Left-arm Chinaman bowlers!!..can they make it at test level?

[Jono]

They have greater chances than the right-arm chinamen.

 

[NasserFan207]

Such a shame this guy - Jonathan Foo | West Indies Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo -
is an orthodox leggie

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah reckon having a good googly is more important for a chinaman than an orthodox leggie

I reckon a well disguised top-spinner would be more useful. The problem with a wrong'un delivered by a chinamen to a right-hander, is that unless the ball is really full (or the pitch offering very little life), most of the time batsmen will miss it by a mile (same reason why right arm inswing bowlers rarely bother trying to develop an outswinger). I suppose if it was only a gentle doosra that didn't turn too much, it could be valuable to have. Would also be an effective delivery to left-handers and delivered over the wicket though.

 

[MrPrez]

Don't forget Paul Adams.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Left-arm wristies aren't closely analogous to right-arm offies at higher levels, mainly because they have fewer effective options to keep a bat on strike for a decent period of time which, really, is what matters against guys who can bat. Even if the bloke is getting massive turn, you know a loose one is coming soon but a bigger factor is that you get a really good look at the line of the ball with a leftie wrist-spinner bowling over the wicket. So you can look to tuck away just about anything with low risk and knowing which ones to leave is pretty obvious because the bowler has to pitch them so wide to stop this. This applies double if they bowl around the wicket. A wrong'un won't save the bowler either because the line means it's a relatively easy decision for a batsman to decide whether to milk or leave the ball.

Big turn and tricks aren't everything at higher levels and blokes who rip a ball square are a dime-a-dozen at all levels. It wasn't Murali's bag of tricks that got so many bats out, it was the fairly relentless pressure he applied because batters knew they'd be facing him all day and that he had more subtle crease and line variations available to him so you can put more guys on the off-side. Left-arm wristies never have that luxury and rarely one of an attacking off-side field so facing them is fairly simple in the end; smash the more frequent loose offerings, work them away if they do land a ball and leave the clearly wide ones.

I don't disagree that offspin/left arm chinamen aren't particularly analogous, but leggies bowling to left handers is exactly analogous to chinamen to right handers. If the bolded were true, Shane Warne would have had far less success against left handers than he actually did. I know there's a theory that he was less successful against lefties and there's probably some truth to it, but still he had a lot of success against them and some of the batsmen he had most success against were left handed.

 

[Top_Cat]

Couple of things are different, though; Warne faced far fewer lefties than a left-arm wristie would face righties so his record isn't that affected by the fact he was played easier by lefties. This means, to succeed, a left-arm wristie would need Warne-like consistency against right-handers which he'd be coming up against the majority of the time. All this precludes a left-arm wristie having a long career and, well, that's sorta been borne out.

Not just that, there are technical differences. Left-handed batsmen tend to be looking more for the balls outside off stump to score because they face a lot more right-handed guys bowling across them whereas right-handers try to make sure anything on middle and/or leg is always a scoring stroke and that's purely because of the frequency they get those balls on those lines. So even though, in theory, they seem similar, the frequency that a right-hander gets balls on his legs is much greater than a leftie does and a left-arm wrist-spinner's line plays right into that for right-handed bats if they err even slightly.

The nature of wrist-spin is hard, sure. The above makes it just that much harder for someone bowling it with a left arm.

 

[Spikey]

So even though, in theory, they seem similar, the frequency that a right-hander gets balls on his legs is much greater than a leftie does and a left-arm wrist-spinner's line plays right into that for right-handed bats if they err even slightly.

this is pretty much what Vic_O was saying. there's no margin for error...and you know wrist spinners

you know, brad hogg didn't start bowling chinaman's until he was already a domestic cricketer. i doubt katich put too much effort into it as a junior either. maybe the trick is to start late...that goes in line with the no margin for error thing. sooner or later as a kid...

