Best spinner other than Warne & Murali

[Sanz]

You sure Anwar has destroyed Warne in Test cricket, i dont think so, agreed that Kumble has had more success againts Inzi because i've seen that myself while i'm not so sure about either Kumble's & Warne record againts Ijaz because i dont remember Warne dismissin him in 99 though i researched and discovered him twice in the 95 SCG test. Kumble would have only bowled to Ijaz in 2 test in 99 did Kumble get him out???

Are you suffering from TEC syndrome ?? Where have I said that Anwar Destoyed Warnie ? Kumble dismmised Ijaz 4 out of 6 innings he bowled to him. Ijaz wan't much of a player any way.

 

[matty1818]

gilo obviously, no-brainer. King of Spain and all that.

 

[aussie]

Ijaz wan't much of a player any way.

Naa from the little bit a remember seeing of him during the 99/2000 season in the World Cup, ODI's vs Eng in Pak & test series down under i think he was a pretty solid bat.

 

[marc71178]

almost like trying to show that Gautam Gambhir is better than Matty Hayden.

But on current form?

 

[dinu23]

well done sherlock, in manipulating those stats as though they actually prove something.
please tell me, how SA miraculously managed to win the series in SL in 93, how they won the series in pakistan in 97/98, how they won the series in india in 99/00 and drew the series in SL in 00/01.
that record believe or not is far better than any other team managed in the 90s, even steve waugh would have been absolutely overjoyed if he had managed to lead his aussie side during his tenure to such performances in the subcontinent.
and SA managed all this without any real quality spinner in their side. surely they must be poor players of spin

SA won because of poor batting by the oppsition. not because they were good against spin bowling.

 

[dinu23]

Kumble is the third best spinner in the world. if anyone says giles, vettori, mcgill is better than him, they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But on current form?

Damn, beat me to it!

 

[Anil]

Ijaz wan't much of a player any way.

he used to perform out of his skin against india though, especially in one dayers, but overall yes, i agree with you, he wasn't that much of a player....

 

[Sanz]

he used to perform out of his skin against india though, especially in one dayers, but overall yes, i agree with you, he wasn't that much of a player....

Ijaz thrived against inferior attacks on flatter tracks in ODIs. His only match winning I can remember is his 135 something in 1998 @ Lahore where he and Affers massacred Indian attack.

 

[C_C]

But on current form?

Form is irrelevant. Career is what matters.

 

[arvloshan]

kumble is the 3rd best

although he has been treated equally with warny n murali , the former two have over leaped him comfortably. but kumble is the much under rated bowler at present.

 

[luckyeddie]

No he hasnt.
But when people try to show McGill, Giles, Vettori etc. as better than Kumble, it is laughable...almost like trying to show that Gautam Gambhir is better than Matty Hayden.

In fairness it's very much the minority.

 

[Dasa]

^Not quite, from the poll. Out of 78 votes, 49 are for someone other than Kumble, although that could just reflect the parochialism of many Aussies and NZers (considering MacGill and Vettori have the next highest number of votes after Kumble).

 

[Shane Warne]

OK own up. Who voted for Giles?

 

[cbuts]

Have to go for Vettori... as ive said before hes a very clever player and knows what he wants from himself and his team mates....

problem is, he aint vvery good in excuting it

 

[Sanz]

^Not quite, from the poll. Out of 78 votes, 49 are for someone other than Kumble, although that could just reflect the parochialism of many Aussies and NZers (considering MacGill and Vettori have the next highest number of votes after Kumble).

So far Kumble 30, Giles+Macgill+Vettory 32. I am sure Eddie thinks that 32 is less than 30.

 

[marc71178]

So far Kumble 30, Giles+Macgill+Vettory 32. I am sure Eddie thinks that 32 is less than 30.

There's a difference between someone who comes in votes and leaves and someone who actually tries to make an argument for it.

Of course had you actually read what LE put rather than use any excuse to attack him, you'd have realised that...

 

[tooextracool]

That proves that you have never watched him play. I have never said that Mahanama was a better player than Sangakkara. what I have said is the Lankan team of 90s was better at playing spin than the current team. But you have proved time and again that you have a serious problem in reading any kind of english, so I am not really surprised. Anyone who has watched Mahanama play knows that his averages suggest.

oh i can assure you, while mahanama was worth more than his average suggests he was still nothing above mediocre. i'd think the fact that he had success against india, or rather the 225 on a pitch in which even akay ratra could have scored runs has clouded your opinions. if mahanama were playing now he wouldnt make the test side.

That's why Warnie was averaging around 40 against them before 1996.

yes he did, but hardly surprising that it includes the series in 92/93 when he was for all intents and purposes useless.and he more or less rectified it in the tour of SL in 99 against a side that included both de silva and ranatunga
and if you didnt know that SL before 96 were quite comfortably the worst test team in the world (bar zimbabwe), then you just werent watching.

err Where have I used the word 'exceptional' said that..

err you used the word 'great', and as far as im concerned, both of them mean pretty much the same.

