Robert Croft vs Ian Salisbury

[slippy888]

Which spinner contributed more to English cricket, i think Salisbury was a very unlucky had a lot of dropped catches of his bowling and his international career stats dont do him justice really.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Croft would be ideal now for this current England side, wouldn't take many wickets but would keep an end tight and he could bat a bit. Never really did what he could as a bat in international cricket apart from that game against South Africa where he saved the match.

 

[Starfighter]

Unless we're talking trivia value here it's gotta be Croft. Dropped catches or not Salisbury is deservedly feted as one of the worst test players of all time (to have a 'career' that is. One test flops don't count). As mentioned, Croft could at least hold an end.

 

[smash84]

No competition. Croft twice everyday of the week and 4 times on a Sunday

 

[JRC67]

Salisbury was the perennial attempt by England to find a leggie, only to find they lack the ability to generate any pressure at test level. The common factor with successful international leggies is they are all very accurate, with the ability to spin the ball being almost secondary. Croft was very economical and a decent enough player who could hold an end. He was somewhat found out as a batsman at test level. As a bowler he was the right arm Ashley Giles, very economical but not a big spinner. Croft by some way for me, probably at least as good as the current crop of county spinners.

 

[fredfertang]

Much under-rated was Ian Salisbury - considerably better bowler than his average of 76.95 suggests - twenty less would have been a fairer measure of his quality

 

[superkingdave]

Could never abide Croft, loved himself and food.

Salisbury was no Chris Schofield tho

 

[a massive zebra]

Much under-rated was Ian Salisbury - considerably better bowler than his average of 76.95 suggests - twenty less would have been a fairer measure of his quality

An average of 57 would still place him as the worst bowler ever to have played more than a handful of Tests for England.

 

[smash84]

An average of 57 would still place him as the worst bowler ever to have played more than a handful of Tests for England.

That was the point

 

[smash84]

Croft would be ideal now for this current England side, wouldn't take many wickets but would keep an end tight and he could bat a bit. Never really did what he could as a bat in international cricket apart from that game against South Africa where he saved the match.

the only thing he could keep tight was his arse.

 

[morgieb]

What surprises me about Croft was that his Test stats are pretty similar to his FC ones.

 

[Prince EWS]

What surprises me about Croft was that his Test stats are pretty similar to his FC ones.

They're not really, unless by "stats" you just mean "bowling average".

The fact that he played First Class cricket the ages of 19 to 42 probably contributed to that as well; his Test career was much more confined to what people would people would usually consider prime years (26-31). During the period he was in the Test side he averaged 37 with the ball in Tests but just 32 in First Class cricket, and that drops to 30 if you exclude the actual Tests he played in that time. That's a pretty normal split.

 

[morgieb]

They're not really, unless by "stats" you just mean "bowling average".

The fact that he played First Class cricket the ages of 19 to 42 probably contributed to that as well; his Test career was much more confined to what people would people would usually consider prime years (26-31). During the period he was in the Test side he averaged 37 with the ball in Tests but just 32 in First Class cricket, and that drops to 30 if you exclude the actual Tests he played in that time. That's a pretty normal split.

Yeah I did mean the bowling average. Which flounders point #3 of your sig but meh.

I still remember his stats looks very ordinary even about 10 years ago though. Must've had a pretty dire start to his career.

 

[fredfertang]

That was the point

Indeed - always felt sorry for Salisbury - his Test average makes him look almost as much of an outlier as Bradman, but he really wasn't that bad and has a perfectly acceptable First Class record. His problems were the expectation he would become an English Warne, the fact that he had no variations (at least none he could disguise very well), that he played a lot of the Tests he did against batsmen from the sub continent who were the most able to milk him round the park and to make it worse I don't ever recall him getting any luck

 

[Starfighter]

This video's got some good Salisbury. His best match figures in tests.

I reckon he must have started out bowling off spin as his entry to the crease and bowling action remind me much more of a finger spinners.

 

[mr_mister]

lol he looks like he's just bowling super slow leg cutters more than wrist spin

 

[OverratedSanity]

Salisbury was far better than Schofield.

 

[mr_mister]

What about Peter Such?

 

[Starfighter]

Your face when you find out that Schofield played in tests

 

[Dan]

tbf Salisbury had a brilliant spin partnership with Saqlain at Surrey for a long, long time.