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, reckon there might be something to that. Become a useful cricketer for other things then take up spin if you feel you're up to it (Bevvo was a left-handed quick for ACT juniors, for example). Tim Zoerher took up wristies late, wasn't bad either. Wonder if Rob has footage?

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah Rob has plenty of vision of wristies he has administered.

 

[SJS]

This is a question which has been debated a lot over the history of the game. The answer is not straight forward but let me attempt it :o)

1. Wrist spin, is more difficult to master that finger spin. Thus wrist spinners tend to bowl a larger number deliveries that are either over-pitched or shorter than intended. Thus finger spinners, overall, tend to give away more runs.

2. However, wrist spin also breaks more off the surface and it is possible to obtain turn on almost all surfaces. This is a plus which contributes to leg spinners, overall, having a higher strike rate than finger spinners.

3. For the right handed wrist spinner, the stock delivery moves away from the right handed batsman (and they are mostly in the majority) which is a more difficult ball to play and yields more wickets.

Thus a good right arm leg spinner, will tend to get more wickets than a right hand off spinner even if he (the leg spinner) may have a slightly higher economy rate.

Now comes the left handed wrist spinner. By the direction of the lateral movement of the stock delivery this should make him at least the equal of a right arm off spinner and the fact that he is going to, by and large, move the ball more off the wicket, he should be a better strike bowler than the right arm off spinner. It is here that the relative difficulty in controlling length for the wrist spinner becomes a factor. For the majority of the batsmen (the right handers) the in coming delivery, if pitched short or over pitched is easier to punish than if the same happened with the ball going away. This makes the chinaman bowler more likely to be punished for the lax length than the right hand leg spinner.

It is only for this reason that the chinaman bowlers have not prospered over time. Wrist spin is a tough art to master but to the right handed wrist spinner, the long hours spent in the nets to master the art are more likely to appear worth the effort. In fact many leg spinners, Warne no exception, take wickets from deliveries that err in length while the same error from the Chinaman bowler is invariably punished.

Bowlers who start with bowling chinamen, soon realise that the finger spinner is a far more profitable, cricket wise, art to master and easier too, The fact that it goes away from the right hander is a bonus for a really good left arm finger spinner is amongst the most difficult bowlers in the game to score of.

 

[Marius]

Don't forget Paul Adams.

Yeah, he was slightly different though, in that his stock ball was not the Chinaman but the left hander's googly, if that makes sense.

He also used to telegraph his Chinaman to a degree, he normally bowled it quicker and flatter than his stock delivery.

 

[Migara]

A chinaman bowler is similar to an offie bowling round the wicket.

 

[WindieWeathers]

I personally think the first world class chinaman bowler will be the one who's really creative, i.e bowling over the wicket, using flippers and googly's etc, they will have to create a little confusion along with bowling the right lines i think, just watched video of the lad "Ramsaran" again and his googly is certainly very good, so it's gonna be a matter of finding out if he's got the other tricks and how consistent his line and length are, he's only 20 so he's got plenty of time i guess.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Couple of things are different, though; Warne faced far fewer lefties than a left-arm wristie would face righties so his record isn't that affected by the fact he was played easier by lefties. This means, to succeed, a left-arm wristie would need Warne-like consistency against right-handers which he'd be coming up against the majority of the time. All this precludes a left-arm wristie having a long career and, well, that's sorta been borne out.

Not just that, there are technical differences. Left-handed batsmen tend to be looking more for the balls outside off stump to score because they face a lot more right-handed guys bowling across them whereas right-handers try to make sure anything on middle and/or leg is always a scoring stroke and that's purely because of the frequency they get those balls on those lines. So even though, in theory, they seem similar, the frequency that a right-hander gets balls on his legs is much greater than a leftie does and a left-arm wrist-spinner's line plays right into that for right-handed bats if they err even slightly.

The nature of wrist-spin is hard, sure. The above makes it just that much harder for someone bowling it with a left arm.

