Best ever English spinner?

[zaremba]

I made no suggestion of disregarding anything - simply said that a one-off event which is obviously famous (which Laker's 19-90 was, and Verity's 10 for 10 simply doesn't come close to in terms of wide repute) will often mean people who don't know much about cricket history will often vote for the perpetrator ahead of someone who they've never heard of because he didn't have such a famous one-off performance, even if that person might have been a better performer over a longer time.

I agree. I think they'd be better off voting for the person they've never heard of.

Jeesh.

 

[Richard]

The point is they'd be better off not voting at all. It does irritate me a little when things (even those of little importance like CW polls) are prejudiced by people voting for not what they believe best, but the only thing they know due to a relatively small body of knowledge on the subject.

I've been guilty of this in the past myself, and doubtless will find-out more cases where I have been as I learn more about cricket history in future.

 

[zaremba]

The point is they'd be better off not voting at all. It does irritate me a little when things (even those of little importance like CW polls) are prejudiced by people voting for not what they believe best, but the only thing they know due to a relatively small body of knowledge on the subject.

I've been guilty of this in the past myself, and doubtless will find-out more cases where I have been as I learn more about cricket history in future.

Where to start with this?

First, this is a poll on a cricket website. It will not lead to the selection or non-selection of players for England's winter schedule (Laker and Verity are in any event sadly unavailable to tour). Talking about "prejudicing" the result suggests a slight loss of perspective.

Second, ignorant / biased / stupid / indifferent fellow-voters are an inescapable hazard of any democratic process. Their views do not "prejudice" the result, they produce the result. And ignorance (etc) is really in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps others participating in the poll are irritated by the result being skewed by your views (eg, some might say, your readiness to discount player's "anomalous" performances)?

Third, as I pointed out in my previous post Lakers' performances in 1956 were extraordinary and unparalleled and are a large part of why he is rightly regarded as a great player. It's neither surprising nor unreasonable that people should attach considerable weight to them.

 

[fredfertang]

As regards the "conspiracy theory" stuff, I damn well hope it's true, because if so it's quite bloody right. As a home team, you are stupid if you don't play to your strengths. If you've two spinners of the calibre of Lock and Laker, you prepare turning surfaces unless you're a complete dunderhead or don't actually want to win the series.

Rigby's is an interesting book - marshalls all the evidence on the conspiracy and leaves the reader to make up their own mind

 

[Tom Halsey]

In the 1900s, 1920s and 1930s, not a little domestic cricket was of a higher standard than Tests.

But if this is the case, why is Verity's Test average 24 and his First-Class average something ridiculous like 14?

 

[steds]

I don't think having to bowl at Bradman in nearly half of his Tests helped.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I don't think having to bowl at Bradman in nearly half of his Tests helped.

But Verity's record against Bradman was actually very good indeed, so it didn't harm his average as much as it might have done.

 

[fredfertang]

But if this is the case, why is Verity's Test average 24 and his First-Class average something ridiculous like 14?

The County Championship in those days was a bit like the Premiership - there was a huge gulf between the leading counties and the rest so plenty of cheap wickets for the leading bowlers most of the time but I do agree with Richard - the leading counties games, and Gents v Players, were hugely competitive and played in front of large crowds

 

[Tom Halsey]

Indeed, I don't deny that, I just don't see the value in comparing overall FC averages because, as you say, a lot of it was very weak.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Where to start with this?

The best plan is not to bother.

 

[aussie]

From what i've read i'd give the nod to Hedley Verity.

 

[JBH001]

Of course the Australians have always maintained there was a conspiracy between the Lancashire and England authorities to produce a pitch that would break up early on and make Laker and Lock unplayable - Aussie opener Colin MacDonald was still maintaining that in 2004 when he was interviewed for the 50th anniversary book about the game that Vic Rigby published in 2006 – but even if the conspiracy theory were true I dont see how it can devalue that particular achievement...

Yep. I think even Benaud suggests something similiar. He was certainly clear that when England toured Australia in 58/59 the Australian batsmen were out to get him. But, they never could. Laker took 15 wickets at 21 for ER of 2 (iirc) in the series, and as Benaud says, try as the Australian batsman did, they simply could not get at him.

Laker apparently used to give the ball a real rip too, again according to Benaud, you could almost hear the 'fizz' on the ball as it came down the pitch at you.

 

[archie mac]

Yep. I think even Benaud suggests something similiar. He was certainly clear that when England toured Australia in 58/59 the Australian batsmen were out to get him. But, they never could. Laker took 15 wickets at 21 for ER of 2 (iirc) in the series, and as Benaud says, try as the Australian batsman did, they simply could not get at him.

Laker apparently used to give the ball a real rip too, again according to Benaud, you could almost hear the 'fizz' on the ball as it came down the pitch at you.

One of the reasons I voted for him tbh, all the Aussie learned to respect Laker after that series.

