- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
- Runs
- 6,248
Abdul Qadir was surely good enough to be recognized like this (236 test wickets in 67 matches) but this thread is about Jaiswal and Pant so please stick to that.And then you will see Pakistanis glory fying abdul qadir
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Abdul Qadir was surely good enough to be recognized like this (236 test wickets in 67 matches) but this thread is about Jaiswal and Pant so please stick to that.And then you will see Pakistanis glory fying abdul qadir
I think @bunda_bindaas made a good reply to this. Better to keep the discussion on Jaiswal and Pant in this thread.India has produced no test great spinners?
If you consider only Murali and Warne as ATG spinners then yeah we haven’t had one of their quality.Indians 100% fall into this trap. Its just that quality wise their > others even with a loss in form.
India throughout its test history has only produced 3 ATG test batters (Sachin, Dravid and Sunny possibly Sehwag as well tbf), One ATG test pace bowler (Bumrah) and thats it. Zero atg test spinners.
Similarly in odi theyve produced a few more gems like but the number is still 5 to 10 Max.
Everyone else gets put into this weird bracket and the term ATG gets thrown like pancakes, or some weird terminology like Indian great, crises man and what not.
Kohli, Dhoni, Laxman, Rohit, Ravi Shastri, Sanjay Madraka, Azhruddin, Pujara, Ganguly and many others are all decent.
They are good test batters and the likes of kohli gets way too much hate in test cricket but Indian fan boys have a need to toss the word the Greatest, Legend, indian great and god knows what else to make it seem like their sample pool is larger then what it actually is.
India and England are the 2 most dissapointing cricketing nations in terms of talent pool since a 1.3 B population + the literal investors and progenitor of cricket should have produced more talent then SA and Australia whos main focus isnt even cricket.
Yet aus and SA lead the charts in terms of talent( Key word talent, not trophy count, Granted Australia seems to be declining after a 100 years since their current upcoming crop aint good)
This comment was made on June 19 before my heel turn on introduction forumn with you and @Ab FanIf you consider only Murali and Warne as ATG spinners then yeah we haven’t had one of their quality.
The problem is that your criteria is too rigid if only two players qualify for it.
Post 1970s, the third best spinner is definitely an Indian, it could be Kumble or Bedi or Ashwin.

Indian spinners rarely deliver outside Asia - unlike say Nathan Lyon or Daniel VettoriIf you consider only Murali and Warne as ATG spinners then yeah we haven’t had one of their quality.
The problem is that your criteria is too rigid if only two players qualify for it.
Post 1970s, the third best spinner is definitely an Indian, it could be Kumble or Bedi or Ashwin.
Those guys are not Asian. Their entire style is different.Indian spinners rarely deliver outside Asia - unlike say Nathan Lyon or Daniel Vettori
I have seen foreign pacers win test matches in Asia ( Dale Steyn , Walsh , Anderson )Those guys are not Asian. Their entire style is different.
Foreign pacers rarely deliver in India - unlike Indian pacers.
And these spinners (Lyon, Vettori etc) are much worse in Asia, compared to Indian spinners. Even the great Shane Warne averaged 40+ in India.Those guys are not Asian. Their entire style is different.
Foreign pacers rarely deliver in India - unlike Indian pacers.
Chandrashekhar's 6/38 against England, Oval, 1971I have seen foreign pacers win test matches in Asia ( Dale Steyn , Walsh , Anderson )
Yet to see an Indian spinner win India a test in SENA
Anderson only has supporting roles in Asia tbh.I have seen foreign pacers win test matches in Asia ( Dale Steyn , Walsh , Anderson )
Yet to see an Indian spinner win India a test in SENA
Jadeja's effort was definitely not matchwinning. Chandrasekhar was well before my time. Also that 1977 test was against Australia's B team ( their A team was playing Kerry Packer's WSC )Chandrashekhar's 6/38 against England, Oval, 1971
Chandrashekhar again -- 12/104 against Australia in Melbourne, 1977
Jadeja -- 5/131 Gabba, 2021
Jadeja's efforts are as good as Anderson's in India. Support role basically.Jadeja's effort was definitely not matchwinning. Chandrasekhar was well before my time. Also that 1977 test was against Australia's B team ( their A team was playing Kerry Packer's WSC )
But this actually proves my point. Indian spinners never win us overseas test matches
Even in the limited formats, only Kuldeep has won us something and is statistically best of his generation.Jadeja's effort was definitely not matchwinning. Chandrasekhar was well before my time. Also that 1977 test was against Australia's B team ( their A team was playing Kerry Packer's WSC )
But this actually proves my point. Indian spinners never win us overseas test matches
How was that India's problem?Jadeja's effort was definitely not matchwinning. Chandrasekhar was well before my time. Also that 1977 test was against Australia's B team ( their A team was playing Kerry Packer's WSC )
But this actually proves my point. Indian spinners never win us overseas test matches
Yet to see an Indian spinner win India a test in SENA
Ashwin and Lyons away stats are pretty head to head and that too when Lyon has mostly done well in Asia only.Indian spinners rarely deliver outside Asia - unlike say Nathan Lyon or Daniel Vettori
Naah. Jadeja and Ashwin were great in CT 13.Even in the limited formats, only Kuldeep has won us something and is statistically best of his generation.