You also get less opportunities to bowl into the rough, than a right arm leg spinner to a left hander.

 

[Migara]

All this thing on Chinaman bowling is blown out of proportion. The real fact is that it's a very difficult art and that is the only reason of them being not test standard. Chinaman bowler is similar to a off break bowler (who possesses a doosra) bowling round the wicket. That is what Murali did in latter half of his career. If a bowler is consistent enough even a chinaman can pick a lot of wickets. infact i believe if Hogg was from an era where there was no Warne or MacGill, we wpuld have been looking at a 250+ career wickets bowler.

 

[Top_Cat]

heh, the way Hogg is, bloke could still get there. Will be grinning and spinning into his 80's.

 

[Daemon]

All this thing on Chinaman bowling is blown out of proportion. The real fact is that it's a very difficult art and that is the only reason of them being not test standard. Chinaman bowler is similar to a off break bowler (who possesses a doosra) bowling round the wicket. That is what Murali did in latter half of his career. If a bowler is consistent enough even a chinaman can pick a lot of wickets. infact i believe if Hogg was from an era where there was no Warne or MacGill, we wpuld have been looking at a 250+ career wickets bowler.

Doesn't even have 200 wickets in domestic cricket tbf

 

[Top_Cat]

Would have taken more had he not played half his FC games on the bloody WACA.

 

[the big bambino]

Include Fleetwood Smith here? If so then he helped win an ashes in Adelaide and defend them at Leeds. Not bad for 7 or 8 tests against Eng. True his ave was 37/wkt but were were distorted by his last test at the Oval.

 

[SJS]

Include Fleetwood Smith here? If so then he helped win an ashes in Adelaide and defend them at Leeds. Not bad for 7 or 8 tests against Eng. True his ave was 37/wkt but were were distorted by his last test at the Oval.

There is a very interesting piece on Chinaman bowlers in Trevor Bailey and Trueman's The Spinner's Web

Excerpts

Although the name originated in the Caribbean, most of the leading exponents have come from Australia where the orthodox left arm leg spinner (finger spinner) has never been the dominating figure that he has been in English cricket. For more than a hundred years it has been impossible to imagine a Yorkshire XI, who, frequently, has also been an automatic choice for our national side. As a reult, a young left hander in England would be well advised to be an orthodox finger spinner because he is more likely to be successful in this role than as a wrist spinner and would not require as long an apprenticeship.
​

Leslie "Chuck" Fleetwood-Smith (1935-1938) : 42 wkts in 10 tests at 37.4 each

The first great Australian chinaman and googly bowler was Fleetwood Smith, O'Reilly reckoned he was the most naturally talented spinner he had ever seen, but he lacked the dedication required to devote himself exclusively to this trade and was a bon viveur, Handsome, with a keen sense of humour, the ability to embarass great batsmen and his ceaseless pursuit of the good life, he would provided provided plenty of copy for today's media and . . . been a natural for television.

At his peak and in the mood, particularly against the best players, he was surely the finest bowler of this type in the history of the game. because he was able to turn the ball on even the perfect pitches of the thirties. Unlike most bowlers, he was often not interested in removing the tail, yet he took 295 wickets for Victoria on 31 occasions and in only 10 Tests his bag was 42.

​

While on the subject of Fleetwood-Smith, I find it impossible not to write about this real "character" and for this one can do no better than read his eminently readable biography A Wayward Genius by Greg Growden. Since I do not have this volume ready at hand I quote from Jeremy Malies Great Characters from Cricket's Golden Age

The piece comprising an entire chapter starts dramatically . . .

