Best spinner other than Warne & Murali

[Sanz]

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

Once again Pakistan have been a good home team except for a period between late 1998 and early 2002.

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

Australia aren't a mediocre test team, India of 2003-04 isn't mediocre either, SA of 96-97 not medicore, neither was the SL team under Ranatunga & Desilva.

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.

Once again you really suffer from selective dementia, dont you ? Let me list the batting line up again Kallis, Kirsten, Gibbs, Smith, Boucher, Pollock , Dippenar,, Mcenzie. That is eight batsmen. And Pollock in 2003 was half the bowler he used to be ? Is that why 2003 happens to be one of the best years of his career performance wise ? Anyone wso says that SA attack of 2003 against the newbie team of Pakistan was useless doesn't know what he is talking about.

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.

Oram ?? Was he even playing test cricket in early 2002 ?
Cairns/Bond ?? Were they even available for selection ? Cairns hardly played any cricket in 2002/2003 due to injury. Bond was not available either.
Astle - yes he was not available.

So NZ were missing only 2 players if you include Bond who was relatively new and unproven at test level (he still is). I dont know how he became their most important player.

good joke, oram and mediocre. oram who of course averages 43.5 in test match cricket with the bat.

You are the one who is acting like a joker here, and falsly claiming that Oram was not available when Oram wasn't even playing test cricket in early 2002, besides Oram was mediocre in first 2 years like Flintoff was early in his career.

and well done in forgetting bond and cairns too.

You are the one who forgot Bonds and Cairns, moreover Cairns was hardly a part of the NZ test team for the most part of 2002 and 2003. So one cant say that NZ were missing him. Bond was/is a newbie, yet I give you that he was missing because of injury.

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.

conveniently ignoring the fact that SL were chasing 95 only because 2 Aussie batsmen SRW and Gillespie weren't able to bat in the 2nd aussie innings.

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.

No matter how many times you repeat, NZ weren't without 4 players, they were without 2 players one of whom was/is unproven at test level.

India isn't a good team outside India, even if it is in the subcontinent, so imagine an India team without their top 4 players. Anyone struggling to beating India without Kumble, Sachin, VVS, Srinath (even in India) must be a pretty mediocre team. Oh and Incase you didn't know, India has won more tests in Australia, England, NZ, WI than they have won in SL & Pakistan. India lost a series in SL when they were still learning cricket. So much for India being a subcontinent team.

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

The point is SL lost to England, Pakistan. Drew with SA. won against australia with aus clearly 2 players short in 1/2 of the test. Barely Won against India, Zim & WI.

Now compare that with SL post 2001 - they won against everyone at home except Aus.

 

[Pratters]

Surprised to see only 10 votes for Kaneria. That trend should change in some years hopefully.

 

[honestbharani]

Surprised to see only 10 votes for Kaneria. That trend should change in some years hopefully.

yeah, I think he has a lot of promise. So far, he has only been taken to the cleaners by Lara and Sehwag (even the Aussie line up played him with a lot of respect). And those two would dominate any spinner currently playing, I think. Maybe Murali will trouble Sehwag...

 

[steds]

Surprised to see only 10 votes for Kaneria. That trend should change in some years hopefully.

Kaneria's 5th behind Warne, Murali, Dave Mohammed and Harbhajan.

 

[dinu23]

Kaneria's 5th behind Warne, Murali, Dave Mohammed and Harbhajan.

what's with u and Dave Mohammed steds!

 

[luckyeddie]

yeah, I think he has a lot of promise. So far, he has only been taken to the cleaners by Lara and Sehwag (even the Aussie line up played him with a lot of respect). And those two would dominate any spinner currently playing, I think. Maybe Murali will trouble Sehwag...

and Lancashire

 

[tooextracool]

Once again Pakistan have been a good home team except for a period between late 1998 and early 2002.

and as shown earlier, they were poor before that too.

Australia aren't a mediocre test team, India of 2003-04 isn't mediocre either, SA of 96-97 not medicore, neither was the SL team under Ranatunga & Desilva..

yes, but SL of 95-96 were, as were NZ of 96/97.

Once again you really suffer from selective dementia, dont you ? Let me list the batting line up again Kallis, Kirsten, Gibbs, Smith, Boucher, Pollock , Dippenar,, Mcenzie. That is eight batsmen.

good you can count.
how many of those are actually good batters?
kallis,kirsten,gibbs and smith.

And Pollock in 2003 was half the bowler he used to be ? Is that why 2003 happens to be one of the best years of his career performance wise ? Anyone wso says that SA attack of 2003 against the newbie team of Pakistan was useless doesn't know what he is talking about.

and anyone who saw pollock bowl before 2001, will tell you that hes been struggling to bowl on flat wickets since, irrespective of what his record says.
as i said earlier, the rest of that bowling attack in pakistan was rubbish.