Bedi has better performances than Lyon away from home too.Indian spinners rarely deliver outside Asia - unlike say Nathan Lyon or Daniel Vettori
Naah. Jadeja and Ashwin were great in CT 13.
Ashwin and Bhajji also good in 2011.
If you reject everything that doesn't support your argument as an "anomaly" obviously you will win the argument.mention the match winning spells.
2013 CT was an anomaly. In odis, Jadeja averages 35 while Ashwin averages 33. Kuldeep is India's best-ever LOI spinner.
It’s an anomaly because such occurrences were rare. I also mentioned that statistically, Indian spinners have not been as good as World's bests. You ignored that part. Ashwin averaged 33 and Jadeja 35, and it was painful to watch them bowl through series after series without impact.If you reject everything that doesn't support your argument as an "anomaly" obviously you will win the argument.
Ashwin was great in the QF.
Harbhajan took out Umar Akmal when he had got going and then Afridi in the SF.
L Siva was the highest wicket taker in the Benson & Hedges World Series in Australia. Shastri was the MOS.It’s an anomaly because such occurrences were rare. I also mentioned that statistically, Indian spinners have not been as good as World's bests. You ignored that part. Ashwin averaged 33 and Jadeja 35, and it was painful to watch them bowl through series after series without impact.
Taking 2 wickets in a 10 over quota isn’t a match winning performance. It can only be considered game-changing if those wickets came in a short burst. Otherwise, these are pretty low standards. Sri Lanka used to choke teams in a way India never could, at least not until recently. Even par -timers often outbowled India’s strike spinners.
Kuldeep and Chahal started changing that perception, though Chahal faded away. Varun’s arrival filled that void and he had made more impact. Kuldeep deserves appreciation for maning India’s spin attack look genuinely threatening.
L Siva was the highest wicket taker in the Benson & Hedges World Series in Australia. Shastri was the MOS.
Kumble took 6 for 12 in the Hero Cup Final.
Siva took the highest wickets in the final! They were not just benefitting off the pacers. That's just plain wrong.Siva and Shastri were just benefiting from the excellent support of the pacers. Both were average spinners and averaged in the mid 30s. Siva was dropped soon after, and even in domestic cricket, he remained average. Shastri was carried for the tuktuking he did in that tournament.
The Hero Cup has no value. For a player with such a long career, averaging over 30 and having the Hero Cup victory as the biggest achievement indicates he wasn’t as great as we have been led to believe.
5fer in Adelaide 2003 1st innings too.Siva took the highest wickets in the final! They were not just benefitting off the pacers. That's just plain wrong.
Whether he lost form or got dropped later on is a different matter. The fact is, he was the HIGHEST wicket taker in the B&H World Series, organized in Australia. He along with Shastri were the major reasons why India took 49 wickets in 5 games!
He played another key role in Rothman's cup held in Sharjah, soon after, where India defended 125 against Pakistan (bowled them out for 87). Shastri was the MOS in that series too!
As for Kumble, please don't insult his outstanding performances in and outside India. He was a genunie great who took 5fers in South Africa, NZ and the West Indies. In fact, he was a part of 52 Indian Test wins, most of them because of his own contribution.
Also, Kumble

It's not just that. With the WTC in place, there is a greater emphasis on making result-oriented tracks, at least in India. Pitches in India were hardly that conducive to spin in Kumble and Harbhajan's time. Scores of 500+ were common and Andy Flower used to feast on such tracks. Jimmy Adams (yeah, the default reaction is who?), scored double hundreds for fun in India and failed as a batsman thereafter.Good Indian bowlers in general had bad stats simply because they would be the lone hand.
