Who has a better test bowling attack ?

[tooextracool]

call him whatever you want but the fact that he bowls with a deformed arm along with the fact that there will never be someone like him again suggests to me that he cant be considered to be part of a trend......

 

[Muddaser]

call him whatever you want but the fact that he bowls with a deformed arm along with the fact that there will never be someone like him again suggests to me that he cant be considered to be part of a trend......

Tariq Mahmood.

his doosra turns more than muralis.

 

[Tom Halsey]

call him whatever you want but the fact that he bowls with a deformed arm along with the fact that there will never be someone like him again suggests to me that he cant be considered to be part of a trend......

Which means he is not a fingerspinner which proves my point even more.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Tariq Mahmood.

his doosra turns more than muralis.

He has copied Murali's action, and chucks even more blatantly IMO. That said, he is young and has plenty of time to sort it out.

 

[Richard]

and there are so many examples to disprove your theory that finger spinners cant take wickets outside of turning wickets.....

No, there aren't.
There is an occasional anomaly in the trend (eg Boje in South Africa), but sadly for you that doesn't prove anything.

 

[Richard]

call him whatever you want but the fact that he bowls with a deformed arm along with the fact that there will never be someone like him again suggests to me that he cant be considered to be part of a trend......

His deformed arm is nothing to do with anything, it's just a coincidence.

 

[marc71178]

So if his arm weren't deformed he'd still have the success he's had then?

 

[Richard]

yes so hes an anomaly, and he cant be classified as a wrist spinner.

He spins the ball with his wrist - he is a wristspinner.

certainly not enough to turn the ball significantly on non turners.....

More than enough - you get a wristspinner who gives the ball a big rip and a fingerspinner who does the same and try them on a dustbowl then a normal pitch. You'll see a big difference.

no its just stupid to condemn good spinner performances due to poor shots, quite frankly if you looked at any spinner's performances in unfavourable conditions you would see clearly that several of their wickets come off non-wicket taking balls. the fact is that in the build up to these balls there were genuinely good deliveries.....

Wrong, because as I've shown many, many times good batsmen simply forget the balls that are gone and concentrate on the next one.

becuase we were looking at klusener's ability at the test match level...and from what ive seen so far, hes gotten worse.

And you tried to bring ODIs into it. Ntini was poor in the New Zealand ODIs, but he was still pretty economical in the Tests.

judge him in whatever way you want.....i doubt that he'll ever be a wicket taker.

We'll see.

 

[Richard]

So if his arm weren't deformed he'd still have the success he's had then?

I don't see what effect it's had, so I don't see any reason to presume he wouldn't have had the success he's had even if his arm were to straighten to 180deg.
The reason he can do what he can is because of a deformed wrist. And even if he had the deformed wrist and aimed to turn the ball the way he can, he'd still be nothing if he was as wayward as MacGill or the many other rubbish wristspinners who've played the game.

 

[tooextracool]

Which means he is not a fingerspinner which proves my point even more.

ive never said that he was though....

 

[tooextracool]

I don't see what effect it's had, so I don't see any reason to presume he wouldn't have had the success he's had even if his arm were to straighten to 180deg.
The reason he can do what he can is because of a deformed wrist. And even if he had the deformed wrist and aimed to turn the ball the way he can, he'd still be nothing if he was as wayward as MacGill or the many other rubbish wristspinners who've played the game.

total b/s, its known all over the world that the only reason murali turns the ball as much as he does because of his deformed hand. theres absolutely no way you can prove to me that he would have had half as much success if it wasnt for it.

 

[tooextracool]

He spins the ball with his wrist - he is a wristspinner.

and he does that with a deformed wrist, which makes him different from any other orthodox wrist spinner.

More than enough - you get a wristspinner who gives the ball a big rip and a fingerspinner who does the same and try them on a dustbowl then a normal pitch. You'll see a big difference.

so why have so many of these wristspinners only been successful against poor batting and on turners then?

Wrong, because as I've shown many, many times good batsmen simply forget the balls that are gone and concentrate on the next one..

yet good players like sangakkara couldnt do that!

And you tried to bring ODIs into it. Ntini was poor in the New Zealand ODIs, but he was still pretty economical in the Tests.

because thats what matters in test match cricket!

 

[Richard]

total b/s, its known all over the world that the only reason murali turns the ball as much as he does because of his deformed hand. theres absolutely no way you can prove to me that he would have had half as much success if it wasnt for it.

There's nothing deformed about his hand, he has two deformities, one in his wrist and one in his elbow.
The one in his elbow, which is the one I was mentioning to marc, doesn't IMO make any difference to anything, it's just a sad coincidence which has caused optical-illusions and excuses for Australian after Australian, plus a few other straw-clutchers who've become angry when he's destroyed their team, to label him a chucker.
The thing which has made all the difference is a completely different deformity in his wrist, a double-joint, which enables him to spin the ball more than most people. It's an unusual advantage which some people find hard to take, too. But it's no more unfair than the advantage of people who can whirl their arms at speeds which propel the ball at 95mph.

 

[Richard]

and he does that with a deformed wrist, which makes him different from any other orthodox wrist spinner.

