The Art of Leg-spin (Wrist Spin) in a dfficult place ?

[Top_Cat]

Weird player, though. The more I think about it, the more I remember, post WC knock, it vacillated between whether he was a bowling or batting AR a lot. But, pre-WC knock, I honestly only knew of him as a bowler who could smack them. Think the perception was that whilst he could bat very well, it wasn't that often that he did so had to get in the side on his bowling.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's the thing though. Having more than one string to his bow allowed him games at FC level in Australia, but he was seen as a batsman who bowled handily, not the other way around.

He just straight up wasn't though. He was batting 8-11 and playing as a frontline spinner. You can't just keep ignoring that fact. He even batted below Brad ****ing Williams in a game for some reason.

 

[benchmark00]

Batting 5 or 6 in grade cricket doesn't make you a batting allrounder if you're taking lots of poles as well and average 8 with the bat in the Shield batting in the tail below world class batsmen David Saker, Paul Reiffel and Shane Warne, all the while getting through ****loads of overs. Otherwise, come on down batting allrounders Jason Krejza and Nathan Hauritz.

There's no doubt he had some batting ability, but he was a bowler for the vast majority of his cricketing life and even after he played that World Cup innings he was still employed principally as a bowler in most of the cricket he played. That innings he played changed a lot of people's perceptions of him as a player so of course a lot of people are going to think he was a batsman or a batting allrounder, including the ****s you talk to no doubt, but it doesn't make it any less of a myth. In limited overs cricket he was probably more of an even allrounder by his mid to late 30s but he was certainly more of a bowler throughout his career.

You can tell me I'm wrong all I like and make assumptions about exactly how I could've become so misguided as to disagree with you but you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think John Davison was a batting allrounder.

You mean the guys who knew him pre-world cup? K.

 

[Spikey]

btw guys, john davison was a bowling all-rounder

 

[Top_Cat]

That's the thing though. Having more than one string to his bow allowed him games at FC level in Australia, but he was seen as a batsman who bowled handily, not the other way around.

Maybe that he could hold the stick relatively straight flattered perceptions of his batting?

 

[benchmark00]

He just straight up wasn't though. He was batting 8-11 and playing as a frontline spinner. You can't just keep ignoring that fact. He even batted below Brad ****ing Williams in a game for some reason.

Why are you ignoring the fact that he wasn't good enough at FC level as a bowler or a batsman... but was able to keep in the side because he was both? Just because he was selected to bat lower down the order because he wasn't a good enough bat, but still able to get in the team because he was a better package than the alternatives doesn't make him a bowling allrounder ffs.

 

[Prince EWS]

Weird player, though. The more I think about it, the more I remember, post WC knock, it vacillated between whether he was a bowling or batting AR a lot. But, pre-WC knock, I honestly only knew of him as a bowler who could smack them. Think the perception was that whilst he could bat very well, it wasn't that often that he did so had to get in the side on his bowling.

Yeah, it's definitely a bit more confusing as to what he was after that knock, in limited overs cricket at least. He was opening the batting with a complete license to tonk regardless of what he scored and bowling a full quota more often that not - so he was occupying a proper batting slot but had no real batting responsibility. In First Class cricket he was still batting 8/9 though, and he was already 33 by the time that happened. Before the innings he was very clearly a bowler who can hit a long ball.

 

[benchmark00]

Maybe that he could hold the stick relatively straight flattered perceptions of his batting?

Nah he was a genuine batting talent, and this was pre world cup knock.

 

[Top_Cat]

Nah he was a genuine batting talent, and this was pre world cup knock.

Honestly don't remember hearing that at all, don't know enough about the guy.

 

[benchmark00]

Honestly don't remember hearing that at all, don't know enough about the guy.

He was actually initially offered a playing-coaching (before ever playing for Canada) role back in Canada as a batsman alone, but obviously when he got over there his bowling was good enough to take a mountain as well.

 

[benchmark00]

Anyway, the fact that he's a batting allrounder doesn't mean he can't teach spin.

What's more troubling is the fact that we have a wicket keeper being the specialist spinning coach in the national set up.

 

[Top_Cat]

tbh, I find the distinction is a weird thing to talk about. Wasn't Watto, early days, essentially a bowling all-rounder? Pretty sure Bevvo was picked by the ACT on the strength of his pace bowling too. And then there was Mark Higgs; what the **** was he?

 

[Prince EWS]

Why are you ignoring the fact that he wasn't good enough at FC level as a bowler or a batsman... but was able to keep in the side because he was both? Just because he was selected to bat lower down the order because he wasn't a good enough bat, but still able to get in the team because he was a better package than the alternatives doesn't make him a bowling allrounder ffs.