Guys like Kumble, Srinath, Zaheer, Bhajji would be averaging 3-4 points less if they bowled in complete packs.
Now Indian bowlers don't even average over 30.
Since Kohli became captain, no one averages over 30. In fact many are below 25.
You have to go to Shardul, the 13th highest wicket taker to even reach a 30+ average
View attachment 158559
Jimmy “Padams”It's not just that. With the WTC in place, there is a greater emphasis on making result-oriented tracks, at least in India. Pitches in India were hardly that conducive to spin in Kumble and Harbhajan's time. Scores of 500+ were common and Andy Flower used to feast on such tracks. Jimmy Adams (yeah, the default reaction is who?), scored double hundreds for fun in India and failed as a batsman thereafter.
Then there's the issue of DRS which was absent while Kumble was playing. With his accuracy, imagine how many LBWs he must have lost due to umpiring error?
Abdul Qadir was surely good enough to be recognized like this (236 test wickets in 67 matches) but this thread is about Jaiswal and Pant so please stick to that.S
Pakistan were 33 for 4 in that match, with Kapil taking 3 wickets. Both Kapil and Siva took 3 wickets each, but Kapil conceded fewer runs and had a greater impact. He had put India ahead even before Siva was introduced into the attack.Siva took the highest wickets in the final! They were not just benefitting off the pacers. That's just plain wrong.
Whether he lost form or got dropped later on is a different matter. The fact is, he was the HIGHEST wicket taker in the B&H World Series, organized in Australia. He along with Shastri were the major reasons why India took 49 wickets in 5 games!
Another random tournament. BTW, are you trying to prove Shastri was a great player?He played another key role in Rothman's cup held in Sharjah, soon after, where India defended 125 against Pakistan (bowled them out for 87). Shastri was the MOS in that series too!
As for Kumble, please don't insult his outstanding performances in and outside India. He was a genunie great who took 5fers in South Africa, NZ and the West Indies. In fact, he was a part of 52 Indian Test wins, most of them because of his own contribution.
Also, Kumble
Some poster said India never had a atg spinner
You completely forgot wadirs career avg of nearly 33
If qadirwas an atg. Why isn’t kumble or ashwin or jaddu
Pakistan were 33 for 4 in that match, with Kapil taking 3 wickets. Both Kapil and Siva took 3 wickets each, but Kapil conceded fewer runs and had a greater impact. He had put India ahead even before Siva was introduced into the attack.
Another random tournament. BTW, are you trying to prove Shastri was a great player?
I am not insulting him but the reality is that Kumble isn't an ATG. He may have contributed to many of India's wins but when you compare him to Warne and Murali, he falls behind in almost all aspects.
And here we are talking about ODIs, where not only Murali and Warne but also Saqlain was more consistent. Kumble averaged 37 in his 117 ODIs from 1999 onwards. No one can justify such mediocre numbers over such a long period.
Kuldeep is already a greater white ball spinner bar anyone but Murali tbh. Has the numbers. Has the ICC tournament performances/wins.Adding to my previous post, just for ODIs:
Muralidaran was the GOAT spinner. No one comes close to him, not Warne in particular.
Saqlain Mushtaq had a great run as a spinner but it was short-lived. As soon as he declined, he was phased out of the team, which makes his records look better in comparison.
Ravindra Jadeja, in ODIs, has a slightly better record than Kumble, when it comes to wins for India!
Daniel Vettori is another shout out for ODIs, similar stats to Jadeja in wins, less wickets per match but highly impressive ER.
And, of course, Kumble still has one of the most impressive stats as a spinner in ODIs.
P.S. Kuldeep will beat both Kumble and Jadeja; Saqlain and Warne too, but Murali is a bridge too far!
That still doesn't change the fact that Siva was the HIGHEST wicket taker in the tournament. In Australia, on Australian pitches that don't generally help spinners.
Shastri wasn't a great player, but he had great moments (peaks) as a player. That's undeniable.
Yeah, compared to Warne and Murali, all spin bowlers fall behind in some or the other aspect. That makes him the 3rd best spin bowler of all time, in Test Matches. That's hardly a slight on Kumble's career.
