Best spinner other than Warne & Murali

[tooextracool]

SA won because of poor batting by the oppsition. not because they were good against spin bowling.

nope, you cant have such a successful period in the subcontinent simply due to poor batting. to win in the subcontinent you have to bat as well as bowl well.
and the only cases you can make for poor batting was in the series in india in 99/00 .

 

[Sanz]

oh i can assure you, while mahanama was worth more than his average suggests he was still nothing above mediocre. i'd think the fact that he had success against india, or rather the 225 on a pitch in which even akay ratra could have scored runs has clouded your opinions. if mahanama were playing now he wouldnt make the test side.

Only a person like you who has never watched Mahanama and bases his judgement solely on cricinfo can say that. Mahanama can replace Attapattu, Samarveera, Dilshan, Chandana, Kaluwitharna anyday.

yes he did, but hardly surprising that it includes the series in 92/93 when he was for all intents and purposes useless.

Really ?? wasn't it the 93 ashes tour where he virtually destroyed England batting line up and produced one of the greatest balls ever bowled. And before that ashes tour he had a fantastic series in NZ and in Aus(vs. WI). Really useless, wasn't he ??

he more or less rectified it in the tour of SL in 99 against a side that included both de silva and ranatunga

Duh..This is what happens when you dont watch matches and form an opinion on the basis of averages. He did have some success against Ranatunga, He hardly posed any trouble to Aravinda. So much ffor rectifying.

if you didnt know that SL before 96 were quite comfortably the worst test team in the world (bar zimbabwe), then you just werent watching.

Wrong, NZ, Eng, India at the same level. It's funny that you tell me that because I have watched more of SriLanka in 80s-90s than you have so far. Besides what is the point, If SL were medicore then Warnie should have succeeded, no ??

err you used the word 'great', and as far as im concerned, both of them mean pretty much the same.

Suggest you to look up www.dictionary.com

yes, unfortunately for you, the only time warne bowled poorly against SL in the 90s happened pre 96, and the only time kumble bowled well against SL happened pre 96. so if you want to claim that kumble bowled well against a great SL batting lineup then you have to look at his performances pre 96.

Well Warnie played SL three times, twice at home and once away and twice he got pasted, Kumble bowled SL 4 times and twice he was very successful and twice he was pasted and not to forget that those two times he played on flattest tracks.

no there was 1 poor pitch, the pitch in the 2nd test was fine, kumble just didnt bowl well on it.

Did you even watch the match or as usual just saying this on the basis of the scorecard ?

no different?
you mean the fact that one of them didnt turn, and surprise surprise kumble failed on it? warne has had to bowl against SL on a fair few non turners in australia, to use that as an excuse beggers belief. rajesh chauhan managed to average 20.5 at the end of the series on those pitches.

Oh since Rajesh Chauhan averaged 20.5, those pitches must have been great turners ? Since you were looking into the stats to make up your opinion, did you try to scroll furthur down and look at Muralitharan's avg. in that series ??

because the ability to play spin is measured by how well they play kumble isnt it?
neither of them had problems facing harbhajan singh in SL in 01.

Noe only Kumble but also Saqlain(of 90s), Murali, Warnie, Kumble etc. and not Harbhajan singh in 2001/

 

[luckyeddie]

So far Kumble 30, Giles+Macgill+Vettory 32. I am sure Eddie thinks that 32 is less than 30.

When I posted, Kumble had 28 and so, IIRC, did the others - that's the nature of a dynamically changing poll.

Strangely enough, I wasn't trying to be confrontational - it seems that I must just be a natural.

 

[Sanz]

err the game in which SL lost SL scored 308 and 169. so much for the lies
.

Only a LIAR like you can keep lying blatantly and then keep showing his face again and again. But nothing better can be expected from LIARS who can go to any level to win an argument.

Now start looking for excuses as am going to post the scorecard of the test match here. Open your eyes and READ the scorecard :-
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1993-94/RSA_IN_SL/RSA_SL_T2_06-10SEP1993.html

SL - Ist innings 168, 2nd Innings 119.

SA 1st innings - 495, Murali 101/5, De Silva - 39/3, rest of the bowling attack 320/1. What a failure from the spinners.

 

[Sanz]

When I posted, Kumble had 28 and so, IIRC, did the others - that's the nature of a dynamically changing poll.

Strangely enough, I wasn't trying to be confrontational - it seems that I must just be a natural.

Eddie man, I apologize for that post, that really was uncalled for.

