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

[Migara]

Don't start this again. There was nothing scientific about the ICC testing. It was public relations stunt, not a controlled test.

We should all just move on though, he was a great cricketer regardless of whether you think he chucked or not. If you had given everyone else freedom to chuck they still wouldn't be as good at it as Murali was.

Current tests are also not controlled, peer reviewed tests. Don't get me started on this.

 

[StephenZA]

So, Fast bowlers

No, not specifically... but the implication was that even these sort of guys with ideal/textbook actions had decent flex in their bowling. Which did surprise.

 

[Migara]

Doesn't get anywhere near as many as Swann or Lyon. Comparatively little hip drive and pivot either.

Ashwin is taller and more powerfully built than either of two. Has long fingers. Such bowlers can rip it. Just like Lance Gibbs.

 

[StephenZA]

I have a few of these papers floating around, and I think you're putting a bit too much stock in them. As an aside, I find people tend to slightly exaggerate the amount of extension that was actually found in them.

What should stock be put into then? I mean either its been tested with a peer review published paper (I've looked at a few, more regarding the technology than the actual results).... I'm not saying that it is infallible or perfect. But I hold no stock in somebody giving anecdotal evidence based on 'it looked like he was throwing therefore he must have been throwing".

 

[Migara]

I'm sure with the technology they have for hawkeye and stuff now, with so many cameras and mapping etc. they could model actions and even potentially measure degrees of elbow bend in game, per delivery. But clearly that would be absurdly wasteful and expensive.

And show that bowlers with clean l.ooking actions also throw it blatantly when tired or during effort balls. That will be mayhem.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

No, not specifically... but the implication was that even these sort of guys with ideal/textbook actions had decent flex in their bowling. Which did surprise.

Well, whenever people bring it up, they almost always rattle off a list of fast bowlers. We would expect them to have greater forces going through the arm, and therefore greater extension.


Also, I'm not conviced that bowling in an arm brace actually proves as much as what people might think, because the brace will provide support to the elbow that would otherwise have to be provided from the muscles, and so the arm can be more relaxed the whole way round as one does not need to guard against over-extending the elbow: this will not only allow more wrist movement than with a tense arm, but will also eliminate the tendency for the forearm to snap forward as the grip on the ball relaxes in order to release it, as the forearm needn't be tensed to protect the elbow. With different wrist motions, more flex may occur in the elbow to avoid straining it.



I remember reading on Cricinfo that Geoff Griffen once bowled in an arm brace in a domestic match: IIRC, he explained his problems as being due to his wrist action (an argument also used about Meckiff). Apparently, he managed to bowl his deliveries effectively, to the surprise of one witness.

However, there is a problem:

Griffin definitely threw:

Incidentally, what happened to the chucker's tilt?

 

[Bolo]

Yea Maharaj is a real talent. Think he could end up as SAs best spinner since Tayfield.

Maharaj is solid quality. Only really him, Swann, Murali and Warne I can think of that I have seen live that had the ability to generate turn in any conditions plus had control. There's more to bowling obviously, but a spinner is always going to struggle a bit without these two.

Maharaj might end up being a bit flattered by his stats by the era he plays in- he could end up looking more like Warne instead of Swann, while he is definitely closer to Swann in quality. I don't know that there has ever been a finger spinner with top stats who wasn't flattered by them though.

Don't agree with your assessment on Ashwin getting turn per those countries. AUS I only saw highlights. Can't speak with any confidence, but he seemed to not get much turn. Watched a bit of him live in England. He wasn't getting much, but I might have been watching the wrong sessions. Saw a lot of him in RSA and he was getting very little the whole series considering the wickets were offering turn.

 

[Maximas]

I think the Murali brace thing they did on English TV was more just so average punters could see that his action appeared the same despite being unable to flex.

