• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

CW decides the greatest test spinner ever. 43 names: Countdown/Rankings thread

TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
ankitj said:
ok
Click to expand...
Wasn't trying to have a go at you specifically, sorry.

I just find it depressing af that anyone would engage in a thread like this and tailor their list, putting some higher than they deserve and some lower than they deserve, with the sole purpose of getting their favourites higher in the end ranking (a completely meaningless ranking). It's just really, really pathetic and I'd like to think that no one would go to that sort of effort.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
That's exactly my point. And I never do that even if I am pissed at tactical voting by others . I faithfully had Murali, Warne, O'Reilly, Grimmett, Laker as my top 5 in that order for the record.
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The main thing that raises eyebrows with me is when someone does something like put someone with an average of over 30 as the second best. You'd better be an expert at persuasion to convince me that such a player is top ten material. Other than that, what goes...
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Honestly I don't really mind if the rankings come out strangely and incorrectly because some people had an agenda. I'm getting more value out of Mr_mister's writing than I am out of the numbers.

And to be honest the list so far has been pretty much spot on so far. If a couple in the top 5 are in the wrong order it doesn't even matter really.
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Calm down everyone. All you racists left Ajmal out for being Pakistani but you don't see trundler complaining.
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
#7th. Hugh Tayfield, 352 points




Featured on 31 of 35 lists
Highest finish: 2nd (1 time)
Ranking within spin discipline: 3rd of 13 (Right Arm Offbreak)
Test WPM ranking: 14th of 43 (4.59)


A gap of only 5 points separated Benaud, Underwood and Kumble. Here we see a leap of over 50 and the next leap is even greater. Shows there was generally a very consistent top 6-7 across everyone's lists. Tayfield takes the bronze for offies and ranks in as far and away South Africa's best spinner. Pre-readmission he had taken the most ever test wickets for his country. And his test average of 25.9 puts him over a threshold that only the best spinners reached.

Tayfield was known for his unorthodox field settings and bowled to weird plans. He liked to leave a huge gap in the extra cover region, tempting his prey into a booming drive that they'd hopefully nick to slip. He also occasionally placed two short mid-ons right next to each other in the hope of a spooned up sitter. Another super economical bowler to feature here, his rate was a staggering 1.94. He can also lay claim to the most consecutive dots ever bowled in a first class game, which he did in a test match against England. 137 dot balls in a row over two innings. Bloody crazy.

He was equally as effective home and away, with his averages being separated by a meagre 0.14. Against a very strong 1950s English side he thrived, taking 75 scalps from 15 matches @ 22. He carved up the minnows NZ, averaging 17 against them from 7 tests. His overall record against Australia blows out a bit to 34, but averages aren't everything. In his one series down under he averaged 28 but took 30 wickets in the 5 tests. This was before Adcock and Goddard had debuted in tests as well. This naturally boosted his WPM but meant he had to bowl a lot overs with little quality support and so he went for plenty of runs. I can see why people don't like this WPM stat ha. It's basically a positive and a negative when a bowler has no back-up. They get lion's share of the wickets but need to shoulder a huge load.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top