In ODIs, Kumble was a part of 127 wins for India, taking 198 wickets at 23.6 with an ER less than 4. He had 6 4fers and 2 5fers in those games. His SR in wins was 35. How are these numbers mediocre?
Shane Warne, for all his greatness, took 16 more wickets than Kumble in ODI wins, with a slightly worse economy (but better SR). And he had bowlers like McGrath supporting him!
I think we are getting into an unending debate with too much stats filtering, so I will get straight to the point. No matter which criteria you apply, you will see that Anil Kumble or for that matter any other Indian spinner or pacer before the Bumrah-Kuldeep era lags behind the best bowlers in the world from their respective eras on most parameters. Whether Kumble was the third best spinner of his era or not is debatable, but he is certainly not in the top tier. At best, he can be called the third best of his time, and if being the third best of his era makes him the third best of all time, that means no other era produced any great spinners.Adding to my previous post, just for ODIs:
Muralidaran was the GOAT spinner. No one comes close to him, not Warne in particular.
Saqlain Mushtaq had a great run as a spinner but it was short-lived. As soon as he declined, he was phased out of the team, which makes his records look better in comparison.
Ravindra Jadeja, in ODIs, has a slightly better record than Kumble, when it comes to wins for India!
Daniel Vettori is another shout out for ODIs, similar stats to Jadeja in wins, less wickets per match but highly impressive ER.
And, of course, Kumble still has one of the most impressive stats as a spinner in ODIs.
P.S. Kuldeep will beat both Kumble and Jadeja; Saqlain and Warne too, but Murali is a bridge too far!
Whether Kumble was the third best spinner of his era or not is debatable, but he is certainly not in the top tier. At best, he can be called the third best of his time, and if being the third best of his era makes him the third best of all time, that means no other era produced any great spinners.
You said that Saqlain had a short-lived good run, but he averaged 15.84 in winning matches with 188 wickets in 93 games and 288 wickets in 163 ODIs overall. Those are elite numbers. Yes, he didn't have longevity of Murali but statiscally, he is far ahead of Kumble.
You tried to project that Shane Warne was close to Anil Kumble, but with every filter you apply, Warne will still be ahead. And most importantly, Warne won Australia the semifinal where South Africa were 48-0 after seeing off the opening spell of Glenn McGrath. Warne changed the match within two overs. So he was not just dependent on McGrath for his success.
Our bowlers, historically, have not been as good as we made ourselves believe. They lagged behind their contemporaries.
You should turn babyface now that Cena has also turned babyface after being monster heel for a while.This comment was made on June 19 before my heel turn on introduction forumn with you and @Ab Fan![]()
SureYou should turn babyface now that Cena has also turned babyface after being monster heel for a while.
okay but I blame @cricketjoshila for thisThis thread is about Rishab pant and jaiswal
Not kumble or qadir is saqlain
Stick to the topic.
I don't want to derail this thread any further, so I will make a short post, and this will be my last on this topic.To add more context to the debate: (not a personal attack, but why @RyanRyan10's arguments are wrong)
1) Kumble often operated as India's primary spin weapon without a dominant pacer taking early wickets for him. His ability to apply pressure and take wickets over long, really long and tireless spells, was a defining characteristic of his greatness and not a function of a star-studded attack.
2) The argument that if a bowler isn't the absolute best of their era (e.g., Kumble being potentially third behind Warne and Murali), they cannot be an "all-time great." This ignores the concept of a "golden age" where multiple generational talents can actually co-exist. The presence of Warne and Murali does not diminish Kumble's achievements, and greatness is certainly not a zero-sum game.
3) Cherry-picking of statistics to prove a point while ignoring the bigger picture: Kumble's career average in ODIs was impacted by a significant shoulder injury sustained in 2001. Acknowledging this provides a more accurate view of his performance. Similarly, Saqlain's shorter career and his incredible numbers in winning matches are used to dismiss Kumble, but this ignores Kumble's greater volume and Test performance, compared to Saqlain.
4) The spin quartet's era saw India transform from a team that often played for draws into a winning side, securing historic victories overseas. This was literally real-life inspiring art (in the future), as in the movie Lagaan. We literally created upsets that would have odds of at least 100:1, today.
In conclusion, this is a classic example of historical revisionism seen through a reductive lens. The debate is flawed when it discards context, ignores systemic differences between eras, and cherry-picks data to support a predetermined narrative.
