Aussie spin

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'd prefer people didn't keep saying "there are lots of promising young spinners in Australia", when the truth of the matter is "there are lots of young spinners in Australia".

Time will tell whether they show promise - for sure, they're doing nothing of the sort right now.

Who has said there are lots of promising young spinners in Australia? There are young spinners in Australia, and certain people may believe that one or another of them shows promise, but I've never seen anyone argue that Australia had an army of young geniuses waiting to take over Warne's legacy.

Obviously Australia has a very good domestic setup and spin bowling has been very popular here in the last decade for obvious reasons, so there's as good a chance now as at any point in time that a spinner will emerge in the next few years. And given the retirement of Warne, attention is as high now on young spinners as it ever has been. I've not seen anyone claim however that Australia had ready-made test players, and indeed our chairman of selectors came out the other day and said that the current crop of young spinners needed more time to develop before they were ready for test cricket.

From the current stock, Cullen has been rated very highly by a number of people because he started so well in first class cricket and bowled to a lot of current Australian players and impressed them. In recent times his reputation has dropped a little, and he's unlikely to make the world cup squad at this point. Hauritz was rated some years ago as a big talent for similar sorts of reasons. And Cameron White got a lot of hype because he was a young leggie from Victoria, but has so far proven to be a better batsman than a bowler.

Regarding the rest, there's not really much hype at all. If anything, Bailey's been somewhat ignored, given that he played in an Australia A series and clearly outbowled Dan Cullen throughout. Casson's barely getting a game for NSW, and the same goes for the likes of Doran. There's a few other spinners around the place in Australian first class cricket like Doherty that I've never seen overhyped by anyone. You seem to be taking mere discussion of Australian spin prospects as endorsement of immense talent, which it isn't.

EDIT: One other thing, too. How exactly are you equipped to judge whether or not these players "show promise" or not? By its very definition, promise has to be shown before strong performances actually occur, and would happen in club cricket, in net bowling, at the academy and so on, as well as in first class games. Given that you've got no knowledge of any of these things and haven't been attending Pura Cup matches, on what evidence are you judging the promise or lack of it of, say, Cullen Bailey?

 

[Goughy]

No, I said the opposite - I said consistency (which will result in a good average) is what you're looking for. As Goughy also pointed-out (hardly takes Einstein, but still) every bowler is going to have bad days, but if someone can consistently take 3-53 and 4-68, etc. they're doing just fine for me. Of course, as with the 0-103s, you'll also get 6-58s.

Ha, I intentionally broke it down for someone with your basic understanding of the game.

Ill freely admit that you have a good knowledge of the game but your understanding is sorely limited.

A product, I guess, of never playing the game and learning everything from TV and scorecards.

 

[The Baconator]

The first post might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I reckon Australia might have some problems with spin down the line. From an outsider's view right now it looks like once MacGill goes it might be a bit of a lottery to see if anyone fulfils their potential and becomes a quality spinner. I can't see Australia going too long without producing a good spinner though.

 

[Richard]

Personally, I think 150 wickets for an average of a tick over 30 is perfectly respectable in this day and age, especially when you rarely played two matches in a row and often get dragged around as tour baggage.

It works the other way, too - if you've got 150 wickets in 35 Tests you damn well shouldn't be averaging over 30.

And playing only occasionally is often more of a help than a hindrance - mainly because, as I mentioned, you always become a better player when out of the side than in.

So every team's test selectors are horribly wrong and are looking over the painfully obvious and proven? I somehow doubt that.

Not only selectors, the "you've got to have variety" brigade outnumber the "don't be so utterly stupid, you've got to pick your best bowlers" in selectors, media, and small-time connoissers. And they're all wrong - all-pace attacks have proven quite effective in many circumstances, and poor-quality spinners have added nothing to poor pace attacks many times, too - but those are usually overlooked for the few occasions all-pace attacks stuff-up.

 

[silentstriker]

A product, I guess, of never playing the game and learning everything from TV and scorecards.

 

[Richard]

Who has said there are lots of promising young spinners in Australia? There are young spinners in Australia, and certain people may believe that one or another of them shows promise, but I've never seen anyone argue that Australia had an army of young geniuses waiting to take over Warne's legacy.