Under a 30 point banner headline, the Melbourne Argus for Tuesday 25th March 1969, describes the theft of a handbag on the previous Sunday by two vagrants in the vicinity of Flinders Street Railway Station, Melbourne.The incident would probably have warranted no more than half a column-inch were it not for the fact that one of the vagrants was a former Australian Test cricketer and, probably, the most gifted spin bowler the game has seen.​

Rebellious from the cradle, Chuck (a nickname from a family joke about the Polo term "chukka") proved rebellios almost from cradle . . . playing truant from school and finding in the herding of wild goats a favourite pastime, bringing a couple of dozen or more into the schoolyard to go through the school children's lunch boxes. A naturally gifted sportsman, excelling at Autralian rules football, tennis and cricket he was fascinated by the new weapon in the game introduced by Bosanquet.

Sent to the exclusive Xavier Colleg in the Melbourne subarbs, Chuck was probably expelled in 1924. The school magazine records in the obituary tributes that he smoked a pipe from the age of 14 and carried a hip-flask and dated girls several years his seniors. He returned to Stawell where he was arrested, alongwith 20 or more youth for underage drinking, promptly reported by his father by name in his Stawell News .

Extremely good looking, dapper and poised with a liberal allowance of pocket money, the teenager would board trains bound for Melbourne or Adelaide armed with a bottle of whiskey, frquently seducing female socialites in the sleeper cars.

In 1930, his parents packed him off to Melbourne after making him promise that he would conceal the fact that he was Catholic but he seemed to have behaved himself initially and the regular cricket practice resulted in his being spotted by Bill Ponsford who offered him trials with St Kilda CC. Bert Ironmonger, who he was to be standby for, when the senior was on state or Test duty, seems to have taken the youngster in his wings.

He switched to Melbourne CC towards the end of 31-32 and was included in the Victoria side to play the visiting South Africans. He took 6 for 80.

He demonstrated methods entirely his own, turned the ball considerably and posed problems which the South African batsmen found difficult to resolve." wrote the Melbourne Age.

Based on this performance, Arthur Mailey selected him for a private tour to America. He was a bad sailor but once recovered spent a lot of his time chasing skirt. In New York he met Yankees Pitcher Vernon 'Lefty' Gomez , an eccentric clown himself and an incorrigible womanizer. The two were 'inseparable' over the weekend.

His reputation with both ball and around skirts and booze was spreading.

On tour he took 238 wickets at 7.5 each.

As the English team under Jardine was starting its tour, Chuck took 6 for 22 against Queensland. England had not played a chinaman bowler of high quality for ages. Jardine got convinced that Fleetwood Smith could win the Ashes single handedly for Australia. He told Hammond to hammer Chuck out of the attack when MCC played Victoria. Hammond scored 203 consistently driving Chuck's off-breaks through covers. The press went to town and he was not considered by the Australian selectors although he had been a strong contender.

He took 50 wickets in that domestic season and 53 in the next at 21.9 and 26.1 respectively. This earned him a berth on the touring side for 1934 to England.
He matched Grimmett and Orielly wicket for wicket on the tour with the three of them taking hundred wickets each and being head and shoulders above the rest of the attack. Here are the figures of the three wrist spinners during that English summer . . .

[B]Bowler       	Overs	Wkts	Avg	St Rate[/B]

Tiger O'Reilly	5220	109	17	47.9
Fleetwood-Smith	4283	106	19.2	40.4
Grimmett	5914	109	19.8	54.3

Only three wickets separate Chuck from his legendary fellow wrist spinner but he bowled 1600+ balls less than Grimmett and almost a 1000 less than O'Reilly !!

He warmed the bench as the two leg spinners ran through England Test after Test.

Chuck shrugged off his disappointment of not playing in the Tests and worked his way through a succession of hat-check girls and waitresses.​

He was again in the team that went to South Africa in 1935-36. He met with great success in games leading up to the Tests and Mailey, now writing for a paper wrote,

Man who must be watched
While the fast men pounded fruitlessly over the turf, 'Chuck" had the time of his life. Here potentially is the Australian bowler who will cause most concern to the cream of South Africa's batsmen . . He is a nonchalant cricketer with the puckish mannerisms of Patsy Hendren.​

Chuck played in the Durban Test and took 4 for 64 on debut. South African great Herbie Taylor wrote, "The batting tactics gave the visitors too much of a moral ascendency. Fleetwood-Smith alone commanded respect with devilish turn and lift."

