I think you are might be misinterpreting my comment. The first paragraph supports the idea of 4 quicks on a greentop, cos you want more than 2 firing at all times, and you often will have only 2 out of 3 quicks going well- everyone has bad spells/sessions/matches.
-
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.
Would you play a specialist spinner regardless of pitch?
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
Migara
International Coach
If WIndies had a Murali or a Warne or even a Saqlain, would have played every match regardless of the pitch.
Owzat
U19 Captain
I would say not "regardless of pitch". A lot theorise it rests the quicks, ties and end down, all manner of theories but not particularly considered in depth
Let's say the pitch is swinging, aussies are 100/4 on day one and suddenly England bring on the spinner to "rest the quicks", "tie and end down", spin it how you like (see what I did there
) Basically you have tied one hand around your balls, playing your least effective bowler in the conditions, based on not a lot
I don't like bowling attacks of five quicks, but rotated properly a four man attack should do the job if the conditions suit seam. If they do their job shouldn't be bowling long enough to need much rest, poor little lambs having to bowl 20-25 overs in 6+ hours of cricket. Playing a spinner then is preparing to bowl into day two, or putting it more cynically gifting the batting side however many runs he goes for
if you have a better than "reasonably good" spinner then no brainer, bound to play and take wickets in the 1st innings anyway, but how many are? Someone can fiddle with crocinfo if they like to whittle out spin conditions, but for most non-sub continent spinners the 1st innings will mostly be bowled in not the most helpful spin conditions
1st innings (of match, average for 2nd innings of match in brackets)
Ali : 31 wickets @ 54.23 (43.88)
Lyon : 125 wickets @ 31.87 (34.60)
A.Patel : 22 wickets @ 30.64 (28.42)
Leach : 20 wickets @ 46.55 (44.97)
Patel has better averages in innings 2 and 4 than 1 and 3, pretty good all round, but has played vast majority of his Tests in countries you'd expect to help spin (11/16)
could analyse more, would probably need to look at it in a better site than I am at the moment, largely as on laptop and not ideal, Of course there won't be a massive sample as you'd have to rule out the main bowlers of spin, India, given most of their 1st innings spin will be bowled in India. Pakistan's two spinners I looked at haven't really played enough to conclude much
of course how much a spinner bats can aid this, India in England prefer Jadeja over Ashwin but neither is useless with the bat. regardless of which innings Jadeja averages 43.48 with ball in England, Ashwin 28.11 including a 1st innings (of match) 4/62
isn't all about the 1st innings of the match of course, but in helpful seam conditions that can be the deciding factor, Ali has picked up wickets bowling last in England (and other innings granted), and got MOTMs, but seem to recall at least 1-2 matches where for instance Anderson and Broad, or just one or the other, did for the opponents in the 1st innings and Ali grabbed the headline performance bowling last
bottom line is whether or not you'll gain enough from the spinner in less than good conditions for bowling spin, it may not even get to the theoretical "spin wins the game bowling last on day five on a deteriorating pitch" scenario, games don't always go to days 4-5 PLUS, and this may be key, you can win Tests without spin playing a major role. so spin for me, picked "regardless", can just be a defensive approach hoping they'll play some part.
Helps if they can bat, a big part in why England kept picking Ali, can bat, bowls a bit of spin, seen as not costing too many games - and even though surprisingly Ali bowled the fewest overs of the four innings in the fourth innings, (423.3, 758, 498 and 422.1 in 1-4 respectively) he did take his wickets @ 23.17, was that worth it for the fewest overs (less than 1/5 by my calculation) and pretty poor returns in innings 1-3?