I've always loved the 'political' argument in relation to the ICC revising the laws on chucking. I have a really hard time imagining SLC as an effective power broker even today, let alone in the late 90s and early to mid 2000s.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They did use some pretty advanced technology; I believe Murali was tested 3 times with improved technology each time. They also clearly reported the effects and pitfalls of both in and out of game determinations; Including using video footage; and surprisingly the evidence showed that the naked eye which believed players like Donald, McGrath and some other were perfect actions, actually bowled with a angle of between 5-10%, particularly with regards bowling bouncers. It is natural reflection in joints that give us all that.

People always think that all these scientists did in isolation was check Murali, when checking angles, reflection biomechanical movements, skeletal structures for all sorts of biomedical and sport research, is what they do for a living as researchers and experts. If you want a conspiracy theory that they were told, fudge you numbers so Murali can play, so be it... considering I can go onto google scholar lookup biometric of bowling actions and find a plethora of papers talking about all these issues, great I know which way I'm going lean when it comes to trust issues.

You're still completely missing the point. The technology used for the testing is not the issue, nor is it even particularly relevant. I thought that was pretty clear.

Current tests are also not controlled, peer reviewed tests. Don't get me started on this.

Did anyone say they were?

 

[TheJediBrah]

What should stock be put into then? I mean either its been tested with a peer review published paper (I've looked at a few, more regarding the technology than the actual results).... I'm not saying that it is infallible or perfect. But I hold no stock in somebody giving anecdotal evidence based on 'it looked like he was throwing therefore he must have been throwing".

I for one am not particularly interested in dusting off my protractor or really going into an argument about Murali's action. I was really just taking an issue with the statement that anyone who questions the ICC "testing" is "rejecting scientific evidence", because that's patently absurd and if anything the opposite of the truth.

It would be like me looking at a shockingly designed, vitamin company-funded "study" that says that regular doses of Echinacea cure the flu, or reduced the risk of heart disease and then accusing anyone who questions it that they are like flat-earthers rejecting scientific evidence

 

[the big bambino]

But apparently we should accept the Murali test but be sceptical of the current tests. Its almost like people can't see the contradiction. Or the difference between natural flexion and pegging. Which is why guys with "apparently clean actions" get caught up in this. There's a reason guys like McGrath and Donald didn't get called while Griffin did. It seems the eye can't detect flexion but it can the jerkiness of a throw. I mean the law against throwing was legislated way before testing and based on what is an observable throw without confusing it with flexion.

 

[the big bambino]

Current tests are also not controlled, peer reviewed tests. Don't get me started on this.

Head shakingly bad stuff.

 

[cnerd123]

I mean the law against throwing was legislated way before testing and based on what is an observable throw without confusing it with flexion.

The Laws and the ICC Playing Conditions differ on a whole lot of issues tho. You must be shaking your fist at the screen everytime a ball that bounces over the batsmen's head is deemed a wide and not a no ball. Not to mention limited overs cricket.

 

[cnerd123]

I actually really want to read these initial tests done by UWA now. Anyone got a link?

 

[the big bambino]

The Laws and the ICC Playing Conditions differ on a whole lot of issues tho. You must be shaking your fist at the screen everytime a ball that bounces over the batsmen's head is deemed a wide and not a no ball. Not to mention limited overs cricket.

Not at all. Only at false analogies.

 

[Starfighter]

Incidentally, what happened to the chucker's tilt?

Reckon it's probably an effect of chucking with a more side on action and the hips opening later.

 

[mr_mister]

5th. Jim Laker, 504 points

Featured on 33 of 35 lists
Highest finish: 3rd (5 times)
Ranking within spin discipline: 2nd of 13 (Right Arm Offbreak)
Test WPM ranking: 19th of 43 (4.20)


Featuring on all but 2 lists and finishing 3rd five times, Laker ends up being considered by CW to be the greatest ever English spinner. And the second best offie. He comes 5th overall by 86 points over Verity which is the second biggest gap of the countdown. So the top 5 is quite solidified on CW.

