**Official** Sri Lanka in England / Scotland - 2011

[S Chanderpaul]

Should just drop Bell and play Patel at 6!

Patel has averaged 45 over the last 2 seasons with the bat in limited overs!!

 

[Migara]

No it's not the difference at all, it's the fact they both bowl off spin , anyway take it however you want.

Last time I checked, Panesar bowled SLA, not off breaks. And at this time there is a difference because Panesar averages 40 with the balll in ODIs and Randiv averages 33. And unlike Panesar, Randiv has played over half of his ODIs against India, which they both average similar (44 vs 41). And if you want, you can compare what they've done against India in test matches as well.

 

[Migara]

Of course it is, why should I compare a guy who averages under 20 to one that averages 33 in one day cricket.

Remove that "mystery" period from it to have a clear picture of it. With the stats he has, easily the best spinner in ODI cricket ever.

 

[Jacknife]

Last time I checked, Panesar bowled SLA, not off breaks. And at this time there is a difference because Panesar averages 40 with the balll in ODIs and Randiv averages 33. And unlike Panesar, Randiv has played over half of his ODIs against India, which they both average similar (44 vs 41)

My mistake on the panesar front but it was just a example of when he's said 'he's a ordinary left arm spin bowler' or 'he's a ordinary off spin bowler' bowler the point still stands though , still take it however you want to mate, hardly worth the hassle.

 

[Jacknife]

Remove that "mystery" period from it to have a clear picture of it. With the stats he has, easily the best spinner in ODI cricket ever.

So why perceive it as a bad joke, when I put his name down as a better spinner than Randiv? Even in the last year he's averaged 23.

 

[Migara]

So why perceive it as a bad joke, when I put his name down as a better spinner than Randiv? Even in the last year he's averaged 23.

The general opinion in SL is that Mendis has regressed and only do well against players who have not seen him before and minnows. As a result he gets more matches against non-SC teams, while Randiv is preferentially picked to play SC sides. When coming to SL domestic leagues, where a lot of batsmen are world class when it comes to playing spin, Mendis have been a massive failure while Randiv did relatively better. The best performer for some reason is never given a chance by the select suckers.

 

[vcs]

I guess your still ignoring what I've said then.

What?

Migara has it covered BTW. It doesn't matter if he's the reincarnation of Mohammad Sami, Lloyd has no business labelling a player ordinary on the back of 15 matches or whatever. It was a **** comment.

 

[Prince EWS]

When coming to SL domestic leagues, where a lot of batsmen are world class when it comes to playing spin, Mendis have been a massive failure

In Sri Lankan domestic First Class cricket: 125 wickets @ 14.70
In Sri Lankan domestic List A cricket: 68 wickets @ 14.87

Yes, what a shunt indeed.

There's no doubt he's been less effective in recent times at all levels, but that doesn't mean all he achieved earlier on means nothing and that you can start bandying out terms like "massive failure" in competitions he averages 14 with the ball in.

 

[Migara]

In Sri Lankan domestic First Class cricket: 125 wickets @ 14.70
In Sri Lankan domestic List A cricket: 68 wickets @ 14.87

Yes, what a shunt indeed.

There's no doubt he's been less effective in recent times at all levels, but that doesn't mean all he achieved earlier on means nothing and that you can start bandying out terms like "massive failure" in competitions he averages 14 with the ball in.

And missed the fact that Mendis bowls against Tier B teams, where Randiv bowls against Tier A teams. Expected to be much smarter than that TBH. And the stats should be considered for last year to have a better understanding.

 

[Jacknife]

What?

Migara has it covered BTW. It doesn't matter if he's the reincarnation of Mohammad Sami, Lloyd has no business labelling a player ordinary on the back of 15 matches or whatever. It was a **** comment.

Still no grasped the point have you, he didn't call him ordinary, as in he's crap or average, you've taken what he's said far too literally and I was merely pointing it out to you, that I've heard him say that phrase on numerous occasions before, when I've been watching CC on Sky etc and to be honest I couldn't care less.

