Can Sunil Narine become an all time great?

[Jono]

One thing, WW - comparing Narine's potential achievements to Ajmal doesn't really help your argument because Ajmal's a fair way short of being an all-time great himself.

Narine's only 26 so it's still possible, yeah. What I will say is that I find the idea highly unlikely. I think pondering over whether he can have a better Test career than Ajmal is a more interesting question than the one you posed in the OP.

yep

 

[WindieWeathers]

Yeah but Ajmal has been destroying test teams for the last few years. Narine's only done it to NZ. Plenty of average-to-good spin bowlers have managed that

That's why this year is big for him...because in truth he's only played five and a half test matches...two vs Bang, three vs NZ and a washed out one vs England...i'm hopeful he will do well against other opposition though...especially as he's used to playing in asia now and adapted to NZ conditions brilliantly.

 

[social]

Not sure i agree here Bahnz..Murali had "huge rip" and yet his record in Australia left a lot to be desired...same with Warne in India, but if you're a spinner who's main strength is being able to outfox a batsman with a box of tricks then in essence it really doesn't matter what track you're on...you're always gonna be in the game.

Recently in tests Narine has been ripping the off-break a lot more imo...so he does have it in him...the exciting part will be how he does when he plays consistent test matches...this year we're playing NZ, Bang, India and SA...so it's a big year for him.

Until proven otherwise, I put him in the same box as Mendis - great when people cant read him, pretty ordinary when they start to

 

[WindieWeathers]

Until proven otherwise, I put him in the same box as Mendis - great when people cant read him, pretty ordinary when they start to

And you'd be putting him in the wrong "box" imo...Mendis was found out rather quickly...Narine has been around for four years, has faced all the top players while being shown on tv and still he's baffling players, as shown yesterday when he deceived Kohli, AB and Yuvraj in one spell.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Baffling people in a format they have to attack in is one thing. Can he do it in a test when there is no need to recklessly attack nearly every ball?

 

[Dan]

In short, no.

In full, anyone can become an ATG but I don't think Narine is more likely to than, say, Ravi Ashwin.

Look WW, Narine has the potential to be good - very, very good. But any discussion of him becoming a Test ATG is extremely premature. I mean, right now I'd have him on par with Tim May in the pantheon of spinners, and that's being generous. I suspect at the end of his career he'll be remembered as a lot better than Tim May, but I genuinely believe it's only a matter of time before he is found out in Test cricket and becomes limited to being a highly effective option in the shorter (especially shortest) format of the game. Like a certain Sri Lankan who is comparable to Narine in almost every way bar nationality.

And thinking through this logically, as a mystery spinner one would expect Narine to be at his most successful towards the start of his career, like an Iverson, Gleeson, Ashwin or Mendis. Gleeson, in particular, is the archetype of the career path we'd expect a mystery spinner to take. Narine hasn't started off nearly as brightly as any of those men, and once people work him out in Tests (which won't take long compared to T20), he's going to be distinctly mediocre.

In T20 you can make a career out of bowling flat and beating batsmen off the pitch. In Tests you have to beat them in the air. Mendis found that out, Narine discovered that in his early days of Tests, and Ashwin has adapted his bowling to try and deal with that. Narine will have to become a drastically different bowler to the one he is now if he's to have a successful Test career. With all the T20 money being thrown at him, I don't think that's likely. Him having played 125 T20s and 13 FC games is a pretty damning statistic tbh.

He's a T20 ATG already, but IMO there is little chance of him being one in Tests.

 

[Hurricane]

Baffling people in a format they have to attack in is one thing. Can he do it in a test when there is no need to recklessly attack nearly every ball?

I think its easier to be baffled in tests than it in ODIs actually. The fact that you need to get on with it and not give a fig about which way it is turning probably allows you to survive longer against a mystery spinner than if you sit there tentatively prodding at it on day 4 of a test. I don't how to explain this in a compelling fashion so you are welcome to disagree with me. This opinion is based on me watching batsman read mystery spinners off the pitch in ODIs and then play Hoary cross batted improvised swats for singles. And to be honest if they had've tried to straight bat it they probably would've gotten out.

 

[Dan]

I think its easier to be baffled in tests than it in ODIs actually. The fact that you need to get on with it and not give a fig about which way it is turning probably allows you to survive longer against a mystery spinner than if you sit there tentatively prodding at it on day 4 of a test. I don't how to explain this in a compelling fashion so you are welcome to disagree with me. This opinion is based on me watching batsman read mystery spinners off the pitch in ODIs and then play Hoary cross batted improvised swats for singles. And to be honest if they had've tried to straight bat it they probably would've gotten out.

