Why aren't there more spinner all rounders?

[Prince EWS]

Are we still pretending that "arm balls" are still actually a thing?

They definitely are but I think you know this based on your Michael Beer point at the end. Balls that didn't turn are definitely over-attritbuted to being armballs; I think some of them are kind of semi-deliberate in that they undercut them so they skid on (Shakib especially is really good at this delivery that I think is deliberate but doesn't really have a name per se), but they're not arm balls.

Mohammad Nabi and Imad Wasim pretty much exclusively bowl them in T20 cricket though, as did Michael Beer when he was a thing.

 

[vcs]

Are we still pretending that "arm balls" are still actually a thing? Let's be honest 99% of the time, especially in the subcontinent, they are just natural variation, ie. regular deliveries where a part of the ball hits a part of the pitch in a way that it just goes straight on.

Very rarely see genuine arm-balls these days. Michael Beer had a great one that was basically his stock ball in the BBL a couple years ago.



What do you see as Rabada's limitations? Only good on bouncy wickets?

Pretty much, yeah, based on his career records. Been poorly used by his captain and played in a hapless team, so I'm reluctant to judge him too harshly yet.

From watching him bowl, he strays too much down the legside and doesn't attack the stumps enough for Indian conditions, doesn't seem to be able to get reverse swing either. So basically he's no Steyn, which is no shame, but there you go.

 

[Prince EWS]

Pretty much, yeah, based on his career records. Been poorly used by his captain and played in a hapless team, so I'm reluctant to judge him too harshly yet.

From watching him bowl, he strays too much down the legside and doesn't attack the stumps enough for Indian conditions, doesn't seem to be able to get reverse swing either. So basically he's no Steyn, which is no shame, but there you go.

He still bowled some top spells with the new ball in this series just gone. He doesn't seem to have much at this stage after that period though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Pretty much, yeah, based on his career records. Been poorly used by his captain and played in a hapless team, so I'm reluctant to judge him too harshly yet.

From watching him bowl, he strays too much down the legside and doesn't attack the stumps enough for Indian conditions, doesn't seem to be able to get reverse swing either. So basically he's no Steyn, which is no shame, but there you go.

Tbf, if we're only considering this Indian tour as evidence then he's also not as hapless as finger spinners can often be abroad. Bowled a superb spell in the third test on day 1,so he's clearly capable of doing well in the conditions.

Quite true about the reverse though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Also, if we're being honest, the flashes where Rabada showed his quality this series were by far the most compelling passages of play. In a series where the Indian spinners picked up loads of wickets.

I don't even remember anything about Ashwin's 5fer

 

[Prince EWS]

Also, if we're being honest, the flashes where Rabada showed his quality this series were by far the most compelling passages of play. In a series where the Indian spinners picked up loads of wickets.

I don't even remember anything about Ashwin's 5fer

I'm not sure this is a particularly compelling point, as the underdog/team getting smashed showing quality is always more compelling as it promises a potentially closer game. Shami and Yadav bowled a couple of spells each that were better than anything Rabada produced but they weren't more compelling because they advanced the game in a way that wasn't as conducive to excitement as Rabada doing the same thing.

Yadav's 3fa v Ashwin's 5fa is a more telling comparison IMO.

 

[vcs]

Tbf, if we're only considering this Indian tour as evidence then he's also not as hapless as finger spinners can often be abroad. Bowled a superb spell in the third test on day 1,so he's clearly capable of doing well in the conditions.

Quite true about the reverse though.

I don't see the difference TBH. About an hour of some threat on day 1 or with the 2nd new ball, and then it was waiting for the batsmen to get bored. Finger spinners are the same abroad, except that the others have to keep the game alive till day 3 or 4 for them to get to have some impact.

 

[vcs]

Also, if we're being honest, the flashes where Rabada showed his quality this series were by far the most compelling passages of play. In a series where the Indian spinners picked up loads of wickets.

I don't even remember anything about Ashwin's 5fer

Ashwin actually bowled well this series after a long time. Was comfortably the best bowler on show in the first couple of Tests.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ashwin actually bowled well this series after a long time. Was comfortably the best bowler on show in the first couple of Tests.

My point wasn't that he bowled rubbish. But that even when bowling well he's less exciting to watch than a sub par rabada.

 

[srbhkshk]

This literally makes zero sense. These sides face them home and away. Very good-to- great teams and players cope in a variety of conditions. This idea I'm having a pot shot at the Indian side is ****ing ludicrous when I've literally said they've now got a legit claim to having a great side. But they've got that claim because they now have decent quicks who can take wickets anywhere instead of relying on spud finger spinners who melt into nothing when it isn't turning square.

You say how good a side's going, give reasons why it's happening and you still get ****wits like TJB saying it's anti-Asian. Literally praise an Asian side as being genuinely awesome - "You're anti-Asian."

Of course I'm anti-spinners. Anyone with half a brain knows if you have a quick bowler who's of the same comparable standard as a spinner, the quick bowler will be more effective across a broader range of conditions. Spinners are just a low breed of cricketer, for the valid reasons I've stated.

Yeah, I'm not having a go at you for Anti-whatever, I'm just saying that if there are two sets of players - both of whom dominate in their own conditions, then it's a bit weird to call out only one of them.

 

[cpr]

Keeping to spinners certainly is fun, likewise fielding in slips. They’re also awesome as a batsman to get you from 40 to 80 quickly.