oh and one example of the free runs, in 1st innings 0/48 from Ali vs NZL, might otherwise have bowled them out for less than 350, kiwis racked up 454/8d in 2nd innings, Ali 1/73 so not quite "free" but 1/121 hardly causing serious damage, and England lost badly - Ali making 1 and 2 with the bat, wasn't quite the margin he conceded but didn't "tie up an end" and "keep the quicks fresh to run through the batting" as theory has it
Let's say the pitch is swinging, aussies are 100/4 on day one and suddenly England bring on the spinner to "rest the quicks", "tie and end down", spin it how you like (see what I did there
) Basically you have tied one hand around your balls, playing your least effective bowler in the conditions, based on not a lotI don't like bowling attacks of five quicks, but rotated properly a four man attack should do the job if the conditions suit seam. If they do their job shouldn't be bowling long enough to need much rest, poor little lambs having to bowl 20-25 overs in 6+ hours of cricket. Playing a spinner then is preparing to bowl into day two, or putting it more cynically gifting the batting side however many runs he goes for
if you have a better than "reasonably good" spinner then no brainer, bound to play and take wickets in the 1st innings anyway, but how many are? Someone can fiddle with crocinfo if they like to whittle out spin conditions, but for most non-sub continent spinners the 1st innings will mostly be bowled in not the most helpful spin conditions
1st innings (of match, average for 2nd innings of match in brackets)
Ali : 31 wickets @ 54.23 (43.88)
Lyon : 125 wickets @ 31.87 (34.60)
A.Patel : 22 wickets @ 30.64 (28.42)
Leach : 20 wickets @ 46.55 (44.97)
Patel has better averages in innings 2 and 4 than 1 and 3, pretty good all round, but has played vast majority of his Tests in countries you'd expect to help spin (11/16)
could analyse more, would probably need to look at it in a better site than I am at the moment, largely as on laptop and not ideal, Of course there won't be a massive sample as you'd have to rule out the main bowlers of spin, India, given most of their 1st innings spin will be bowled in India. Pakistan's two spinners I looked at haven't really played enough to conclude much
of course how much a spinner bats can aid this, India in England prefer Jadeja over Ashwin but neither is useless with the bat. regardless of which innings Jadeja averages 43.48 with ball in England, Ashwin 28.11 including a 1st innings (of match) 4/62
isn't all about the 1st innings of the match of course, but in helpful seam conditions that can be the deciding factor, Ali has picked up wickets bowling last in England (and other innings granted), and got MOTMs, but seem to recall at least 1-2 matches where for instance Anderson and Broad, or just one or the other, did for the opponents in the 1st innings and Ali grabbed the headline performance bowling last
bottom line is whether or not you'll gain enough from the spinner in less than good conditions for bowling spin, it may not even get to the theoretical "spin wins the game bowling last on day five on a deteriorating pitch" scenario, games don't always go to days 4-5 PLUS, and this may be key, you can win Tests without spin playing a major role. so spin for me, picked "regardless", can just be a defensive approach hoping they'll play some part.
Helps if they can bat, a big part in why England kept picking Ali, can bat, bowls a bit of spin, seen as not costing too many games - and even though surprisingly Ali bowled the fewest overs of the four innings in the fourth innings, (423.3, 758, 498 and 422.1 in 1-4 respectively) he did take his wickets @ 23.17, was that worth it for the fewest overs (less than 1/5 by my calculation) and pretty poor returns in innings 1-3?
oh and one example of the free runs, in 1st innings 0/48 from Ali vs NZL, might otherwise have bowled them out for less than 350, kiwis racked up 454/8d in 2nd innings, Ali 1/73 so not quite "free" but 1/121 hardly causing serious damage, and England lost badly - Ali making 1 and 2 with the bat, wasn't quite the margin he conceded but didn't "tie up an end" and "keep the quicks fresh to run through the batting" as theory has it
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Ajaz probably isn't the best example (see above) as he has more than 50 test wickets but zero are at home.
andruid
Cricketer Of The Year
Migara
International Coach
If it is a spinner who is unorthodox then there is merit playing such a spinner.
If Saqlain was available for WI in 80s, he would have played every match. He possessed that mystery that can take pitch out of the equation, and can be very difficult to lower order and fresh batsmen at the crease.
Shakib would have easily made in to that team as the all rounder, no brainer. Even Vettori would have. Definitely over Benjamins and host of bowlers who played one or two matches each.
If Saqlain was available for WI in 80s, he would have played every match. He possessed that mystery that can take pitch out of the equation, and can be very difficult to lower order and fresh batsmen at the crease.
Shakib would have easily made in to that team as the all rounder, no brainer. Even Vettori would have. Definitely over Benjamins and host of bowlers who played one or two matches each.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Hopefully NZ plays Phillips and Ravindra + 4 seamers against SA and Aus.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Interesting thought; what would had happened had Lance Gibbs played around the same time as the quartet? I personally think he would had played more matches than not....
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Definitely in the SC. They wouldnt have drawed a game there.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
SC isn't even a debate, I wonder how many matches would had he played in SENA
This question was asked at the time. General conclusion was that it wouldn't have worked.
Gibbs got through his overs so quickly that the fast bowler at the other end would have no rest, bowling virtually non-stop. Someone like Viv Richards would have to partner Gibbs, relieving pressure on the batsmen.
Personal view is that West Indies at their best would not have swapped any of their fast bowlers for anybody. They had developed a highly successful strategy of constant short-of-a-length bowling forcing batsmen back ("if you want to drive, buy a car" - Holding). They weren't interested in pitch-it-up swing (apart from as a surprise delivery) or spin that would make the batsman feel more comfortable and result in more runs.
Theoretical all-time teams are a different matter. Tony Cozier was adamant that Gibbs would play alongside three specialist quicks (Marshall, Holding, Ambrose) plus Sobers. Gibbs and Sobers (spin) would operate in tandem with Sobers doubling up as a fourth quicker bowler.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Harper had a better FC average than Gibbs, a good batting record (though he never transferred it to tests) and was a gun fielder, yet he only played 25 tests.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Haven't bowlers like Roger Harper played plenty of matches alongside the quartet?