In which case, frankly, you haven't been reading around. Maybe not many have come on quite that strong, but many seem to assume Australia will before long have another spinner who's producing match-winning spells pretty often.

I've lost count of the number of "there are lots of promising young spinners in Australia" that I've heard and read. And, as you yourself (and maybe some of the more realistic Aussie supporters on this board) admit, it's far from the truth.

Obviously Australia has a very good domestic setup and spin bowling has been very popular here in the last decade for obvious reasons, so there's as good a chance now as at any point in time that a spinner will emerge in the next few years.

Why is there? Just because you like bowling spin, it doesn't mean you're going to be more capable of doing it. Otherwise anyone who idolised Warne could just go out there and follow him.

From the current stock, Cullen has been rated very highly by a number of people because he started so well in first class cricket and bowled to a lot of current Australian players and impressed them. In recent times his reputation has dropped a little, and he's unlikely to make the world cup squad at this point. Hauritz was rated some years ago as a big talent for similar sorts of reasons.

Similar experiences in England with Richard Dawson and Gary Keedy and the like. Going crazy about players because they've managed a whole one good season is utterly stupid. Maybe if people hadn't, the likes of Cullen would never be being remotely seriously considered for international cricket.

One other thing, too. How exactly are you equipped to judge whether or not these players "show promise" or not? By its very definition, promise has to be shown before strong performances actually occur, and would happen in club cricket, in net bowling, at the academy and so on, as well as in first class games. Given that you've got no knowledge of any of these things and haven't been attending Pura Cup matches, on what evidence are you judging the promise or lack of it of, say, Cullen Bailey?

Believe it or not, you don't have to attend something to learn of it. Sure, players are going to bowl well in club matches and in the nets - people argued Liam Plunkett showed promise for the same reason - but if you can't make the step up to the First-Class level you haven't shown much promise as far as I'm concerned. "Showing promise" to me is about putting in the odd performance here and there, not looking good, because anyone can look good.

 

[Richard]

Ha, I intentionally broke it down for someone with your basic understanding of the game.

Ill freely admit that you have a good knowledge of the game but your understanding is sorely limited.

A product, I guess, of never playing the game and learning everything from TV and scorecards.

So tell me, what's the difference between watching a game on TV and playing it? The rules are the same, the game is absolutely identical, the only difference is the standard.

And incidentally, what makes you think I've never played the game?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

In which case, frankly, you haven't been reading around. Maybe not many have come on quite that strong, but many seem to assume Australia will before long have another spinner who's producing match-winning spells pretty often.

I don't suppose you've got any examples of this? Because in all seriousness, I've not seen a single article that comes remotely close to this perspective. On the contrary, the general tone of comments surrounding the Warne retirement has been how much Australia will miss him and how difficult he will be to replace.

Why is there? Just because you like bowling spin, it doesn't mean you're going to be more capable of doing it. Otherwise anyone who idolised Warne could just go out there and follow him.

Right, but if a particular art is popular in a particular area, it's more likely that players will develop who are good at it, particularly if they have the support of a strong domestic cricket setup. It's not a guarantee, but I don't think your argument that Australia didn't have a quality legspinner between Benaud and Warne therefore they won't have another one until 2040 really holds much water. They might not, but then again there might be another great spinner already around who grew up watching Warne. It's anybody's guess.

Believe it or not, you don't have to attend something to learn of it. Sure, players are going to bowl well in club matches and in the nets - people argued Liam Plunkett showed promise for the same reason - but if you can't make the step up to the First-Class level you haven't shown much promise as far as I'm concerned. "Showing promise" to me is about putting in the odd performance here and there, not looking good, because anyone can look good.

I agree in a sense that promise can be shown by occasional good performances, but you tend to ignore those as well. Cullen did afterall finish as the second highest wicket taker in a full first class season and you don't consider that to be "showing potential", so how the hell does a player show potential aside from taking 100 test wickets @ 20? Certainly by the "odd performance" standard, both Cullen and Bailey have shown potential. Cullen bowled consistently well for a whole season, while Bailey's taken 9 wickets in a first class match and bowled well for Australia A, in a pretty short career so far.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Richard is to CC as Darren Gough is to our ODI team: when he's not around you start to think it'd be great if he came back, but when he does....