I think one of the really bad parts of the rise of the lesser cricket nations in the past couple of decades has been this idea that spinners deserve respect. It’s infested even the highest levels. The fact is, they don’t. No batsman worth their salt should treat spinners as anything other than boundary delivery systems.

Look, I accept that some blokes technique is limited to just banging it in as fast as possible and hope it works, the rest of us figured that going all day and hitting the spots that others can't brings far more pleasure. If 19 fall for us in the space of 5 days, then can you blame us for sticking to what we know best?

 

[Prince EWS]

Look, I accept that some blokes technique is limited to just banging it in as fast as possible and hope it works, the rest of us figured that going all day and hitting the spots that others can't brings far more pleasure. If 19 fall for us in the space of 5 days, then can you blame us for sticking to what we know best?

I try not to take the bait on this one too much because this whole topic is just Burgey bored at work most of the time, but I enjoyed being a three-dimensional bowler before the ball pitches. And I'm not speaking in metaphors here; I think spinners operate in three dimensions with their flight before the ball pitches in a way that quicks generally only operate in two. Being able to beat the batsmen in the flight as well as line or length was a great feeling for me.

I probably would've been a **** fast bowler in the same way I was a **** rugby league player, but I always wanted to be a spinner (and/or an opening bat). I was employed as a medium pace swing bowler with the new ball occasionally as well when I played lower grades (before coming back on to bowl a long spell of spin later) but I always felt pretty dirty doing it. Trying to beat the batsman with a skill that was not only refined and thought-out but almost entirely dependent on that brought me more joy than I think making him look unco would've, assuming I could've done either. I might've bowled quick instead if I thought I could have to the same standard (I kinda doubt it, but I might have) but I don't think I would've had as much fun tbh.

I do totally get that international standard quicks are more fun to watch for most people than spinners of the same standard, but that's not really the heart of the debate anymore.

 

[cnerd123]

Yup what PEWS said. It's just so much more enjoyable setting up a batsman and dismissing them as a spinner. I used to bowl quick as a kid, I know what it feels like beating batsmen for pace. It's fun but spin was far more enjoyable. More challenging.

Burgey's logic essentially boils down to "Spin bowling is inherently more limited, and any person who can have great success with this inherently limited form is inferior", which is just backwards IMO. If you can take wickets bowling spin it's a lot more impressive to me than if you take wickets bowling quick. Gift any buffoon the ability to bowl 140 kmph and they'll take wickets. Not everyone has the personality and attitude to take wickets with spin.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Burgey, have a spell. The captain's given you one over too many

 

[Pup Clarke]

Love watching good swing bowling (doesn't have to be at high speeds). Praveen Kumar was a delight to witness and early Bhuvi too

 

[Coronis]

I like spin bowling and pace bowling equally. I also like slow batsmen and fast batsmen equally. Skill not aesthetics.

 

[Burgey]

Yup what PEWS said. It's just so much more enjoyable setting up a batsman and dismissing them as a spinner. I used to bowl quick as a kid, I know what it feels like beating batsmen for pace. It's fun but spin was far more enjoyable. More challenging.

Burgey's logic essentially boils down to "Spin bowling is inherently more limited, and any person who can have great success with this inherently limited form is inferior", which is just backwards IMO. If you can take wickets bowling spin it's a lot more impressive to me than if you take wickets bowling quick. Gift any buffoon the ability to bowl 140 kmph and they'll take wickets. Not everyone has the personality and attitude to take wickets with spin.

Yes but you aren’t the sharpest tool in the shed. This word salad is further proof of it.

Spin bowling is more condition reliant for success than pace bowling. It’s just a fact. That’s the nature of the discipline. It’s therefore a more limited discipline.

And, I have to say this because it’s pretty obvious you and those sharing your view point have played precious little cricket of any worth - if you really, truly need to bust your tiny little brain in order to consciously go about executing your chosen skill in lieu of it coming naturally to you within the context of a sporting context, then I’m afraid you just aren’t that good at said skill.

 

[Burgey]

I try not to take the bait on this one too much because this whole topic is just Burgey bored at work most of the time, but I enjoyed being a three-dimensional bowler before the ball pitches. And I'm not speaking in metaphors here; I think spinners operate in three dimensions with their flight before the ball pitches in a way that quicks generally only operate in two. Being able to beat the batsmen in the flight as well as line or length was a great feeling for me.

I probably would've been a **** fast bowler in the same way I was a **** rugby league player, but I always wanted to be a spinner (and/or an opening bat). I was employed as a medium pace swing bowler with the new ball occasionally as well when I played lower grades (before coming back on to bowl a long spell of spin later) but I always felt pretty dirty doing it. Trying to beat the batsman with a skill that was not only refined and thought-out but almost entirely dependent on that brought me more joy than I think making him look unco would've, assuming I could've done either. I might've bowled quick instead if I thought I could have to the same standard (I kinda doubt it, but I might have) but I don't think I would've had as much fun tbh.

I do totally get that international standard quicks are more fun to watch for most people than spinners of the same standard, but that's not really the heart of the debate anymore.

This is another case in point

“I enjoyed being a three dimensional bowler.” Spare me this complete ****ing dross.

 

[andruid]

From an aesthetic point of view I feel that it's harder for a wrist spinner to look a s smooth and graceful, as the best finger spinners. I liked watching Harbajan Singh almost danced up to the crease, way more than Shane Warne's run up and delivery even when it is obvious Warne is a much better bowler. This is speaking ENTIRELY from an aesthetic point of view

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Gift any buffoon the ability to bowl 140 kmph and they'll take wickets.

Jade Dernbach