He played three tests in the 1936-37 Ashes tour by Gubby Allen's side and took 5 wickets in the second innings of the third Test to bowl Australia to a big win. In the next test he took four in the first and six in the second innings and along with O'reilly (1 and 4) helped Australia to another big win. Four more wickets in the last Test gave him 19 wickets in the three tests he played in the series. Here are his figures alongside O'Reilly's for the series.

[B]Bowler       	Tests	Wkts	Avg	St Rate[/B]

Tiger O'Reilly	5	25	22.2	79.3
Fleetwood-Smith	3	19	24.4	55.4

Clearly he matched Q'Reilly as a strike bowler in the series and his strike rate, once again was far superior.

In the fourth Test of this series, Fleetwood produced the ball of his career.

In the first over of the morning Chuck produced the ball of his caree, a wickedly spun Chinaman that drifted away in the air before biting sharply, finding a gate and knocking Hammond's leg stump out of the ground. Chuck went down on his knees before performing a jig. He then strolled over to his skipper, Don Bradman, and enquired, "Was that what you wanted Goldie?"

With the possible exception of Shane Warne's dismissal of Mike Gatting at Old Trafford in 1993, it remains the ball of the century. For Neville Cardus, Chuck had been 'suddenly visited by genius' Cardus writes in his report of the day's play . . .

Fleetwood won the match by wonderful spin. He overwhelmed Hammond, Leyland and Ames with balls deadly in their swift break and beautiful in their seductive curve through the air. . . . I can not imagine the batsman who could have avoided for long the snares of Fleetwood-Smith. It can hardly be said that England collapsed. They got out by the inexorable law of cause and effect.

No cricketer has yet evolved a technique which will cope with the quick spinning-away ball. . . . Fleetwood-Smith has three tricks for the bewildering of his antoganists - his googly is waspish, and is hard to discover,; he also bowls a top-spinner, and the left hander's usual break from leg. In this engagement he mingled these tricks craftily, and kept his length good enough to make his long-hops and full tosses most artful blandishments.

In the morning's first over Fleetwood-Smith practically settled the issue. A lovely ball lured Hammond forward, broke at the critical length, evaded the bat, and bowled England's pivot and hope. The crowd roared their joy and sent three cheers into the sunshine for Fleetwood-Smith while Bradman ran to him and shook his hand.

The achievement set the crown on the most skillful and artistic bowler of the day. I know of no rarer beauty in the game than the slow spinning ball which compels a great batsman to reach forward against his inclinations, and whips across even as his bat gropes in the void.

. . . Some purist in the crowd stated that Fleetwood's trouble is that he often pitches too short or too full. But this is the secret of his ability to worry the finest defence. His bad bowling can never really be trusted. At any moment he is likely to spin an unplayable masterpiece. For folks who love cricket for other than competitive reasons, the capriciousness of Fleetwood-Smith's attack is a constant delight. Test matches, nowadays, are more or less in the control of precise mechanics who usually know what they are doing because they are attempting little and seldom venturing into the regions of the fantastic, or even the uncommon.

. . . Whenever Fleetwood-Smith dropped a slow alluring length, the ball as it struck the dry earth changed the pitch to a fast 'sticky dog', as cricketers say. The bowling was inspired by the evil spirit of the grotesque. I have seldom seen bowling more incalculable and original than this.

O'Rielly found the pitch so unhelpful that in vain he tried to spin the ball for eighty-five minutes. He then resorted to methods that called for collaboration of the leg-trap. Fleetwood-Smith alone could evoke the demons hidden in the ground.​

~Neville Cardus reporting on the Ashes series of 1936-37 for the Manchester Guardian. The entire series coverage is published in the form of a delightful book called Australian Summer




to be continued