 

[Sanz]

nope, you cant have such a successful period in the subcontinent simply due to poor batting. to win in the subcontinent you have to bat as well as bowl well.
and the only cases you can make for poor batting was in the series in india in 99/00 .

And did SA win a series in India other than that ? I have already proved that SL lost the test due to poor batting and not due to poor bowling from their spinners.

 

[Gloucefan]

Giles


Seriously though I'd say Kumble.

 

[luckyeddie]

Eddie man, I apologize for that post, that really was uncalled for.

That's ok

 

[matty1818]

lets get the gilo votes going, sure he gets massive gUile points?

 

[no1_gangsta_786]

I agree Kaneria is a great spinner and who knows maybe he can get more wickets than warne...he has got time on his side

 

[Shane Warne]

I agree Kaneria is a great spinner and who knows maybe he can get more wickets than warne...he has got time on his side

No chance.

For starters, with the fickle Pakistan selectors, as soon as he has a bad run he will probably be confined to the scrap heap, never to be heard of again.

 

[tooextracool]

Only a LIAR like you can keep lying blatantly and then keep showing his face again and again. But nothing better can be expected from LIARS who can go to any level to win an argument.

Now start looking for excuses as am going to post the scorecard of the test match here. Open your eyes and READ the scorecard :-
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1993-94/RSA_IN_SL/RSA_SL_T2_06-10SEP1993.html

SL - Ist innings 168, 2nd Innings 119.

SA 1st innings - 495, Murali 101/5, De Silva - 39/3, rest of the bowling attack 320/1. What a failure from the spinners.

i was referring to the game in 2000 which they lost.
and ive already said before SL before 96 were hardly much of a team, therefore their poor batting doesnt really surprise me.

 

[tooextracool]

Only a person like you who has never watched Mahanama and bases his judgement solely on cricinfo can say that. Mahanama can replace Attapattu, Samarveera, Dilshan, Chandana, Kaluwitharna anyday.

keep saying it, maybe it might just come true one day.
good to see you sprouting even more rubbish though.
obviously mahanama could replace the wicket keeper, who needs them! not to mention the wicket keeper that isnt even in the current side.
no wait,maybe he could replace the leg spinner, i mean opening batter replacing spinners, makes an awful lot of sense. what next, replace mahanama could replace dilhara?
samaraveera- have you actually seen him bat? theres a reason why he averages 47 in test match cricket after 28 games you know.
Attapattu- err no, not only does attapattu average in the high 30s, but hes also the captain of the side.
Dilshan - arguable, especially considering that Dilshan has been coming good in the last 2 series.

Really ?? wasn't it the 93 ashes tour where he virtually destroyed England batting line up and produced one of the greatest balls ever bowled. And before that ashes tour he had a fantastic series in NZ and in Aus(vs. WI). Really useless, wasn't he ??.

he had a fantastic series in NZ yes, but bar one inning against the WI, he had a poor time in that series, and was rubbish in both series before that.

Duh..This is what happens when you dont watch matches and form an opinion on the basis of averages. He did have some success against Ranatunga, He hardly posed any trouble to Aravinda. So much ffor rectifying.

err he had 2 long spells(or even semi long) in that series, he dismissed aravinda once, and ranatunga twice. to expect him to get aravinda out when he only bowls 5 overs in the entire inning is insane.
and ranatunga too was a fine player of spin, well done in ignoring that.

Wrong, NZ, Eng, India at the same level. It's funny that you tell me that because I have watched more of SriLanka in 80s-90s than you have so far.

India? at the same level? thats a joke.
india played SL 7 times from 90-96, india won 5 times and 2 were drawn. out of the 2 drawn games, 1 had only 12 overs in the entire game. out of the 5 wins, 4 were won by an innings.
NZ and England may not have been as successful against SL, but their records against other sides were much much better during the early 90s.

Besides what is the point, If SL were medicore then Warnie should have succeeded, no ??

Suggest you to look up www.dictionary.com

try this sherlock:
http://www.answers.com/topic/great

"Exceptionally good of its kind:"

Well Warnie played SL three times, twice at home and once away and twice he got pasted, Kumble bowled SL 4 times and twice he was very successful and twice he was pasted and not to forget that those two times he played on flattest tracks.

ive already explained this.
the series in 92 dont count.
kumble got 1 flat track in 97 and another turner.
warne got plenty of non turning wickets when he played SL in australia.

Did you even watch the match or as usual just saying this on the basis of the scorecard ?

umm murali took 4/99 and 3/96.