You don't pick someone on the basis on their batting and then stick them at 9 or 10 below Shane Warne though. He had a game where he batted below Brad Williams and a game where he batted 11. That's the thing; it just doesn't add up that even the weirdest of multi-talented focused selectors would say "We'll give Davo a run at 11 here because he offers more as a package".

I was trying to think of an example of what you're saying and I came up with one - Aaron O'Brien. Despite being a batting allrounder he batted 8 a lot for SA and got through a lot of innocuous overs. I considered the possibility that Davison may have been a bit like O'Brien but it just didn't add up because there's no way you'd keep picking a player like that if he had never hit a 50, was averaging 8 after 40 innings and you had to bat him below Shane Warne, Paul Reiffel etc. Davison was a bowler in that period.

 

[Andre]

Funnily enough I went to the same school as him also (he's quite a few years older than me though). He was a middle/lower order bat at that level and it was definitly his spinners that got him recognition - Ashley Mallett rated him as a potential Test offie at one stage when he was breaking into state cricket. Moved to Vic from Sydney, got his chance, moved to SA as he'd fallen off the radar and was batting 8/9 for them. Smashed 70-odd for them one Shield game, opened the batting for Canada and the rest is history.

Like I said, he may have been a better bat, but he rated himself as a bowling all-rounder until the WC, then things kind of flip-flopped from there depending on the mood of SA selectors after that like Corey mentioned.

 

[benchmark00]

Funnily enough I went to the same school as him also (he's quite a few years older than me though). He was a middle/lower order bat at that level and it was definitly his spinners that got him recognition - Ashley Mallett rated him as a potential Test offie at one stage when he was breaking into state cricket. Moved to Vic from Sydney, got his chance, moved to SA as he'd fallen off the radar and was batting 8/9 for them. Smashed 70-odd for them one Shield game, opened the batting for Canada and the rest is history.

Like I said, he may have been a better bat, but he rated himself as a bowling all-rounder until the WC, then things kind of flip-flopped from there depending on the mood of SA selectors after that like Corey mentioned.

Definitely not the mail I got at all. All reports, especially coming out of Adelaide was that his batting was earmarked way more highly than his bowling, which was just a handy aspect of his game. This coming from guys who know him quite well.

 

[Andre]

Definitely not the mail I got at all. All reports, especially coming out of Adelaide was that his batting was earmarked way more highly than his bowling, which was just a handy aspect of his game. This coming from guys who know him quite well.

Yeah I'd say by the time he'd moved down to Adelaide (he was about 30 by then) his batting had possibly started to overtake his bowling, as they finished pretty even by the end of his career.

Classic story of a cricketer without a defined role here though really - was probably good enough to do anything if in the right environment. One of the most natural cricketers I've seen, just looked a different level.

All that aside, he was a fantastic coach - he was a great help to me, and I am a leggie. He knows spin bowling very very well.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah I'd say by the time he'd moved down to Adelaide (he was about 30 by then) his batting had possibly started to overtake his bowling, as they finished pretty even by the end of his career.

Classic story of a cricketer without a defined role here though really - was probably good enough to do anything if in the right environment. One of the most natural cricketers I've seen, just looked a different level.

All that aside, he was a fantastic coach - he was a great help to me, and I am a leggie. He knows spin bowling very very well.

You ever play with Greg Harvey/Wray at Mosman? Another leggy. Chequered history tstl.

 

[Top_Cat]

Know who else was a good coach of stuff outside of his specialty and I'm surprised he's not gotten higher opportunities - Dean Sayers (Chadd's dad). Coached SA's winning underage sides a couple of years ago (I think), often wondered why he's never popped up elsewhere. Only played a bit for SA but I reckon he was brilliant at getting the best out of the least.

 

[Andre]

You ever play with Greg Harvey/Wray at Mosman? Another leggy. Chequered history tstl.

Na missed him by a year or 2 I think. He was from the 'gong wasn't he?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, Adelaide was post-WC though, so all conceptions had changed.

FTR, averaged 20 with the bat in Melbourne grade cricket. Yuck. Unsurprisingly in a way, his one century was a 183. Bowling record much more respectable, nearly 200 wickets at 26; his batting was better in his first two years when he was at Prahran (by better, I mean averaging 23...), and his bowling was ordinary; then when he moved on to St Kilda (where everyone gets picked for Vic from /conspiracytheory) his batting worsened but bowling got better.

He was competing with a bloke from our club, who was a batting all-rounder, called Paul Broster. They used to go at each other hammer and tong on the field, but Davison got the nod all the time, because Broster's bowling wasn't good enough (EDIT: and some would argue the St Kilda thing /ok..conspiracyagain). When he was playing for Victoria, Davo was being picked as a bowling option.