He implies that the Pakistani boys are going to hand are asses to us in the one day series.GeraintIsMyHero said:
He didn't say orthodox finger spinners...BoyBrumby said:Not really. He's just saying Monty is the best of a limited bunch. Orthodox finger spinners are something of a dying breed at international level.
Although, interestingly, in today's Mirror Monty does say he's working on a wrong 'un of his own.
"I still have got a lot to learn. I am working on my version of the doosra - a ball which turns the other way - but we will just have to see what happens with it. As I gradually add things, it is one of my ambitions to be the best. It would be nice once day to be recognised as that."
Full article here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/crick...reat-spinner---it-s-my-destiny-name_page.html
Dude, his strike-rate was in excess of 140. If that isn't a spectecular failure then I don't know what is.No, he didn't; he was our most economical bowler in the drawn first Test, and bowled reasonably well in the first two generally. The second innings of the third Test was where he fell down a little bit, he seemed to lose control, but it is the only time he really has so far.
It's a cost/benefit issue. It's great that he was able to dismiss all these folks, but not if it took him 23 overs to take a single wicket.& he did manage to dismiss Tendulkar, Dravid, Kaif & Jaffer in his debut series. Not bad for a "spectacular failure".
The ellipsis suggests it's a bit tongue in cheek...Sanz said:And this guy calls Indian fans as Terrace fans or something.
What next - Compare Monty's records against Pakistan with Bedi's ?
Fair enough - I see what you mean.BoyBrumby said:It's a fair point you make, but as the doosra is still in its infancy as a delivery (& of, say we say, potentially doubtful provenance anyway) I personally tend to view spinners who bowl one as the exceptions rather than the norm; hence unorthodox as opposed to orthodox.
&, regarding wrist-spinners, they're all unorthodox anyway, the whole bunch of them! () In career profiles left-arm finger spinners are sometimes noted as "orthodox" (take our own vic) to differentiate then from over-the-wrist southpaws.
That's orthdox to you, pal.BoyBrumby said:regarding wrist-spinners, they're all unorthodox anyway, the whole bunch of them! () In career profiles left-arm finger spinners are sometimes noted as "orthodox" (take our own vic)
There are very few leg spinners that are incapable of bowling the googly in world cricket. the only one i can think of is warne. Kaneria, Kumble, Paul Adams, Macgill all bowl googlies regularly, and the googly is as much a part of a leg spinners armoury as the arm ball is for a finger spinner. Contrast that to the number of finger spinners that bowl a doosra and you'll find a very small number.JBH001 said:Why does having a doosra make a finger spinner unorthodox?
Isn't that like saying that googly bowling leggies are unorthodox leg spinners?
I dont know how getting those 4 wickets is supposed to prove anything especially when you consider how many runs he conceded to get them. Nor did he bowl absolute brilliant balls to get them. I think most people who watched Monty bowl in India would easily say that he was nothing but a disastrous failure, and its credit to him that hes improved since then.BoyBrumby said:You'll have to trust me on this one; as a spinner Monty is several notches above Gilo.
& he did manage to dismiss Tendulkar, Dravid, Kaif & Jaffer in his debut series. Not bad for a "spectacular failure".
How can you say that these blokes definately bowl the googly, they dont bowl it very often, but they bowl it.tooextracool said:There are very few leg spinners that are incapable of bowling the googly in world cricket. the only one i can think of is warne. Kaneria, Kumble
Granted he didn't pull up any trees, but a "disasterous failure" was what Udal was in Pakistan when he wasn't even trusted with blocking up an end because he was so expensive or what Blackwell was when he joined the one-test wonder club (hopefully permanently). Panesar was at least economical enough to be entrusted with more overs than the quicks.tooextracool said:I dont know how getting those 4 wickets is supposed to prove anything especially when you consider how many runs he conceded to get them. Nor did he bowl absolute brilliant balls to get them. I think most people who watched Monty bowl in India would easily say that he was nothing but a disastrous failure, and its credit to him that hes improved since then.
Oh and there was another bowler who dismissed Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly not once but twice in his debut series. He goes by the name of Adam Sanford.
Oh come on mayn.tooextracool said:I think most people who watched Monty bowl in India would easily say that he was nothing but a disastrous failure, and its credit to him that hes improved since then..
ye but he always looked trash & India were poor in 2002 to let him cause them so much problems then, Monty certainly hasn't so far in his career.tooextracool said:Oh and there was another bowler who dismissed Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly not once but twice in his debut series. He goes by the name of Adam Sanford.
Far from a disastrous failure, I'd say he was a slight disappointment considering it was his debut series. He wasn't penetrative enough but he showed good control over line despite dropping a few short. He didn't really have any variety in India though and it's impressive how he's gotten some good wickets with the arm ball against Pakistan (Younis Khan).tooextracool said:I think most people who watched Monty bowl in India would easily say that he was nothing but a disastrous failure, and its credit to him that hes improved since then.
Panesar was also blessed with more conducive wickets to spin bowling in India. Yes so he might still have bowled better than Udal and Blackwell did, but bowling marginally better than rubbish is you guessed it still rubbish. Mind you how many people went up about Shaun Udal in his first outing in Pakistan? A certain member on here even suggested that England should have replaced Giles with him a long time ago.BoyBrumby said:Granted he didn't pull up any trees, but a "disasterous failure" was what Udal was in Pakistan when he wasn't even trusted with blocking up an end because he was so expensive or what Blackwell was when he joined the one-test wonder club (hopefully permanently). Panesar was at least economical enough to be entrusted with more overs than the quicks..
that may very well be the case, but one cannot discount his failures in both the 2nd and 3rd test when he had assistance from the pitch.BoyBrumby said:& the wickets of the senior batsmen he got were two bowled, one LBW & a slip catch, so they can't have been too bad nuts given the batters' quality. With better luck Monty could've picked up the freebies Udal got in the 3rd test when brain-freeze had set in & the Indians were having a mow.
hard to see how India have improved too much since 2002, especially when you consider that they drew 1-1 to a half fit side at home. 2002/03 was arguably Indias golden period, where they performed better abroad than they generally do.aussie said:ye but he always looked trash & India were poor in 2002 to let him cause them so much problems then, Monty certainly hasn't so far in his career.
Not only did he not have variety, he was incapable of using drift, something that hes changed. Hes still not exactly a master of flight(despite whatever woolmer says) and tends to bowl very flat and quick and thats an area he needs to improve on.adharcric said:Far from a disastrous failure, I'd say he was a slight disappointment considering it was his debut series. He wasn't penetrative enough but he showed good control over line despite dropping a few short. He didn't really have any variety in India though and it's impressive how he's gotten some good wickets with the arm ball against Pakistan (Younis Khan).
LOL! I don't know what Social was smoking that day, but I do recall him suggesting that after day 1 of the first test.tooextracool said:Mind you how many people went up about Shaun Udal in his first outing in Pakistan? A certain member on here even suggested that England should have replaced Giles with him a long time ago.