Oram ?? Was he even playing test cricket in early 2002 ?.

nope he wasnt, which only goes to show how poor that NZ side was.

Cairns/Bond ?? Were they even available for selection ?

obviously not because they were injured. as a result the pace attack was rubbish, add that to the fact that vettori was in the worst phase of his test career with a troubling back.

So NZ were missing only 2 players if you include Bond who was relatively new and unproven at test level (he still is). I dont know how he became their most important player.

well done in ignoring cairns though, who was effectively equal to losing 2 players.
its 3 players who were missing and if you honestly think that bond isnt an important player given the way in which he destroyed the WI in the very next series, well you obviously just werent watching.

You are the one who is acting like a joker here, and falsly claiming that Oram was not available when Oram wasn't even playing test cricket in early 2002, besides Oram was mediocre in first 2 years like Flintoff was early in his career.

especially considering the amount of cricket he played in his first 2 years

You are the one who forgot Bonds and Cairns, moreover Cairns was hardly a part of the NZ test team for the most part of 2002 and 2003. So one cant say that NZ were missing him.

what do you mean?because of the fact that he was out with injury for the while NZ didnt miss him?
get off it, you can give whatever excuses you want, but the fact is that NZ side was very very mediocre at the time when they played pakistan, whether you want to excuse cairns or not.

conveniently ignoring the fact that SL were chasing 95 only because 2 Aussie batsmen SRW and Gillespie weren't able to bat in the 2nd aussie innings.

conveniently forgetting the fact that Australia were struggling in the 2nd test match despite the fact that they had all 11 players.

No matter how many times you repeat, NZ weren't without 4 players, they were without 2 players one of whom was/is unproven at test level..

no they were without 3 players, and regardless of how many players they were without, that side was still a very mediocre side.

India isn't a good team outside India, even if it is in the subcontinent, so imagine an India team without their top 4 players. Anyone struggling to beating India without Kumble, Sachin, VVS, Srinath (even in India) must be a pretty mediocre team. Oh and Incase you didn't know, India has won more tests in Australia, England, NZ, WI than they have won in SL & Pakistan. India lost a series in SL when they were still learning cricket. So much for India being a subcontinent team.

lets not look at what happened 20 years ago shall we?
point is that the indian side of the last decade or so has been far better in the subcontinent than they have anywhere else in the world.

The point is SL lost to England, Pakistan. Drew with SA. won against australia with aus clearly 2 players short in 1/2 of the test. Barely Won against India, Zim & WI.

Now compare that with SL post 2001 - they won against everyone at home except Aus.

no point is that the SA team that drew in SL and the england team that beat SL were far better than the teams that toured SL next time around. the only quality team that SL have faced since 2001 was australia and they lost 3-0. add that to the fact that the SL players just before 2001 and just after 2001 are pretty much the same and i dont really see your point.

 

[C_C]

and as shown earlier, they were poor before that too.

Which is why Pakistan has such an excellent record at home, i suppose.
Here is a lil bit of info : You may've started watching cricket 10 years ago, but cricket didnt start 10 years ago.

 

[Pratters]

Dave Mohammed and Harbhajan.

Dave Mohammed has not really done much and Kaneria can compare well vs Harbhajan

 

[Sanz]

and as shown earlier, they were poor before that too.

No, you didn't show anything, On the contarary it is proved that they were pretty good at home.

yes, but SL of 95-96 were, as were NZ of 96/97.

It is ironic that from 1995 until 1998, SL team were almost same with core players remaining as Ranatunga, Jaisuriya, Mahanama, Murali, Vaas, Kaluwitharna, Tilekratne. It is beyond me that how same team was mediocre before 1996 and became great post 1996. You need to get your head examined.

good you can count. how many of those are actually good batters? kallis,kirsten,gibbs and smith.

Yeah 4 world class batsmen, supported by 3 decent batsman + one world class allrounder. Only you can call it mediocre.

and anyone who saw pollock bowl before 2001, will tell you that hes been struggling to bowl on flat wickets since, irrespective of what his record says.
as i said earlier, the rest of that bowling attack in pakistan was rubbish.

I saw Pollock just the other day and he looked fantastic to me. Only you can call him +Nitni, Kallis, Nel etc rubbish.

nope he wasnt, which only goes to show how poor that NZ side was.