Oh since Rajesh Chauhan averaged 20.5, those pitches must have been great turners ? Since you were looking into the stats to make up your opinion, did you try to scroll furthur down and look at Muralitharan's avg. in that series ??

and because murali bowled poorly in that series it means that the pitches didnt turn then?
believe it or not even kumar dharmasena took 5/57 in one of the games in that series.

Noe only Kumble but also Saqlain(of 90s), Murali, Warnie, Kumble etc. and not Harbhajan singh in 2001/

yes warne actually bowled well at them.
kumble never bowled to sangakkara, he did bowl to jayawardhene once- the same innings in which jayawardhene scored 242.
murali obviously never could bowl at them, given that they are on the same side.
i dont think saqlain has ever bowled to sangakkara, hes got jayawardhene out 2 times in 6 innings.

 

[tooextracool]

And did SA win a series in India other than that ? I have already proved that SL lost the test due to poor batting and not due to poor bowling from their spinners.

and ive already proved you wrong on that.
as far as SA not winning another series in india, thats just stupid. they played 2 series in india in that decade, won 1 lost 1. their overall win-loss record in india was 3-2 in their favour. thats pretty impressive for anyone. and its not like they got absolutely hammered in 96 in india either. they nearly won that first test match, only for Srinath to bowl the spell of his life and they thrashed india in the 2nd test.

 

[Sanz]

i was referring to the game in 2000 which they lost.
and ive already said before SL before 96 were hardly much of a team, therefore their poor batting doesnt really surprise me.

You said SA won the series in SL in 90s and then talk about the series in 2000 which SA didn't really win. Need I say more about your pathetic ways in trying to win an argument.

You consistently put up Bullcrap.

 

[Sanz]

and ive already proved you wrong on that.
as far as SA not winning another series in india, thats just stupid. they played 2 series in india in that decade, won 1 lost 1. their overall win-loss record in india was 3-2 in their favour. thats pretty impressive for anyone. and its not like they got absolutely hammered in 96 in india either. they nearly won that first test match, only for Srinath to bowl the spell of his life and they thrashed india in the 2nd test.

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

It's like saying that Warnie performance at edgbaston was pathetic despite the fact that he took a 10er.

 

[Sanz]

keep saying it, maybe it might just come true one day.
good to see you sprouting even more rubbish though.
obviously mahanama could replace the wicket keeper, who needs them! not to mention the wicket keeper that isnt even in the current side.
no wait,maybe he could replace the leg spinner, i mean opening batter replacing spinners, makes an awful lot of sense. what next, replace mahanama could replace dilhara?
samaraveera- have you actually seen him bat? theres a reason why he averages 47 in test match cricket after 28 games you know.
Attapattu- err no, not only does attapattu average in the high 30s, but hes also the captain of the side.
Dilshan - arguable, especially considering that Dilshan has been coming good in the last 2 series.

err isn't Sangakkara a wicket keeper ? The only reason Kalu plays is because there isn't any better batter available to them now. Chandana plays as an allrounder not as a legspinner, Dilshan,Samarveera better than Mahanama ? I have heard it all.

he had a fantastic series in NZ yes, but bar one inning against the WI, he had a poor time in that series, and was rubbish in both series before that.

He was rubbish because he played against India and SL. Also you conveniently forgot his performnance against England.

err he had 2 long spells(or even semi long) in that series, he dismissed aravinda once, and ranatunga twice. to expect him to get aravinda out when he only bowls 5 overs in the entire inning is insane.

err De Silva was at the crease almost all through the 1st inning and If I am not mistaken he was the last man out, really great success against him

and ranatunga too was a fine player of spin, well done in ignoring that.

Thank You that is what I have been telling all along.

India? at the same level? thats a joke.
india played SL 7 times from 90-96, india won 5 times and 2 were drawn. out of the 2 drawn games, 1 had only 12 overs in the entire game. out of the 5 wins, 4 were won by an innings.

The problem with that kind of selective logic is that India would look to be at the same level as Australia since 1997.

try this sherlock:
http://www.answers.com/topic/great

"Exceptionally good of its kind:"

Okay they were against spin bowling. Now prove it wrong.

ive already explained this.
the series in 92 dont count.

yeah 95-96 doesn't count either, every series where warnie failed against India/SL doesn't count, does it ?

kumble got 1 flat track in 97 and another turner.
warne got plenty of non turning wickets when he played SL in australia.