 

[Jarquis]

All 3 of them, as I said. Care to tell me what Warne averaged at that stage of his career?

You're doing a great job of completely missing the point though.. it's not particularly about Randiv (who I don't even like that much after the Sehwag incident). It's the spectacular ignorance/arrogance that making a comment like that portrays, while sitting in the commentary box.

Meh, disagree. Pretty much a commentators job to call it as they see it. If they get it wrong then lambast them. Nothing to see here though.

 

[vcs]

Still no grasped the point have you, he didn't call him ordinary, as in he's crap or average, you've taken what he's said far too literally and I was merely pointing it out to you, that I've heard him say that phrase on numerous occasions before, when I've been watching CC on Sky etc and to be honest I couldn't care less.

I might have got it wrong, but there's a difference between saying "he's bowled some ordinary stuff today" (which I'd have no problem with) and saying "he's an ordinary bowler who bowls simple off-spin" which is what he seemed to be saying. Of course it's not a big deal but it doesn't sound good to say for a commentator to say that when he's bowling well and helping his team win..

 

[Migara]

Meh, disagree. Pretty much a commentators job to call it as they see it. If they get it wrong then lambast them. Nothing to see here though.

It's their job to say what they see. But they cannot generalize what they see as a whole career of a player. Lloyd is guilty doing it here. Randiv is having worst form since his debut, and Lloyd has only seen Randiv who's struggling. Without seeing Randiv who was sending Indian batsmen one after another to the pavilion few months back or how he done against Aussis in Australia, that generalization is plain stupid.

 

[Jacknife]

It's their job to say what they see. But they cannot generalize what they see as a whole career of a player. Lloyd is guilty doing it here. Randiv is having worst form since his debut, and Lloyd has only seen Randiv who's struggling. Without seeing Randiv who was sending Indian batsmen one after another to the pavilion few months back or how he done against Aussis in Australia, that generalization is plain stupid.

Did you actually hear what Bumble said, or are you reacting to what vcs wrote?

 

[Migara]

Did you actually hear what Bumble said, or are you reacting to what vcs wrote?

He actually said, "Randiv is an ordinary off-spinner"

Ordinary was used to describe the player as whole, which is stupid, without giving a player a fair chance. And when considering last two years, this ordinary off spinner has done very well too. (Stats are for last two years sans minnows. BAN included in the stats)

He basically averages similar to Harbhajan, Murali, Shakib and Price.

@Prince EWS>> This would answer the question why Lankans rate Randiv over Mendis

 

[Uppercut]

I might have got it wrong, but there's a difference between saying "he's bowled some ordinary stuff today" (which I'd have no problem with) and saying "he's an ordinary bowler who bowls simple off-spin" which is what he seemed to be saying. Of course it's not a big deal but it doesn't sound good to say for a commentator to say that when he's bowling well and helping his team win..

You've got it wrong.

or·di·nar·y (ôrdn-r)
adj.
1. Commonly encountered; usual. See Synonyms at common.

2. a. Of no exceptional ability, degree, or quality; average.
b. Of inferior quality; second-rate.

All of your posting on the issue is based around the false premise that Lloyd was using definition 2 when he really using definition 1. Understand yet?

 

[vcs]

You've got it wrong.

or·di·nar·y (ôrdn-r)
adj.
1. Commonly encountered; usual. See Synonyms at common.

2. a. Of no exceptional ability, degree, or quality; average.
b. Of inferior quality; second-rate.

All of your posting on the issue is based around the false premise that Lloyd was using definition 2 when he really using definition 1. Understand yet?

Well, to me it certainly seemed like he meant the 2nd one. He may not have intended what he conveyed, but that's how it came across. Which is pretty much the same thing.

 

[grecian]

**** me, can all this crap be moved to another thread, I suggest it be called "****ing tedious meandering points about spinners based on an innocuous remark."

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yup, an ordinary debate

 

[vcs]

I'll shut up now.