And can you point out the post where I specifically mentioned PRE-96 team, I have consistently mentioned team of 90s.

yes, unfortunately for you, the only time warne bowled poorly against SL in the 90s happened pre 96, and the only time kumble bowled well against SL happened pre 96. so if you want to claim that kumble bowled well against a great SL batting lineup then you have to look at his performances pre 96.

Actually I now I know why you suddenly started singing PRE-96 raga. Warnie started succeeding against them after that series so they must be good
And Good that you give the exmple of the seies of 1997 where kumble averaged 86, because anyone who has watched that series would know the quality of pitches the tests were played on.

no there was 1 poor pitch, the pitch in the 2nd test was fine, kumble just didnt bowl well on it.

Even the following series in India was no different( I was actually in India to watch that series)..

no different?
you mean the fact that one of them didnt turn, and surprise surprise kumble failed on it? warne has had to bowl against SL on a fair few non turners in australia, to use that as an excuse beggers belief. rajesh chauhan managed to average 20.5 at the end of the series on those pitches.

And how many times have these batsmen faced Kumble since 1997-1998 ?? I am sure you must have watched Sangakkara, Jayawardne play Kumble in the 2000s.

because the ability to play spin is measured by how well they play kumble isnt it?
neither of them had problems facing harbhajan singh in SL in 01.

 

[matty1818]

OK own up. Who voted for Giles?

.

 

[tooextracool]

So you once again selectively Quote Only Zimbabwe for Kumble, count every country for Warni including Australia . How about being little more truthful for once and posting the correct facts for both :-

Warnie - Aus, NZ, SA, SL, ENG
Kumble - Ind, WI, PAK, ZIM. Really so much mediocre.

err what?
how is saying that bowling well in zimbabwe isnt any sort of achievement worth talking about selectively quoting?
kumble has a better record in pakistan because as has been explained he played a worse lineup and its still only a 2 run difference. and india, well if kumble were bowling against the indian batting lineup in indian conditions he'd be struggling too.

And how many times did Warnie got Salim Malik(their best player then) got out ? Kumble clearly has had more success against Inzi, Youhana, Ijaz than Warnie has had against them. Only player in that list who Kumble had problem against was Anwar but its not like Warnie has ripped Anwar everytime he has bowled to him. ..

because that proves so much doesnt it?
and im sure the fact that warne has had to bowl on flat wickets in australia as opposed to kumble who gets a turner almost everytime he plays against pakistan. not to mention the fact that warne has mcgrath and co bowling alongside him.

Anyways a batting lineup of Inzi, Youhana, Asim Kamal, Hameed, Razzaq, Moin, Farhat isn't as bad as you are trying to protray here and they really proved it in their next tour to India..

yes, which says more about how poor india played than how well pakistan played.

Not everyone is liar like you who changes averages and quotes selectively to win an argument. Please tell me where I have manipulated avg. They are what they are and openly available at CricInfo for anyone to see it. It's a fact that Kumble didn't fail in any of the home series against SA...

good to see your english has shown up again. clearly you dont know the meaning of 'manipulated'. and it doesnt matter whether kumble failed or not, the fact is that SA played extremely well to win series in the subcontinent at the time, which immediately turns your theory of them being poor against spin to dust.

How about Indian batsman failing in the series. In 2000 series Indian team scored 225, 113, 158 and 250 in four innings of the two test match. I mean how can one say that SA succeed against Kumble in that series when he actually took 12 @21 in 3 innings of the two tests he bowled ?.-)

err no.
in the first test the pitch was turning square and 225 is most definetly not a poor score.
in the 2nd test, yes india batted poorly, but lets not forget the fact that SA got 479.
take away as much credit from the indian batting as you want, you cannot take away the fact that gary kirsten averaged nearly 50, kallis averaged 68, cullinan averaged 53 and klusener averaged 43.

Same is true for Pakistan series win, Pakistan were chasing 140 something to win and were all out on 92 and how does that prove that Mushy/Saqi didn't succeed against SA batting line up.

and how in the world anyone can say that SA didnt bat well when they made 2 scores of over 400 in 4 innings, not to mention that pollock averaged 52, kirsten averaged 86, bacher averaged 40, kallis averaged 61, klusener averaged 38 and even symcox averaged 40 i'll never know.

As for their win against SL, how about SL batsmen scoring 168 & 119 in two innings. I mean how ridiculous one has to get to question such a simple thing.-)

err the game in which SL lost SL scored 308 and 169. so much for the lies

And when have I said that SA didn't ? Hell SA Succeeded because on all those occasions the batting side failed terribly.

nope, believe it or not SA won because they bowled and batted well.
you'd have to be an absolute joker if you thought players like kirsten, klusener, cullinan, kallis, rhodes etc were poor players of spin because they clearly werent.

Anyways let me guess 1 series win in an entire decade in India by Eng, Aus, SA, NZ, WI, Zim, PAK, SL combined must have proved that Kumble is a Shyte spinner. doesn't it ?

ehh?
well done in completely missing the point.
obviously you missed the post in this thread when i said kumble and harbhajan are the 3rd best spinners in the world?
no my point was that kumble couldnt bowl well when the pitch isnt a turner, which you completely missed out, and eventually turned into a warne vs kumble argument.