Seriously tho, it's nice to have the alternative viewpoint expressed, how weird or wacky it happens to be.

He's harsh on Tim May too, for mine, who's the only one of the Oz twirlers he mentions I've seen enough of to judge. I thought he was decidely decent, not world-class or anything, but capable of doing a job. I'd guess his figures would compare pretty favourably to any offie we've produced since covered pitches became the norm.

 

[Richard]

I don't suppose you've got any examples of this? Because in all seriousness, I've not seen a single article that comes remotely close to this perspective. On the contrary, the general tone of comments surrounding the Warne retirement has been how much Australia will miss him and how difficult he will be to replace.

Not an article from a genuine cricket correspondent (though I've not heard anyone talk like you in "there are clearly none who are ready to step-up right now”), just posted comments on blogs by random members of public and things that are said by the likes of Warne in press-conferences.

I'm not in Australia so cannot gauge the "general tone", but the few impressions I've got are of a nation in delusion.

Right, but if a particular art is popular in a particular area, it's more likely that players will develop who are good at it, particularly if they have the support of a strong domestic cricket setup. It's not a guarantee, but I don't think your argument that Australia didn't have a quality legspinner between Benaud and Warne therefore they won't have another one until 2040 really holds much water. They might not, but then again there might be another great spinner already around who grew up watching Warne. It's anybody's guess.

I never said "Australia aren't likely to have another quality wristspinner till 2040", did I? They had two in a row (whose careers overlapped) with Grimmett and O'Reilly. I said it's incredibly unlikely that there'll be another for quite a few years yet, no matter how many people are trying. I don't doubt more people are showing an interest in wristspin in Australia now than, say, 32 years ago, and yes, that does lower the odds slightly, but only slightly.

I agree in a sense that promise can be shown by occasional good performances, but you tend to ignore those as well. Cullen did afterall finish as the second highest wicket taker in a full first class season and you don't consider that to be "showing potential", so how the hell does a player show potential aside from taking 100 test wickets @ 20? Certainly by the "odd performance" standard, both Cullen and Bailey have shown potential. Cullen bowled consistently well for a whole season, while Bailey's taken 9 wickets in a first class match and bowled well for Australia A, in a pretty short career so far.

So maybe he has shown some potential - it's still pretty isolated, though.

And I've said it a few times before - wristspin's an incredibly difficult art, and if Australia seriously find another bowler even close to the MacGill standard in the next 3-4 years they'll have been unbelievably lucky, given the number of Sellars', Sincocks, Eastwoods, Watkins', Jenners, Hollands and Hohnses there were in the Benaud-Warne interim.

I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that IF Bailey ever does play Test cricket, he won't have a long and successful career.

As I've already said about Cullen - quite a few bowlers have a decent first season (and that's all it was - nothing sensational, just decent for a start). Since then, he's done virtually nothing of note, in Aus or Eng.

I might add that there are ALREADY people here in England who're talking as if Adil Rashid, who is yet to turn 19 IIRR, is a nailed-in certainty for the 2009 Ashes, which is just stupid beyond belief. He could disappear without trace this season. I do hope he doesn't, but I'm not expecting him to go and take 70 wickets at 23, which is what he'd need to do to get on track for such a thing.

 

[Richard]

Richard is to CC as Darren Gough is to our ODI team: when he's not around you start to think it'd be great if he came back, but when he does....

Seriously tho, it's nice to have the alternative viewpoint expressed, how weird or wacky it happens to be.

If that was genuine (and given the rarity you use it it appears so) those first two paragraphs are somewhat contradictory.

He's harsh on Tim May too, for mine, who's the only one of the Oz twirlers he mentions I've seen enough of to judge. I thought he was decidely decent, not world-class or anything, but capable of doing a job. I'd guess his figures would compare pretty favourably to any offie we've produced since covered pitches became the norm.

How many times did you see him against teams other than England? Come to that, how many times did you see him other than in 1993 (and maybe 1994\95, when I wouldn't imagine he impressed you or too many others given that he took 1 wicket in 3 Tests)?