Against a mystery spinner turning it both ways in a Test, if you're utterly clueless you can afford to sit back, play for the stock ball and let the other one spin past your outside edge. A guy like Narine or Mendis bowls at the same trajectory and roughly the same length each ball, with the difference being the way it turns.

Contrast that with a guy like Warne, who took 700 wickets at 25 without a quality ball that went the other way. He beat batsmen in flight and with dip, which IMO is infinitely more dangerous to a batsman set on defence than one zipping past the outside edge as you intentionally play inside it. You play down the right line, know which way it's turning, but all of a sudden the ball is 6 inches shorter than you thought and pops up to silly point.

A Test-quality spinner simply has to beat batsmen in flight. Turning it both ways comes well after that in a theoretical hierarchy of skills.

 

[Hurricane]

Against a mystery spinner turning it both ways in a Test, if you're utterly clueless you can afford to sit back, play for the stock ball and let the other one spin past your outside edge. A guy like Narine or Mendis bowls at the same trajectory and roughly the same length each ball, with the difference being the way it turns.

Contrast that with a guy like Warne, who took 700 wickets at 25 without a quality ball that went the other way. He beat batsmen in flight and with dip, which IMO is infinitely more dangerous to a batsman set on defence than one zipping past the outside edge as you intentionally play inside it. You play down the right line, know which way it's turning, but all of a sudden the ball is 6 inches shorter than you thought and pops up to silly point.

A Test-quality spinner simply has to beat batsmen in flight. Turning it both ways comes well after that in a theoretical hierarchy of skills.

Dan V is probably one of the better spinners of the last 20 years in terms of flight and guile but he was regularly rendered impotent (despite 340 test wickets disagreeing with my point).

 

[Hurricane]

Dan V is probably one of the better spinners of the last 20 years in terms of flight and guile but he was regularly rendered impotent (despite 340 test wickets disagreeing with my point).

Good post though Dan - you are getting into PEWS territory.

 

[Flem274*]

Well if you can beat batsmen in the air and turn the ball you're pretty set.

but even with little to no turn several hundred wickets at 33-34 odd is something the recent mystery spinners like mendis and narine are yet to achieve.

 

[hendrix]

That's why this year is big for him...because in truth he's only played five and a half test matches...two vs Bang, three vs NZ and a washed out one vs England...i'm hopeful he will do well against other opposition though...especially as he's used to playing in asia now and adapted to NZ conditions brilliantly.

That wicket was a spinner's paradise.

There was no seam movement, hardly any swing, but big bounce and turn.

Hardly typical NZ conditions.

 

[Dan]

Dan V is probably one of the better spinners of the last 20 years in terms of flight and guile but he was regularly rendered impotent (despite 340 test wickets disagreeing with my point).

Yeah because he couldn't turn it one way by that point

All the flight in the world becomes irrelevant when the batsman has no incentive to reach out and try and cover the spin. They can play you as an accurate slow medium pacer who hits the seam occasionally (i.e. watchfully with no real fear of getting out).

I don't think I quite made my point clear enough in the last post though -- I agree that there's merit to saying it's easier to get baffled in a Test match, but as far as I'm concerned it's a very different type of baffling. I mean, if you misjudge the flight in a Test you're more likely to pop it up to silly point. In an ODI you'd probably follow through anyway and belt it over wide long off for six. If you pick the wrong way the ball's turning in a Test, you're likely to be hanging back and are able to adjust and leave/defend. In a T20 you can't, so you try and mow it over wide long on and get an edge that pops nicely to backward point, or mistime it down long on's throat.

 

[WindieWeathers]

In short, no.

In full, anyone can become an ATG but I don't think Narine is more likely to than, say, Ravi Ashwin.

Look WW, Narine has the potential to be good - very, very good. But any discussion of him becoming a Test ATG is extremely premature. I mean, right now I'd have him on par with Tim May in the pantheon of spinners, and that's being generous. I suspect at the end of his career he'll be remembered as a lot better than Tim May, but I genuinely believe it's only a matter of time before he is found out in Test cricket and becomes limited to being a highly effective option in the shorter (especially shortest) format of the game. Like a certain Sri Lankan who is comparable to Narine in almost every way bar nationality.

Sorry Dan i can't agree with that last notion at all. Imo Mendis got found out because batsmen were pretty much playing him like a medium pacer..and Mendis simply couldn't adapt. Meanwhile Sunil has several variations of how he delivers the ball...for example if you look at his last test HERE you'll find that some wickets he joggs in and delivers, others he just casually walks in and he can also change his action too...which he did for a few of those wickets he got. So for me comparing Mendis and Narine is just not really a fair comparrison as Narine's got more tricks up his sleeve...plus he's able to use his off-break as a stock ball which can rip pretty big when he wants it to.

