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

[cnerd123]

I agree with your first point - I get a bit tired of the assumption that how well a player would do in modern conditions, and arguments like "WG wouldn't cope with modern fast bowling", while you seldom see people arguing that modern batsmen "couldn't cope with the wickets of the 1870s".

But the 1950s South Africans were noted at the time for their good fielding. Laker actually says "... Hugh came to the fore at the same time that the Springboks developed their fielding. Indirectly, I should say that this wonderful fielding machine that the Springboks have developed has led to at least half of Hugh's Test victims."

Laker just sounds salty IMO

 

[the big bambino]

Can't see how Tayfield can be called lucky because of the era he bowled in while Laker and Lock are admired for their performances. Laker was brilliant but boy did he get a leg up on the pitches he bowled on.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Laker is 100% being salty there

 

[kingkallis]

Missed that thread, would like to have a link to it.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...best-cricket-captain-ever-contest-thread.html

 

[Engle]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...best-cricket-captain-ever-contest-thread.html

Thanks Kingkallis, great thread/read. Although, there s/b a requirement for reasoning as well, besides voting.

My point still stands, that we need a ' Versatile or Complete Cricketer ' category. This would entail selecting those who excelled in all 3 disciplines - bat + bowl + captain

Perhaps something to contemplate in the future.

Not to derail this thread....back to the Great Spinners

 

[GIMH]

trundler is the coolest member to join the forum in a long time.

Wrong

 

[trundler]

To be fair this may have been true at the time. Have gone sharply downhill since though.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

To be fair this may have been true at the time. Have gone sharply downhill since though.

Apt really that your time here is pretty much representative of the career trajectory of pretty much every young Pakistani cricketer of the last 20 years. Burst onto the scene young, get plenty of buzz for a while, but fall out of form and slowly fizzle away in a sea of unfulfilled potential. Surely then the next step is either drugs, bookies, a punch up or all of the above

 

[Line and Length]

Being a newcomer to this site, I missed all the "action" associated with this thread. Had it not been for the posts today I might have missed it completely.

MrMister did a wonderful job and I offer my belated thanks. I understand the rationale behind there being 43 'finalists' but, in the interest of rounding things out, I wonder if members might suggest names to complete a "Top 50".

I'm happy to start the ball rolling by suggesting Eric Hollies. Although he only played 13 tests, taking 44 wickets @ a modest 30.2 it was his first class career that needs consideration. His 2323 wickets @ 20.9 and capturing 100 wickets in a season 10 times speaks for itself.

Cricket writer, Colin Bateman, noted: "Hollies was one of cricket's most extraordinary characters, whose meagre thirteen Tests in no way reflected his contribution to the game. He was a fastish leg-break bowler who rarely had much use for the googly." Bateman added: "loquacious, with a rich seam of Black Country humour, he was an immensely respected and hard-working cricketer".

The fact that he has a stand named after him at Edgbaston speaks for itself.

Oh! I nearly forgot. He did once dismiss a pretty good batsman for a second ball duck in a test match.

 

[mr_mister]

Your thanks are appreciated mate. Just had a read-back through myself. Man we really got sidetracked while discussing MacGill and then later Murali's action(and George Giffen's action for some reason...)

Some players I thought an argument could have been made for to at least make a top 50 are 'ball-on-a-string'Phil Tufnell, the best English spinner of the 90s, and capable of moments of brilliance such as his 11fer against an ATG filled Australian team in '97. Obviously had a lot of bad days though

Ravi Jadeja, who people will find no amount of excuses to write him off over despite the fact he's taken 200+ test wickets @ 24, and again there are obviously factors to consider here like Indian dustbowls


And last but certainly not least Colin 'Funky' Miller, who went from a middle of the road medium pace bowling journeyman to worthy of breaking into a peak Australian test team around '99 when he starting adding offies to his repertoire. If it could actually be deduced how much of his very impressive test record were wickets bowling off-spin compared to pace(I suspect over 75% were offies since it was a super productive shield season as an offie that got him into the side) I think his standing would be far higher on CW and he could have easily made it onto here.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And last but certainly not least Colin 'Funky' Miller, who went from a middle of the road medium pace bowling journeyman to worthy of breaking into a peak Australian test team around '99 when he starting adding offies to his repertoire. If it could actually be deduced how much of his very impressive test record were wickets bowling off-spin compared to pace(I suspect over 75% were offies since it was a super productive shield season as an offie that got him into the side) I think his standing would be far higher on CW and he could have easily made it onto here.