Tim May wasn't as bad as some, sure, but as fingerspinners go he was little different to, say, the post-covered-pitches Underwood, John Emburey or Phillipe-Henri Edmonds - the odd good game here and there on turning surfaces (Karachi and Lahore 1988\89, 1-run-win 1992\93, Edgbaston 1993, presumably Bellerive 1994\95), but not much else. All right, he had 2 unexpectedly good games in 1993 (Lord's and Headingley), but seriously, that was one of England's few genuinely terrible series of the 1990s and the local butcher would've had a shot at such a thing.

 

[adharcric]

Time will tell whether they show promise - for sure, they're doing nothing of the sort right now.

Exactly. Time will tell whether Australia can produce a spinner anywhere close to Warne's class in the near future.

I've never heard the words to effect of "we're not going to see anyone close to Shane Warne's level for a long, long time" come from any Aussies at all.

Time will tell, right? How do you expect anyone to claim that we definitely will not see anyone in Warne's class in a long time then?

I'll admit that maybe I've misgauged the feeling on the board - I have been absent for rather a while - and maybe there's more acceptance of the reality here.

Surely you have. Following the retirement of a legend, you would expect two things from (Aussie) fans: uncertainty regarding the future and optimism regarding the potential replacements. Optimism does not imply that these prospects have been overrated - they have merely been discussed extensively and time will tell who emerges from among them.

 

[adharcric]

Haha, I thought of you when I read that too.

 

[Richard]

Time will tell, right? How do you expect anyone to claim that we definitely will not see anyone in Warne's class in a long time then?

All right, that was poorly phrased, will change it.

EDIT: just in time, too! Another 10 minutes and that'd have been all-over-red-rover.

 

[Prince EWS]

In which case, frankly, you haven't been reading around. Maybe not many have come on quite that strong, but many seem to assume Australia will before long have another spinner who's producing match-winning spells pretty often.

I've lost count of the number of "there are lots of promising young spinners in Australia" that I've heard and read. And, as you yourself (and maybe some of the more realistic Aussie supporters on this board) admit, it's far from the truth.

It appears that your gripe exists away from Cricketweb posters, so why post your rant here? Either you are making up all these supposed claims of Australian spin dominance in the waiting because your thread has backfired or you, or you're preaching to the choir anyway. We all realise that Australia could be in some trouble with their spin stocks post-Warne and apart from your (somewhat expected) ripping apart of MacGill's stats to suit your own agenda, your opening post was stating the obvious.

 

[Richard]

It appears that your gripe exists away from Cricketweb posters, so why post your rant here?

Quite simply, because there isn't actually anywhere else to post it.

I'm not a Tim de Lisle who can just blog something and have anyone read the stuff.

If I offended the sensibilities of anyone, I apologise, I sometimes forget that the standard of discussion and realisation is generally higher here than on other message-boards.

 

[Richard]

apart from your (somewhat expected) ripping apart of MacGill's stats to suit your own agenda

Oh - and what's so different to those who'll happily include nonsense games like Bangladesh and ICC World XIs to suit their own agendas (ie to make MacGill look better than he is)?

 

[Prince EWS]

Oh - and what's so different to those who'll happily include nonsense games like Bangladesh and ICC World XIs to suit their own agendas (ie to make MacGill look better than he is)?

As I said before, I have no problem with the removal of those matches - I agree that they are irrelevant. I was referring to your butchering of his stats - that being to find out how many "good" games he had played in relation to "bad" ones. That was obviously agenda-suiting tripe. He record is perfectly acceptable for a test leg spin bowler in this day and age.

 

[Richard]

I was referring to your butchering of his stats - that being to find out how many "good" games he had played in relation to "bad" ones.

How on Earth is that "butchering" of stats?

That's the single most basic stat of all, the ratio of good games to poor ones. Far more important than runs\wickets or balls-bowled\wickets.

It's the first thing to judge a player on, the regularity with which he has performed well and poorly.

And with MacGill his record is pretty poor in that respect.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's the single most basic stat of all, the ratio of good games to poor ones. Far more important than runs\wickets or balls-bowled\wickets.

As for 5-fors - I don't give a damn about em. It's average that counts

.....