt get 95 runs.

The point is the very reason that two aussie batsmen Steve Waugh and Gillespie didn't bat in their second innings Lanka were set 95 runs on the board and no Gillespie didn't bowl throughout the first innings. He was out of the game before the innings was over. It's funny that in the same post you argue that the presence of mediocre players like Oram/Astle would have made difference to NZ lineup whereas the presence of Super Players like Waugh/Gillespie wouldn't have made any difference. But you are being yourself, what can I say.

i'll give you the SA series in 00/01, where they didnt play all that well, but not the other 3(2 of which didnt happen between 99-00/01 anyways)

No matter how many times you say, it was the same story.

yes i know they didnt whitewash india, good god. fact is 2-1 is a perfectly acceptable result, weak side or not. and while SRT and co would have made a difference theres no way anyone can claim that had they played india would have won that series.

Once again you contradict yourself, you dont give credit to Pakistan for their win against NZ because Astle/Oram were not available on the other hand you give credit to SL for beating India out despite 3 of its main players SRT, VVS, Kumble didn't play at all in the series, 4th player Srinath played in only one test match. But once again, I dont expect anything better from you.

because that proves so much doesnt it?
first of all, the 2001 onwards includes 6 games against substandard opposition
and lets not forget that most of the teams have gotten worse since 2001(SA,England when they toured in 03 and a few other). not to mention the fact that some of the wickets like the one against india in 97/98 were dead flat.

Or May be SL have just gotten better at home than they actually were before 2001.

[

 

[tooextracool]

How does that prove that Pakistan have always been poor at home.

ok so they've been a poor side at home for a bit over a decade now.

all it proves that between late 98 and early 2002 they lost all the series they played. This I attribute to the match fixing that was going on around that time. Other than that they were pretty good at home.

which doesnt explain the fact that they've been struggling to beat mediocre test sides at home from 95 onwards.

Even with a inexprienced lineup of Farhat/Umar/Kamal/Hameed/Malik/Youhana(No Inzi) they outscored and beat the SA which included players like Smith/Gibbs/Kirsten/Kallis/Pollock/Dippenar/Mcenzie..

because of course mckenzie and dippenaar are such fabulous players arent they?
and lets not forget the fact that their bowlers were almost completely useless, bar pollock, and even he is only half the bowler he used to be.

They annihilated NZ and I dont see how Astle was going to make a difference.

they annihilated NZ in a whole 1 test match, and in this test match, NZ were missing 4 of their most important players- astle, bond, cairns and oram.

The point is the very reason that two aussie batsmen Steve Waugh and Gillespie didn't bat in their second innings Lanka were set 95 runs on the board and no Gillespie didn't bowl throughout the first innings. He was out of the game before the innings was over..

so bowling 12 overs means that he was out 'throughout the first innings' then?
BS, as i already showed earlier, not only did he bowl only 6 less overs than mcgrath, but he also couldnt get a wicket in those 12 overs anyways.

It's funny that in the same post you argue that the presence of mediocre players like Oram/Astle would have made difference to NZ lineup whereas the presence of Super Players like Waugh/Gillespie wouldn't have made any difference. But you are being yourself, what can I say.

good joke, oram and mediocre. oram who of course averages 43.5 in test match cricket with the bat. and well done in forgetting bond and cairns too.
as i said earlier gillespie wouldnt have made any real difference, because he bowled for nearly all of the 1st innings and went wicketless, and in trying to bowl SL out for 95 on a turner, he wouldnt have made too much of a difference again.

Once again you contradict yourself, you dont give credit to Pakistan for their win against NZ because Astle/Oram were not available on the other hand you give credit to SL for beating India out despite 3 of its main players SRT, VVS, Kumble didn't play at all in the series, 4th player Srinath played in only one test match. But once again, I dont expect anything better from you.

so beating which side is more of an accomplishment then? beating india in the subcontinent without 4 players, or beating NZ in the subcontinent without 4 players?
i'd think almost anyone would say that the former was a better accomplishment.

Or May be SL have just gotten better at home than they actually were before 2001[

or maybe you should learn to read, instead of ignoring all the points i just made.