Well That's not what you said. You said he was their main player. Which is incorrect. He had no even made his debute, how could he become their main player ? Its like saying that Michael Tait was Australia's main player in 2000-2001 of India tour and Australia were not doing well because they were missing their main player in Tait; ;Laugh:

obviously not because they were injured. as a result the pace attack was rubbish, add that to the fact that vettori was in the worst phase of his test career with a troubling back.

Apparently everytime you have to prove your point all the players are either at the worst phase of their career or they are injured.

well done in ignoring cairns though, who was effectively equal to losing 2 players.
its 3 players who were missing and if you honestly think that bond isnt an important player given the way in which he destroyed the WI in the very next series, well you obviously just werent watching.

When was the last time NZ won a test series outside NZ with Cairns in the team ?

And no Bond isn't as important in tests as you would like us to believe. What is his avg. against australia and SL ? Thank You try gain

especially considering the amount of cricket he played in his first 2 years

The fact that I cant accept the fact that Oram was NZ's main player, when he hadn't even played a single test.

what do you mean?because of the fact that he was out with injury for the while NZ didnt miss him?

No, if a player is injured for a significant period then, I dont consider him part of the team and the team should learn to play without him. Imagine the situation when Bond was out since 2003 and everytime Fleming loses a series he comes up with an execuse well we didn't have Bond. That would sound really stupid to me. Cairns was out for almost 2 years and I would expect NZ to learn to play without him.

 

[Sanz]

conveniently forgetting the fact that Australia were struggling in the 2nd test match despite the fact that they had all 11 players.

And you are convenintly forgetting that SL were struggling in the 3rd test as 4 SL top order batsmen were out for 60 runs and Sri Lanka were battiling to save the follow on.

no they were without 3 players, and regardless of how many players they were without, that side was still a very mediocre side.

Good that now you have come down to 3. With time you will realize that they were actually down to 2 players one of them was a newbie.NZ weren't as bad as you want us to believe, they had just drawn a series against England (coming from 0-1), drew a series against Pak (against from 0-1), drew a series with Australia (althought with Cairns & Bond but hardly any perofmance from them, Cairns avg. 45 with ball, 34 with bat, Bond 86 with the ball, I guess anyone could have done a better job)

lets not look at what happened 20 years ago shall we?

Yeah let's look from a point where it suits your argument.

point is that the indian side of the last decade or so has been far better in the subcontinent than they have anywhere else in the world.

What nonsense, hasn't that been the case always that the Indian team plays better in the subcontinent than anywhere else ? Do you even know what you are talking about ? Indian team has never played well in SL & Pak barring the series in 2003-4 in Pak. Beside India has hardly played any cricket in Pak in the last decade to make any fair conclusion. Besides Indian team has changes so much in last decade that it would be foolish to make a generalisation about the Indian team of last decade.

no point is that the SA team that drew in SL and the england team that beat SL were far better than the teams that toured SL next time around. the only quality team that SL have faced since 2001 was australia and they lost 3-0. add that to the fact that the SL players just before 2001 and just after 2001 are pretty much the same and i dont really see your point.

Are you trying to contradict yourself once again that SL are actually a poor team even at home ? Because you have been arguing that post 96 SL are a classy team at home.

 

[SpintheWheel]

The tool's simplicity, combined with the randomness it offers, makes it perfect for bringing joy to group activities, parties, classrooms, and even virtual gatherings. Its colorful and interactive nature can engage people of all ages, making it an inclusive and entertaining tool for everyone involved.

 

[Socerer 01]

The tool's simplicity, combined with the randomness it offers, makes it perfect for bringing joy to group activities, parties, classrooms, and even virtual gatherings. Its colorful and interactive nature can engage people of all ages, making it an inclusive and entertaining tool for everyone involved.

harsh to call a dead man a tool

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The tool's simplicity, combined with the randomness it offers, makes it perfect for bringing joy to group activities, parties, classrooms, and even virtual gatherings. Its colorful and interactive nature can engage people of all ages, making it an inclusive and entertaining tool for everyone involved.

I like the cut of your jib, Mr. Wheel

 

[Dazinho]

no Swann? not saying he wins but he deserves to be on this list for consideration

 

[The Sean]

no Swann? not saying he wins but he deserves to be on this list for consideration

The poll was created in 2005, several years before Swann had debuted.

 

[Jumno]

Saqlain was once very good

 

[Ali TT]

The tool's simplicity, combined with the randomness it offers, makes it perfect for bringing joy to group activities, parties, classrooms, and even virtual gatherings. Its colorful and interactive nature can engage people of all ages, making it an inclusive and entertaining tool for everyone involved.

AI gets better and better.

 

[ankitj]

How did Vettori end up runner up in this poll?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fuller pilch multis