And thinking through this logically, as a mystery spinner one would expect Narine to be at his most successful towards the start of his career, like an Iverson, Gleeson, Ashwin or Mendis. Gleeson, in particular, is the archetype of the career path we'd expect a mystery spinner to take. Narine hasn't started off nearly as brightly as any of those men, and once people work him out in Tests (which won't take long compared to T20), he's going to be distinctly mediocre.

Well what about Ajmal? he started his test career at age 30/31 didn't he? and he is the one i'd compare Narine too...so when you think about the impact Ajmal has made in his test career he can't have been anywhere near as talented as Narine is aged 25...so that's why i think Narine has a chance of really pushing on now.

In T20 you can make a career out of bowling flat and beating batsmen off the pitch. In Tests you have to beat them in the air. Mendis found that out, Narine discovered that in his early days of Tests, and Ashwin has adapted his bowling to try and deal with that. Narine will have to become a drastically different bowler to the one he is now if he's to have a successful Test career. With all the T20 money being thrown at him, I don't think that's likely. Him having played 125 T20s and 13 FC games is a pretty damning statistic tbh.

He's a T20 ATG already, but IMO there is little chance of him being one in Tests.

In all honesty Narine has only had two poor tests which were in Bang on very flat tracks...the one in england was a washout as i explained in the OP...other than that he's been excellent...and like i've said before Warne was poor at the start of his career and Swann was dropped for years before he returned at around 30 years old and really started to flourish...id also add that Ashwin has a great record at home but can't buy a wicket away from asia...that's not a problem for Narine which is another bonus for him at this stage of his career.

 

[Hurricane]

Well if you can beat batsmen in the air and turn the ball you're pretty set.

but even with little to no turn several hundred wickets at 33-34 odd is something the recent mystery spinners like mendis and narine are yet to achieve.

I reckon he got his last 100 based on his reputation of the first 240. People just played for phantom spin. TH to like this post.

 

[WindieWeathers]

That wicket was a spinner's paradise.

There was no seam movement, hardly any swing, but big bounce and turn.

Hardly typical NZ conditions.

Really? i didn't see Sohdi or Williamson ripping through us that day

 

[Hurricane]

Yeah because he couldn't turn it one way by that point

All the flight in the world becomes irrelevant when the batsman has no incentive to reach out and try and cover the spin. They can play you as an accurate slow medium pacer who hits the seam occasionally (i.e. watchfully with no real fear of getting out).

I don't think I quite made my point clear enough in the last post though -- I agree that there's merit to saying it's easier to get baffled in a Test match, but as far as I'm concerned it's a very different type of baffling. I mean, if you misjudge the flight in a Test you're more likely to pop it up to silly point. In an ODI you'd probably follow through anyway and belt it over wide long off for six. If you pick the wrong way the ball's turning in a Test, you're likely to be hanging back and are able to adjust and leave/defend. In a T20 you can't, so you try and mow it over wide long on and get an edge that pops nicely to backward point, or mistime it down long on's throat.

Based on my own cricket career I have found that fortune favours the brave. I slogged my way to 60 once against a classy leg spinner who if I had've farted around against I would've scored 6 or 7 runs like the rest of the team did.

I am only indirectly addressing your point but I feel additional words are unnecessary and that is the crux of the matter anyway. Hoary undignified batting against a mystery spinner will let you stay in longer than hitting it in the V. I can only really prove my point with video to show the sorts of shots that I mean. I also respect your point that in tests you can just let it beat the outside edge of your bat. I also take it with a grain of salt though because I have seen the outside edge be taken - and I have seen Murali run riot through the NZ and other nations batting line up with his doosra. And if it was so easy to bat against he would not have gotten 800 wickets. I don't think he got his wickets with flight (Migara to correct me here).

 

[Flem274*]

Really? i didn't see Sohdi or Williamson ripping through us that day

WI didn't last long enough for them to get much of a bowl iirc

 

[Maximas]

I reckon he got his last 100 based on his reputation of the first 240. People just played for phantom spin. TH to like this post.

Big revs/turning the ball both ways is not a necessity to be a good test spinner. Dan V had excellent control, allowing him to not only stagnate scoring and therefore frustrate batsmen, but it meant he could bowl effectively to his plans, his arm ball was only made useful by the fact that he could get a little bit of turn on occasions, subtle variation was another strength of his, he basically had a very good understanding of the mental side of spin bowling, the mind games between bowler and batsmen, something I've always felt the CW community easily looks past when assessing spinners.

And with the Narine/Mendis comparisons they are actually rather inaccurate IMO, Narine has developed into a bowler who has the ability to deceive batsmen in flight, Mendis hasn't, at all.

 

[NUFAN]

I doubt Narine can take 188 Test wickets at 29.37 - so not an ATG.