I do think that it can be suggested that Laker was a bit of a 'sook', and could go missing on occasions; leaving series and not playing when having a little niggle on occasions

 

[fredfertang]

It is well documented that the Old Trafford groundsman telephoned the chairman of selectors on the afternoon before the test to say the pitch needed watering and asking for guidance - skipper May was approached and as a result instructions went back down the line not to water - whether that amounts to preparing a wicket to suit your own team (which I agree with Richard is fine) or deliberate under preparation (which I think is a whole different can of worms) I don't have the knowledge to express a view on - what is clear though is that the Australians seem to have had little trouble getting to 48-0 before their ignominious collapse to 84 all out

"Ten little Aussie boys lakered in a row"

 

[BoyBrumby]

One of the reasons I voted for him tbh, all the Aussie learned to respect Laker after that series.

I do think that it can be suggested that Laker was a bit of a 'sook', and could go missing on occasions; leaving series and not playing when having a little niggle on occasions

From what I've read, Laker wasn't universally popular amongst his team-mates. There was a rather good article in The Oberserver Sport Monthly a couple of years ago in their Heroes & Villians series (link) wherein Peter Richardson described him as "Slightly cynical" & said of his relationship with Tony Lock that "It was no secret they didn't get on. They were always competing."

Peter May seems to back up the idea that Laker played mainly for Laker: "The mere idea of [Laker] showing enthusiasm is absurd."

 

[DaRick]

From what I've read, Jim Laker. At any rate, it's hard to look past a man who takes 10 wickets in an innings - against Australia, no less. The feat is of immeasurable symbolic significance, IMO. Wilfred Rhodes could pass of as an all-rounder (and bowled on dodgier pitches), while Verity and Underwood fail to match Laker statistically. It has also been said that Laker could bowl well on unhelpful pitches (Australia 1958/59), whereas somebody like Underwood was decidely less lethal on covered pitches.

 

[Richard]

It is well documented that the Old Trafford groundsman telephoned the chairman of selectors on the afternoon before the test to say the pitch needed watering and asking for guidance - skipper May was approached and as a result instructions went back down the line not to water - whether that amounts to preparing a wicket to suit your own team (which I agree with Richard is fine) or deliberate under preparation (which I think is a whole different can of worms) I don't have the knowledge to express a view on - what is clear though is that the Australians seem to have had little trouble getting to 48-0 before their ignominious collapse to 84 all out

"Ten little Aussie boys lakered in a row"

To under-prepare, however, requires that there is some amount of preparation stipulated as "required preparation".

Which, well... there isn't and cannot be. You cannot tell anyone (groundsmen or those responsible for giving groundsmen their orders) that there is a certain amount of preparation they must undertake - apart from that the pitch must not be able to be adjudged dangerous.

I'm happy for whatever preparation - extensive or rudimentary - to be used that is required by the home team on pitches TBH. Obivously, it's to no-one's advantage to be constantly having games on poor batting tracks that last 2-and-a-half days, as not only is revenue lost drastically but the game becomes one-dimensional. However, certain times (including desperate) call for certain measures. Mostly, you want to prepare a surface that gives batsmen some element of a chance, but occasionally you want to make it really, really difficult for them. And I don't mind, as long as it doesn't become commonplace. The fact that it's pretty well invariably the losing team, and occasionally batsmen on both sides, that complains about pitches which see wickets falling quickly and cheaply really does make it look like nothing but sour-grapes.

 

[Richard]

Where to start with this?

First, this is a poll on a cricket website. It will not lead to the selection or non-selection of players for England's winter schedule (Laker and Verity are in any event sadly unavailable to tour). Talking about "prejudicing" the result suggests a slight loss of perspective.

I did make some amount of effort to emphasise the fact that it's not really a life-or-death matter, did I not?

Second, ignorant / biased / stupid / indifferent fellow-voters are an inescapable hazard of any democratic process. Their views do not "prejudice" the result, they produce the result.

Unfortunately so. If so, they produce a result of less interest, far less interest, than would be the case if informed people only produced it.

And ignorance (etc) is really in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps others participating in the poll are irritated by the result being skewed by your views (eg, some might say, your readiness to discount player's "anomalous" performances)?

If so, they can take it out with me, I've no objection. For instance, I feel that separating (not discounting) players' anomalous performances into different categories than a main makes perfect sense, more so than treating all as equal and the same.

I doubt, however, that my views skew this poll in any way.

Third, as I pointed out in my previous post Lakers' performances in 1956 were extraordinary and unparalleled and are a large part of why he is rightly regarded as a great player. It's neither surprising nor unreasonable that people should attach considerable weight to them.

This is more than fair enough. But to attach all weight to that and nothing to anything else, well... is simply wrong.

 

[Days of Grace]

Penny for anyone's thoughts of Wardle, who has one of the best averages of any post-Great War bowler. This is mainly due to his economy-rate, however.

 

[laksh_01]

Pls Click, Lets Promote:
http://cricket2012games.com/index.html