I think it's almost all of them tbh, ~95%. I can only recall the one wicket that he got with seam-up against NZ

 

[Prince EWS]

I think it's almost all of them tbh, ~95%. I can only recall the one wicket that he got with seam-up against NZ

Haha yeah that was Mathew Sinclair.

By the time he debuted in Tests he was picked as an offie; he bowled seam up very occasionally on Day 1/2 for balance purpose, but it'd be like having someone if your side who was somewhere between Tim May and Nathan Lyon standard as as offie, and was also a Shane Watson standard seamer. You might give them a roll as a seamer every so often, especially if you lost the toss and got rat****ed, but principally you're saving him up to bowl long spells of spin.

As a seamer he was "bowling allrounder" standard at best in Tests (and he didn't bat), but as a spinner he was a proper spinner. Very quick through the air but put proper revs on the ball, so he could either keep batsmen in their box or take advantage of dry pitch conditions.

 

[mr_mister]

ah okay, I might have been mixing him up in my memory with Andrew Symonds, who did actually switch between pace/spin internationally a bit in ODIs around 2000 I think. Back when he batted 8 and seemed to be used more as a bowling all-rounder in those tri-series each summer. I thought I remembered Miller bowling both too but yeah it was a long time ago.

well interesting nobody talks him up Miller as a great spinner then. Maybe it's coz his bowling looks so innocuous. But yeah got the nod for australian test player of the year for 2000.

 

[mr_mister]

ah just saw PEWs post. Well yeah if he's somewhere between May and Lyon he probably definitely could have cracked the top 50 here, though I doubt a single person would have remembered to vote for him - he flies under the radar so easily for some reason

 

[TheJediBrah]

ah okay, I might have been mixing him up in my memory with Andrew Symonds, who did actually switch between pace/spin internationally a bit in ODIs around 2000 I think. Back when he batted 8 and seemed to be used more as a bowling all-rounder in those tri-series each summer. I thought I remembered Miller bowling both too but yeah it was a long time ago.

well interesting nobody talks him up Miller as a great spinner then. Maybe it's coz his bowling looks so innocuous. But yeah got the nod for australian test player of the year for 2000.

Symonds is a funny one, was mostly seam-up for his ODI career until 2003-ish and then almost exclusively bowled offies. Then it wasn't until he got a few home Tests against South Africa in 2005 that he brought the seamers out again and had a bit of success, taking some very big wickets with very slow in-swingers. Carried on like a **** with every wicket too. Classic Queenslander.

 

[Prince EWS]

ah just saw PEWs post. Well yeah if he's somewhere between May and Lyon he probably definitely could have cracked the top 50 here, though I doubt a single person would have remembered to vote for him - he flies under the radar so easily for some reason

I'm sure some others would rate him as sub-May -- and I used to as well before I gained an appreciation for faster off spinners -- but I think his reputation as a hybrid comes in two parts: firstly that he was legitimately a hybrid in domestic cricket for a while (in fact he was a specialist quick for years), and secondly that absolutely meme YouTube video of him getting Mathew Sinclair out after swapping to pace mid-over.

He was more like a quick who converted to offies than someone who really bowled "both" -- he could be talked into bowling seam-up sometimes after his conversion when the balance of the attack suited, but he was picked for his off spin. By the time he made his Test debut he was very much an off spinner who could bowl meds, but just a few years before he was a specialist opening bowler destined to a career of 8/10 domestic medium pace bowling.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think it's being generous calling him Shane Watson level tbh. He was a very ordinary medium pacer. Sinclair should be ashamed.

 

[Line and Length]

I could make a case for the inclusion of Fred Titmus in the 44-50 ranks. He was only the 4th player to take 2,500 wickets and score 20,000 runs in first class cricket.
In 53 Test matches he took 153 wickets @ 32.2 including 7-79 in the Third Ashes Test at Sydney in the '62/63 series.
His Test career was interrupted when he lost 4 toes in a boating accident in the Caribbean.
His first class career included 2,830 wickets @ 22.3 with best figures of 9-52.
With 6 first class centuries and 105 fifties (including 10 at Test level) Titmus would qualify as an all-rounder.
His last appearance came by accident. Attending the Middlesex v Surrey match in 1982 as a spectator (aged 49), he was prevailed upon to play by Middlesex captain Mike Brearley, and the gamble paid off: Titmus took 3–43 on a pitch taking spin, and Middlesex won by 58 runs. He thus became one of the very few men to have played first-class cricket in five decades (1940s – 1980s).