Well no one is arguing that Kumble is better than Warnie, Warnie also got plenty of turning tracks in India and failed so your argument doesn't work.

umm murali took 4/99 and 3/96.



and because murali bowled poorly in that series it means that the pitches didnt turn then?
believe it or not even kumar dharmasena took 5/57 in one of the games in that series.

Above two statements are enough example to show how you post stats to prove your point. In the first one you show that since Murali took 7 wickets it must have been a turning wicket, in the other even though Murali failed you bring up dharmasena's performance. does that mean tht Dharmasena is better bowler. as for Murali taking 99/4 yes he did take wickets of Mongia, Kumble and Kuruvilla, Really very successful and proves that it was a turning track.
And yes dharmasena took 5 wickets in Mumbai on 4th day that is when the Wankhede pitch starts turning, Kumble took 56/3 in the 4th inning and guess what I was there to watch. Anyone who knows something about cricket in India will tell you that Mohali and Nagpur aren't really turning tracks. But that would be anyone who knows something, not someone whose entire argument is based on Howstat.

 

[tooextracool]

You said SA won the series in SL in 90s and then talk about the series in 2000 which SA didn't really win. Need I say more about your pathetic ways in trying to win an argument.

and i also said that performances against SL pre 96 dont prove a thing, so i dont see the point in bringing that up again. i clearly mentioned the 1-1 draw in SL, because a 1-1 draw is a success.

 

[Sanz]

and i also said that performances against SL pre 96 dont prove a thing,

err why because Warnie couldn't succeed against them ?

so i dont see the point in bringing that up again. i clearly mentioned the 1-1 draw in SL, because a 1-1 draw is a success.

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 ??

 

[tooextracool]

err isn't Sangakkara a wicket keeper ? The only reason Kalu plays is because there isn't any better batter available to them now. .

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.

Chandana plays as an allrounder not as a legspinner

point being?
mahanama is not an all rounder. he was picked as a pure batsman.
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.

Dilshan,Samarveera better than Mahanama ? I have heard it all.

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

He was rubbish because he played against India and SL. Also you conveniently forgot his performnance against England.

err what?
it was glaringly obvious at the time that warne was nowhere as good in those 2 series as he was when he toured england.

err De Silva was at the crease almost all through the 1st inning and If I am not mistaken he was the last man out, really great success against him

ok so he didnt have as much success against de silva in that series. he did dismiss him twice cheaply despite not having the conditions to his favour in the 95 series though.

Thank You that is what I have been telling all along.

and warne had success against him in that 99 series.

The problem with that kind of selective logic is that India would look to be at the same level as Australia since 1997.

except that that indian side was performing better against all other sides too.

Okay they were against spin bowling. Now prove it wrong..

already have.

yeah 95-96 doesn't count either, every series where warnie failed against India/SL doesn't count, does it ? ..

no it does, but it has to be looked at in context. comparing kumble to warne when kumble almost always got the conditions in his favour is ridiculous.

Well no one is arguing that Kumble is better than Warnie, Warnie also got plenty of turning tracks in India and failed so your argument doesn't work.

warne also got plenty of turning tracks in SL and succeeded.
im not sure what your argument is about actually. ive already said that kumble is the joint 3rd best spinner in the world.

Above two statements are enough example to show how you post stats to prove your point. In the first one you show that since Murali took 7 wickets it must have been a turning wicket, in the other even though Murali failed you bring up dharmasena's performance. does that mean tht Dharmasena is better bowler. as for Murali taking 99/4 yes he did take wickets of Mongia, Kumble and Kuruvilla, Really very successful and proves that it was a turning track. .

do you even realise that its quite possible for a spin bowler to bowl poorly on a turner?
and for a batter to play him well?
fact that murali took wickets on one track shows that a spinner could get wickets on that wicket. and the fact that dharmasena took wickets on the other proves that a spinner could get wickets on the other wicket as well.
as far as muralis 4/99 is concerned, you quite conveniently forgot his 4th wicket-sidhu. and you also forgot the 3 in the next innings-dravid, tendulkar and ganguly.

And yes dharmasena took 5 wickets in Mumbai on 4th day that is when the Wankhede pitch starts turning, Kumble took 56/3 in the 4th inning and guess what I was there to watch. Anyone who knows something about cricket in India will tell you that Mohali and Nagpur aren't really turning tracks. But that would be anyone who knows something, not someone whose entire argument is based on Howstat.

and of course the fact that chauhan took 4/48 in the first inning doesnt prove anything does it? get off it, if you had to go to the stadium and still couldnt figure out that kumble didnt bowl very well then really i cant help you.