Best known of course for his 19 wickets in a single test, which is also the FC record as well. Nobody else has even taken 18 in a FC match. A 10 fer plus a 9 fer in the same match is mighty impressive. It did come against one of Australia's weakest ever batting line-ups mind you. Only one batsman in Australia's side that match had a career test average of over 40, that being Neil Harvey(who Laker dismissed for a pair). It was said at that time Australians weren't used to playing off spinners as they had been made virtually useless by our lifeless pitches back home, so most local spinners bowled leg breaks(other than Trumble none of the famous aussie spinners from the first half of the 20th century bowled right arm offbreak). Tony Lock, the other spinner playing that match, was Left Arm Orthodox and so spun the ball the same direction as a leg spinner. However I'm nitpicking an amazing record here. It is one of the most impressive individual performances on a cricket pitch and may never be bested.

Laker had a poor start to his test career, unfortunately having to cut his teeth on the international stage against the 3 W's firstly and then Bradman's 1948 invincibles. He averaged nearly 40 in his first year and went for 3 runs an over, relatively high for the time. But in a few tests time and a couple of years down the track his luck began to turn. From 1951 to 1959 he had 5 calendar years where he averaged under 20. He averaged a crazy 10 with 48 wickets from 6 tests in 1956, the year of his 19 fer. In this year he also he went for only 1.5 runs a test, cutting his 1948 economy rate in half.

From 15 tests against Australia he took a staggering 79 wickets and averaged 18, and this included playing against the '48 Invincibles. Though the quality of aussie batting dramatically deteriorated from '48 to '56 I can't think of any 20th century spinner who did better against us. He averaged 12 against NZ and the worst return he brought in was 30 against West Indies. Quite low for your worst opposition average. In the West Indies he averaged 31. This was the strongest batting side in the 1950s and included the 3 W's, Kanhai and Sobers.

His away average was 28, his home average 18 and his overall test bowling average just 21. Though his contemporary Wardle averaged slight better, Laker had a much longer test career. The 4 remaining spinners on this list couldn't beat Laker's 21.

 

[Borges]

Hey, mr_mister, it may be a good idea to cull out your excellent write ups and put them into a (Miyagi free) thread of their own.

 

[StephenZA]

Well, whenever people bring it up, they almost always rattle off a list of fast bowlers. We would expect them to have greater forces going through the arm, and therefore greater extension.

Also, I'm not conviced that bowling in an arm brace actually proves as much as what people might think, because the brace will provide support to the elbow that would otherwise have to be provided from the muscles, and so the arm can be more relaxed the whole way round as one does not need to guard against over-extending the elbow: this will not only allow more wrist movement than with a tense arm, but will also eliminate the tendency for the forearm to snap forward as the grip on the ball relaxes in order to release it, as the forearm needn't be tensed to protect the elbow. With different wrist motions, more flex may occur in the elbow to avoid straining it.

I remember reading on Cricinfo that Geoff Griffen once bowled in an arm brace in a domestic match: IIRC, he explained his problems as being due to his wrist action (an argument also used about Meckiff). Apparently, he managed to bowl his deliveries effectively, to the surprise of one witness.

However, there is a problem:

Griffin definitely threw:

View attachment 24263View attachment 24264

Incidentally, what happened to the chucker's tilt?

Not an arm brace. Murali bowled 30 to 50 overs with a contraction that was actually used for some sort of repetitive injury check.... Think more green screen motion action sensor stuff you see in the movies. Probably not as sophisticated as todays, and high speed cameras. As an aside (not that I'm saying Griffin did not throw) but be careful of using 2D pictures to try determine this sort of thing.

I actually really want to read these initial tests done by UWA now. Anyone got a link?

The best short summary I could find....
https://cricketique.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/icc-bowling-report-on-muttiah-muralitharan-2004/
https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/2524

https://shapeamerica.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/026404100446775
https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=478874029139895;res=IELHEA

 

[NotMcKenzie]

be careful of using 2D pictures to try determine this sort of thing.

I think that this is something that it often said more with the view of dismissing any argument from an easily obtainable source—match footage—than a firm basis in fact. In the case of Griffin, there is another angle on the same documentary, and it is possible with slowed footage to check the relative position of the elbow, shoulder and hand.