Would you play a specialist spinner regardless of pitch?

[capt_Luffy]

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.

Rhodes, Jadeja, even probably Vettori and Ashwin can come in just in place of Gus Logie/Faoud Bacchus etc. The team has a very solid top 4 with an ATG and an ATVG opener, with a dependable no. 5 and a capable bat in Dujon and decent support from Marshall; Rhodes and Jadeja walking in place of a batting option is a no-brainer; and I think Vettori and Ashwin will also make the cut. The only bowler here I am not seeing playing majority of matches is Graeme Swann.

 

[peterhrt]

can come in just in place of Gus Logie/Faoud Bacchus etc.

Gus Logie was one of the great all-round fielders.

 

[howitzer]

Gus Logie was one of the great all-round fielders.

Brilliant at short leg.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Gus Logie was one of the great all-round fielders.

Yeah, I know that; but he didn't had the best batting prowess. Jadeja is more than capable of filling his shoes while fielding.

 

[Archer6K]

("if you want to drive, buy a car" - Holding)

Wasn’t it Ambrose who said that?

 

[peterhrt]

Wasn’t it Ambrose who said that?

He may have done. A few of the West Indians repeated the quote, including I believe Viv Richards.

 

[Molehill]

England have tried an all seam attack a few times, I'm struggling to think of any time it proved to be a wise decision.

 

[Chin Music]

And what if not all the four seamers are "reasonably good" and can't bat, such that you end up with a 9-11 that all average below ten in FC cricket?

The England team of the late 90s was notoriously poor with the bat with the likes of Giddins and Mullaly coming to mind. That said, one of the other tail-enders was Tuffers! So you had duff batting and even more dreadful fielding. No wonder, the sometimes hugely criticised Duncan Fletcher felt the need to change the narrative with the spinner needing to be competent in at least one of the supporting disciplines.

 

[Ali TT]

The England team of the late 90s was notoriously poor with the bat with the likes of Giddins and Mullaly coming to mind. That said, one of the other tail-enders was Tuffers! So you had duff batting and even more dreadful fielding. No wonder, the sometimes hugely criticised Duncan Fletcher felt the need to change the narrative with the spinner needing to be competent in at least one of the supporting disciplines.

I think Panesar's fielding did him in more than his batting. It's one thing not to contribute with the bat, but it's another to actually negatively contribute by dropping catches and giving away runs on a regular basis.

 

[Chin Music]

I think Panesar's fielding did him in more than his batting. It's one thing not to contribute with the bat, but it's another to actually negatively contribute by dropping catches and giving away runs on a regular basis.

Another argument I got into with Sanskritsimon back in the day! I had been at the 2012 Galle test match and not only was Panesar bowling ineffective 60mph darts, he dropped two very easy catches and Sri Lanka were regularly running singles to him at mid off, and he was in. It was embarrassing. It was hardly unreasonable to drop him for his fielding although I thought it was fair enough to call out his bowling.

 

[shortpitched713]

Ideally it's always going to be pitch dependent, if you have the requisite extra options for both pace and spin.

For the specific example of 4pacers vs include a single spinner, I think a part of it also ends up being how big the punishment is for slow over rate, and how much you care abut that, as well.

In the old days I might not care about over rates, but in the current regime, I think you need a spinner if you want to maintain a semblance of adequate over rate, given that WTC matters to you. 4 seamers playing well can still turn a win into a WTC points loss.

 

[thierry henry]

NZ became the rightful champions of the first 144 years of test cricket by correctly choosing not to pick a spinner, despite having one available who was months away from taking 10 wickets in an innings

 

[capt_Luffy]

NZ became the rightful champions of the first 144 years of test cricket by correctly choosing not to pick a spinner, despite having one available who was months away from taking 10 wickets in an innings

Except he really wasn't World Class?? Ajaz Patel almost took a quarter of all his Test wickets in a single match, and one-sixth in a innings; and he still averages almost 30. He literally is no better than Narendra Hirwani and Bob Massie (actually, they both are better than him).

 

[capt_Luffy]

What is this a reply to tho

The question was whether a team should always pick a spinner given they have a World Class one at hand. You pointed out how NZ won the WTC without a spinner despite Ajaz Patel's heroics in a match vs India. So I pointed out that Patel was anything but World Class. Had NZ had even Vettori available, they would had gone with him. Patel is just not ready that good.

 

[kyear2]

Gus Logie was one of the great all-round fielders.

Was a master short leg

 

[kyear2]

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.

In Trinidad, Guyana and the SC, Sydney etc. not most matches. Not dripping Walsh for a spinner.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The question was whether a team should always pick a spinner given they have a World Class one at hand. You pointed out how NZ won the WTC without a spinner despite Ajaz Patel's heroics in a match vs India. So I pointed out that Patel was anything but World Class. Had NZ had even Vettori available, they would had gone with him. Patel is just not ready that good.

We only would've picked Vettori in the WTC final XI if the selectors thought he'd score more runs at 7 than De Grandhomme or an extra specialist bat (Will Young or Blundell as a batter) in the top 6 with Watling at 7. Vettori wouldn't have been picked ahead of any of the quartet of Southee, Boult, Jamieson, and Wagner who were all in the world's top 10 bowlers at the time.

NZ actually had the depth for 2 good attacks in 2021. Henry took lots of wickets when we beat England before the final and Ajaz was economical and took a few, but neither got the nod for the final.

 

[thierry henry]

The question was whether a team should always pick a spinner given they have a World Class one at hand. You pointed out how NZ won the WTC without a spinner despite Ajaz Patel's heroics in a match vs India. So I pointed out that Patel was anything but World Class. Had NZ had even Vettori available, they would had gone with him. Patel is just not ready that good.

I assume you mean they would’ve picked Vettori for his batting (correctly)

 

[capt_Luffy]

I assume you mean they would’ve picked Vettori for his batting (correctly)

For Vettori, he isn't good enough to warrant an automatic selection for bowling only. NZ never had that good of a spinner..... I meant if it was a truly good spinner, (like even Harbhajan Singh probably); I would have him in the team.

 

[thierry henry]

OP said ‘reasonably good’ anyway which Ajaz arguably is. But putting aside the fact that I was obviously trolling, it would’ve been objectively wrong to pick Vettori in that match. The only logical spot for him in the side was arguably the all-rounder role, and as FP said only if you thought he was a better batting option than CDG.