Who is the best Indian spinner?

[Daemon]

He posts clips playing cricket. I can assure you, calling it "spin" is quite the stretch.

That’s cricket he was playing?

 

[honestbharani]

It is like having a batsmen who hasn't score a ton in SENA, that is a pretty big hole in your record.

This is a pretty shitty logic that I have seen thrown around way too often in tests. Taking 5 wickets in an innings is the equivalent of a batsman scoring 50% or more of his team's runs in an innings. I would love to see how many batsmen have such away performances, especially for SENA guys in the SC and the SC guys in SENA.

 

[subshakerz]

This is a pretty ****ty logic that I have seen thrown around way too often in tests. Taking 5 wickets in an innings is the equivalent of a batsman scoring 50% or more of his team's runs in an innings. I would love to see how many batsmen have such away performances, especially for SENA guys in the SC and the SC guys in SENA.

Um, no. You have 11 batsmen batting in a lineup and normally 4-5 bowlers who bowl in an innings. So it's more than 20-30%.

 

[honestbharani]

Um, no. You have 11 batsmen batting in a lineup and normally 4-5 bowlers who bowl in an innings. So it's more than 20-30%.

You also dont have any limit on the runs you can score but you can only take 10 wickets per innings, max. And normally there are only 6 specialist batsmen at max and bowling innings often features 5-6 bowlers in tests. I think it is a valid comparison.

And either way, the point is that a 100 is the equivalent of a 5fer is laughably outdated and wrong.

 

[subshakerz]

You also dont have any limit on the runs you can score but you can only take 10 wickets per innings, max. And normally there are only 6 specialist batsmen at max and bowling innings often features 5-6 bowlers in tests. I think it is a valid comparison.

And either way, the point is that a 100 is the equivalent of a 5fer is laughably outdated and wrong.

Yes but then you have plenty of instances in which bowlers end up with expensive fifers simply by bowling so many overs as there is no limit.

Anyways, they are obviously not an exact match, but fifers and centuries are both seen as basic achievements as match performances for bowlers and batsmen to establish their class.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Getting 50% of your team's runs is so much rarer than a 5-fer.

 

[Teja.]

I'd say 4-fers and 100s are roughly equivalent. 5-fers a decent bit rarer IMO.

 

[sunilz]

I'd say 4-fers and 100s are roughly equivalent. 5-fers a decent bit rarer IMO.

5-fers is more easy if you include some of the tailenders.

 

[honestbharani]

5-fers is more easy if you include some of the tailenders.

Doesn't it mean its harder given the other bowlers will also find it equally easier to get rid of the tailenders?

 

[honestbharani]

Getting 50% of your team's runs is so much rarer than a 5-fer.

So make it 50% of the runs within the top 6 - the point still stands.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes but then you have plenty of instances in which bowlers end up with expensive fifers simply by bowling so many overs as there is no limit.

Anyways, they are obviously not an exact match, but fifers and centuries are both seen as basic achievements as match performances for bowlers and batsmen to establish their class.

Not really, in a team of equally good bowlers, a bowler is less likely to be able to get a 5 fer or a big haul compared to a batsman getting a 100, coz a batsman getting his 100 is usually not related to how many runs are scored at the other end.

Cummins is a good example of this IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

Anyways, they are obviously not an exact match, but fifers and centuries are both seen as basic achievements as match performances for bowlers and batsmen to establish their class.

The point is very simple. If you think Ponting scoring a 100 on an absolute featherbed in the first test of the 2008 series makes his overall record more outstanding in India than a stand out bowling performance like Ashwin in the BG series earlier this year, I think that is just plain silly. I do not see the need for a 5-fer to label something a match winning performance and just the idea of ticking some kind of box based on contextless numbers is a very silly way to rate cricketers anyways.

FWIW, I think Ashwin's performance this past BG series is more impressive than any of Kumble's achievements in SENA. The reason I still think Kumble is ahead is because I tend to rate completed careers ahead of incomplete ones when it is close.

 

[srbhkshk]

Kumble's 03-04 was better imo, he was bowling to a far superior batting line up and the pitches were beyond flat.

 

[honestbharani]

Kumble's 03-04 was better imo, he was bowling to a far superior batting line up and the pitches were beyond flat.

I just dont think he caused problems the way Ashwin did this time. The batting quality point stands for sure, but I dont think any of these pitches for this series were as good for spin as Sydney in 2004 was.

 

[subshakerz]

The point is very simple. If you think Ponting scoring a 100 on an absolute featherbed in the first test of the 2008 series makes his overall record more outstanding in India than a stand out bowling performance like Ashwin in the BG series earlier this year, I think that is just plain silly. I do not see the need for a 5-fer to label something a match winning performance and just the idea of ticking some kind of box based on contextless numbers is a very silly way to rate cricketers anyways.

FWIW, I think Ashwin's performance this past BG series is more impressive than any of Kumble's achievements in SENA. The reason I still think Kumble is ahead is because I tend to rate completed careers ahead of incomplete ones when it is close.

Hundreds and fifers are one measure, among others, of judging a cricketer's ability to score big or run through a side. Over the stretch of an entire career, the numbers certainly have some merit.

Ashwin not having a fifer in SENA tells us he never ran through a batting lineup in these conditions, which is something you would expect from an all-timer.

 

[subshakerz]

I just dont think he caused problems the way Ashwin did this time. The batting quality point stands for sure, but I dont think any of these pitches for this series were as good for spin as Sydney in 2004 was.

I don't think you can compare Kumble's 24 wickets on absolute roads against an all-time great batting lineup in 2003-4 against Ashwin's 12@28 in three tests, He had a couple of good spells but it wasn't that great a performance.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hundreds and fifers are one measure, among others, of judging a cricketer's ability to score big or run through a side. Over the stretch of an entire career, the numbers certainly have some merit.

Ashwin not having a fifer in SENA tells us he never ran through a batting lineup in these conditions, which is something you would expect from an all-timer.

Kumble's 5fers in SENA were generally speaking pretty attritional ones where he got 5-120 odd didnt he? Dont get me wrong, that has value when he's the lone warrior on a flat deck but I wouldnt call them examples of "running through" the opposition.

 

[h_hurricane]

Kumble's performances in Australia and subsequently in Pakistan in 2003-04 season is better than anything Ashwin has done overseas. However, Kumble has also been thoroughly mediocre for twice as long as a period as Ashwin overseas before turning it around. Aside from a good performance in SA in 1992-93, his 90's story tells a sorry tale. Ashwin wins this imo. A good 4-5 runs difference in overseas bowling average is hard to ignore.

 

[h_hurricane]

Although I have voted for Ashwin, by the time the thread closes in Sep 2025, the answer will be obviously Jadeja, just like many other threads.

 

[honestbharani]

Hundreds and fifers are one measure, among others, of judging a cricketer's ability to score big or run through a side. Over the stretch of an entire career, the numbers certainly have some merit.

Ashwin not having a fifer in SENA tells us he never ran through a batting lineup in these conditions, which is something you would expect from an all-timer.

And once again, neither did Kumble. Taking 5 wickets does not mean anyone ran through a batting line up. It just means he took 5 of the wickets to fall. There is more context to this than just the number of wickets taken.

There was that SCG test when Australia were chasing 50 odd and Ashwin got 3 or 4 wickets in no time. That was definitely running through a batting line up.