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Gibbs was a miles better bowler than Harper....
As just mentioned Harper played 25 Tests and brought other things to the party. Gibbs was a decent gully fielder but not in Harper's class.
Gibbs bowled an average of 57 six-ball overs per Test, Harper 24. You would only pick Gibbs if he was going to do a lot of bowling.
Migara
International Coach
Every match. That would have given faster bowlers more rest while Lance was boring the life out of batsmen.
Migara
International Coach
Let's do a thought experiment.
Who would replace the 4th seamer in 80s WI attack out of following (just on bowling prowess)
Muralitharan
Warne
O'Riely
Laker
Kumble
Grimmet
Saqlain
Rhodes
Underwood
Vettori
Chandrashekar
Bedi
Qadir
Ashwin
Jadeja
Lyon
Swann
I would say majority will. Murali and Warne probably most likely will be their second best bowler if played in that team.
Who would replace the 4th seamer in 80s WI attack out of following (just on bowling prowess)
Muralitharan
Warne
O'Riely
Laker
Kumble
Grimmet
Saqlain
Rhodes
Underwood
Vettori
Chandrashekar
Bedi
Qadir
Ashwin
Jadeja
Lyon
Swann
I would say majority will. Murali and Warne probably most likely will be their second best bowler if played in that team.
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
So, no.I would say not "regardless of pitch". A lot theorise it rests the quicks, ties and end down, all manner of theories but not particularly considered in depth
Let's say the pitch is swinging, aussies are 100/4 on day one and suddenly England bring on the spinner to "rest the quicks", "tie and end down", spin it how you like (see what I did there
I don't like bowling attacks of five quicks, but rotated properly a four man attack should do the job if the conditions suit seam. If they do their job shouldn't be bowling long enough to need much rest, poor little lambs having to bowl 20-25 overs in 6+ hours of cricket. Playing a spinner then is preparing to bowl into day two, or putting it more cynically gifting the batting side however many runs he goes for
if you have a better than "reasonably good" spinner then no brainer, bound to play and take wickets in the 1st innings anyway, but how many are? Someone can fiddle with crocinfo if they like to whittle out spin conditions, but for most non-sub continent spinners the 1st innings will mostly be bowled in not the most helpful spin conditions
1st innings (of match, average for 2nd innings of match in brackets)
Ali : 31 wickets @ 54.23 (43.88)
Lyon : 125 wickets @ 31.87 (34.60)
A.Patel : 22 wickets @ 30.64 (28.42)
Leach : 20 wickets @ 46.55 (44.97)
Patel has better averages in innings 2 and 4 than 1 and 3, pretty good all round, but has played vast majority of his Tests in countries you'd expect to help spin (11/16)
could analyse more, would probably need to look at it in a better site than I am at the moment, largely as on laptop and not ideal, Of course there won't be a massive sample as you'd have to rule out the main bowlers of spin, India, given most of their 1st innings spin will be bowled in India. Pakistan's two spinners I looked at haven't really played enough to conclude much
of course how much a spinner bats can aid this, India in England prefer Jadeja over Ashwin but neither is useless with the bat. regardless of which innings Jadeja averages 43.48 with ball in England, Ashwin 28.11 including a 1st innings (of match) 4/62
isn't all about the 1st innings of the match of course, but in helpful seam conditions that can be the deciding factor, Ali has picked up wickets bowling last in England (and other innings granted), and got MOTMs, but seem to recall at least 1-2 matches where for instance Anderson and Broad, or just one or the other, did for the opponents in the 1st innings and Ali grabbed the headline performance bowling last
bottom line is whether or not you'll gain enough from the spinner in less than good conditions for bowling spin, it may not even get to the theoretical "spin wins the game bowling last on day five on a deteriorating pitch" scenario, games don't always go to days 4-5 PLUS, and this may be key, you can win Tests without spin playing a major role. so spin for me, picked "regardless", can just be a defensive approach hoping they'll play some part.
Helps if they can bat, a big part in why England kept picking Ali, can bat, bowls a bit of spin, seen as not costing too many games - and even though surprisingly Ali bowled the fewest overs of the four innings in the fourth innings, (423.3, 758, 498 and 422.1 in 1-4 respectively) he did take his wickets @ 23.17, was that worth it for the fewest overs (less than 1/5 by my calculation) and pretty poor returns in innings 1-3?
oh and one example of the free runs, in 1st innings 0/48 from Ali vs NZL, might otherwise have bowled them out for less than 350, kiwis racked up 454/8d in 2nd innings, Ali 1/73 so not quite "free" but 1/121 hardly causing serious damage, and England lost badly - Ali making 1 and 2 with the bat, wasn't quite the margin he conceded but didn't "tie up an end" and "keep the quicks fresh to run through the batting" as theory has it