Yes, but he still does it with the wrist.
He's an unorthodox wristspinner, but he's still a wristspinner.

so why have so many of these wristspinners only been successful against poor batting and on turners then?

Let's see some of these wristspinners, then?
My guess is that they'll all be rubbish wristspinners who are palpably below Test-standard because they're ridiculously wayward and haven't had much success at all.

yet good players like sangakkara couldnt do that!

And what on Earth gives you that idea?

because thats what matters in test match cricket!

No, it's not the most important thing (still better to be economical than expensive, of course), but when did I say it was?

 

[tooextracool]

There's nothing deformed about his hand, he has two deformities, one in his wrist and one in his elbow.
The one in his elbow, which is the one I was mentioning to marc, doesn't IMO make any difference to anything, it's just a sad coincidence which has caused optical-illusions and excuses for Australian after Australian, plus a few other straw-clutchers who've become angry when he's destroyed their team, to label him a chucker.
The thing which has made all the difference is a completely different deformity in his wrist, a double-joint, which enables him to spin the ball more than most people. It's an unusual advantage which some people find hard to take, too. But it's no more unfair than the advantage of people who can whirl their arms at speeds which propel the ball at 95mph.

rubbish if he bowls with a deformed wrist and gets the ball to turn alot more than everyone else he cant be considered in the same category as those other wrist spinners who dont have a deformity....its as simple as that.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, but he still does it with the wrist.
He's an unorthodox wristspinner, but he's still a wristspinner.

in the same way that kumble should also a wrist spinner and should be included in that category then?

Let's see some of these wristspinners, then?
My guess is that they'll all be rubbish wristspinners who are palpably below Test-standard because they're ridiculously wayward and haven't had much success at all.

everyone one of them after the 70s actually, the most obvious of course being abdul qadir,anil kumble and mushtaq ahmad.

And what on Earth gives you that idea?.

umm the fact that he was dismissed twice by boje in the same series?

No, it's not the most important thing (still better to be economical than expensive, of course), but when did I say it was?

yes but it doesnt show anything about how well ntini bowled....

 

[Richard]

rubbish if he bowls with a deformed wrist and gets the ball to turn alot more than everyone else he cant be considered in the same category as those other wrist spinners who dont have a deformity....its as simple as that.

Except that he doesn't spin it any more than anyone else.
That is just a misleading impression which you have got.
In fact, other wristspinners spin and turn it just as much.

 

[Richard]

in the same way that kumble should also a wrist spinner and should be included in that category then?

Kumble is a wristspinner, yes, but he is the inverse of what you are trying to claim Murali is.
However, it is very noticable, when you analyse it, that he spins it far less than Warne, Murali, Mushtaq and the like.

everyone one of them after the 70s actually, the most obvious of course being abdul qadir,anil kumble and mushtaq ahmad.

So Mushtaq now can't turn it on any surface, either?
He is every bit as capable of turning it on any surface as Warne and Murali.
And aside from Abdul, Mushtaq, Warne and Murali, I can't think of many Test-class wristspinners in the last 30 years. And aside from them and Benaud, O'Reilly, Grimmett and Barnes, I can't think of any others in the game's history.

umm the fact that he was dismissed twice by boje in the same series?

So why does that mean that he couldn't forget the last ball and concentrate on the next?

yes but it doesnt show anything about how well ntini bowled....

Well, it does, but it doesn't show that he was successful.
It does say that he bowled better than if he'd gone at 4-an-over, like he did in England.
But he still went round the park in the ODIS like everyone else.

 

[tooextracool]

Except that he doesn't spin it any more than anyone else.
That is just a misleading impression which you have got.
In fact, other wristspinners spin and turn it just as much.

total tripe....how about a poll then to see how many people believe that there has been any other wrist spinner in the history of the game that has been able to turn it as much as murali can on the same type of wicket?
any fool can see that murali can turn it far more on even the flattest of tracks.

 

[tooextracool]

Kumble is a wristspinner, yes, but he is the inverse of what you are trying to claim Murali is.
However, it is very noticable, when you analyse it, that he spins it far less than Warne, Murali, Mushtaq and the like.

and if you analyze murali you will see that he clearly spins it far more and hence cant be put in the same category.

So Mushtaq now can't turn it on any surface, either?
He is every bit as capable of turning it on any surface as Warne and Murali.
And aside from Abdul, Mushtaq, Warne and Murali, I can't think of many Test-class wristspinners in the last 30 years. And aside from them and Benaud, O'Reilly, Grimmett and Barnes, I can't think of any others in the game's history.

no he cant turn it significantly on any surface and neither can warne. and how many times must it be said, success for spinners outside the sub continent doesnt have to do with turn, it has to do with drift, flight and accuracy....all 3 of which a quality wrist spinner is more than capable off.

So why does that mean that he couldn't forget the last ball and concentrate on the next?

the fact that the buildup to the wickets had to do with good bowling

Well, it does, but it doesn't show that he was successful.
It does say that he bowled better than if he'd gone at 4-an-over, like he did in England.
But he still went round the park in the ODIS like everyone else.

and if you watched that series in england you would realise that he actually bowled far better despite going for runs