Talk:Left-arm orthodox spin

Examples of left-arm spinners

I think that Dwayne Leverock and Michael Clarke should be included in the list of examples. Leverock is well known, a specialist left-arm spinner and has been successful. Although Clarke is primarily a batsman, he is well known and has also enjoyed success - he once took 6 wickets in an innings Kuifjeenbobbie 08:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We have generally not have part-timers like Clarke, Yuvraj, Tendulkar, Sehwag, etc on the associated articles. The reason I object to Clarke is that also that his six wickets was a once off...has he ever taken on any other occasion two wickets in a Test or anything? Otherwise that would mean that Jason Gillespie could be a batsman. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added Monty Panesar to the list. I have not created a page from scratch before so I would appreciate any help. Timpailthorpe 09:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There was already a page on him at Monty Panesar. I just linked using [[ and ]] around his name Sam Vimes 09:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Inzi - he's neither a bowler nor historic

That animation seems to suggest left-armers are a pretty defensive bunch, coming over the wicket. How about one from around that drifts in and spins out? Lfh 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

i think vishal vishwakarma is the best left arm spinner in the world

Rafique

To not include Mohammed Rafique the most successfully and recognisable bowler in Bangladeshi international cricket is a crime!Just because his test average is 0.76 runs above 40 is no reason to exclude him and by doing so the validity and completness of this wikipedia page is comprimised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldine Baptiste (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Rafique should be included. The argument about 40+ average falls down by the fact that Ashley Giles, Nicky Boje and Ravi Shastri had Test averages of plus 40, then there's Palwankar Baloo who never even played Test cricket and Abdur Rehman/Mohammad Hussain have played only two matches, Rafique is easily comparable to all of these. Checking the history of the article I see that YM has often reverted changes to the list, a case of WP:OWN perhaps. The whole list should be removed if the needless reverting continues. --89.168.162.49 (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mohammed Rafique must be included in the list he was great bowler for Bangladesh and their leading test wicket taker, this certainly qualifies him to included in a list of notable left arm spinners. His name should not keep on being deleted from the list, otherwise list is not complete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaman1787 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

The page has been protected from editing because of a dispute as to who qualifies for listing. On seeing the history of the page, long-standing article standards appears to be an average of less than 35-40 and full-time bowlers or all-rounders (no part-time bowlers). This standard appears to be disputed now. If the standards should be changed, please arrive at consensus on this page and I will unprotect it. —SpacemanSpiff 05:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an ANI thread about this now. I personally think that protection was a bit hastey considering that Yellowmonkey hasn't had the chance to discuss it above. The IP appears happy to discuss it, and so long as he/she understands not to make any changes until consensus has been reached, then I believe it should be unprotected, but not before. SGGH ^ping! 11:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't had a chance to discuss it? I directed him to the talkpage on the 8 February [1]. It's clear that YM doesn't want to discuss it. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I've asked them both again. Glad to see you are beginning discussion below. Thank you. SGGH ^ping! 11:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I smell sockpuppetry frankly. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

criteria for notability

Shall we set up some guidelines for notability to prevent people in the future just added their own opinions to the list? Should inclusion be based on statistics? Based on subjective belief of reliable third party sources? Based on impact on the game? Based on impact on the game relative to players of the same nation? Opinions? SGGH ^ping! 11:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of those measures are subjective so to avoid future disputes it would be much better to have a quanifitable qualification such as 100 international wickets, either that or remove the list of names completely. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd be in favour of removing the names altogether. Link to a category page, and mention some in the prose section if relevant (ie. while not on this page, comments on the difference in spin can be discussed using Kumble and Warne) however, on these pages, and on team / county / country pages, I'm against the inclusion of 'notable players', purely because it is too subjective. And once you add in quantifiable stats, you can remove good players who didn't have enough games, or played on the wrong type of pitches to favour their figures, which is just as unfair. Harrias (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article should have a list at all, this one seems too long. Also "notable" is perhaps a poor choice of word, since any player who has a Wiki article, even an average county performer, is supposed to be "notable" in Wikipedia terms. I'd quibble over two of the three Australian names. Bill Johnston bowled mainly LFM, and Vert Ironmonger seems to have been a "one off": not exactly "orthodox" but not a wrist-spinner either. JH (talk page) 18:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Playfair and Wisden seem good sources for this and there must be local cricket almanacs that cover players not listed in the former. Surely, as anything, if its not sourced to a RS we shouldn't really carry it if there is a dispute. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support some kind of measure that was not affected by the nationality or period of the player's era (ie average or numbers of wickets, both of which are subjective for these reasons). So, either use the ICC ratings machine, as YM has suggested, or a list from an RS. Otherwise, ditch it as unverifiable and POV. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad this issue is being discussed, I would propose to limit the list to bowlers who have taken 100 test or ODI wickets (source Wisden, Cricinfo etc) and remove the country designation. This approach would shorten the list and - after all if you've taken that number wickets at international level your "notable" status is proven. Best Wishes to all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldine Baptiste (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable Bowlers

I think some players should be included on the page. I also agree that there should be some criteria such as 100 (or even 200) international wickets. Also maybe limit it to one player per country? I already edited the page without regard to this discussion, remove changes as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatsoundzforever (talk • contribs) 11:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Animation

I'm confused by the animation. It looks like an animation of someone bowling from the right side. Kenanwang (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The video? The man depicted, Garry Keedy, is a left-arm orthodox spin bowler. Nev1 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the animation - the angle and track of the ball shown is for a left-arm-over bowler. To right-handed batsmen, SLAs have traditionally operated from round the wicket, angling the ball in and then spinning it back towards the off - not least because this gives a far better chance for an lbw dismissal. Captain Pedant (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)