sayon basak
Cricketer Of The Year
Who was the better English Spinner?
-
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.
Jim Laker vs Hedley Verity
- Thread starter sayon basak
- Start date
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
Throw Underwood in here, and I'd vote for him instead.
sayon basak
Cricketer Of The Year
Ok done
Don't you have a whole player comparison sub-forum for this stuff?
Last edited:
sayon basak
Cricketer Of The Year
Oh misteak.
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
PlayerComparisons
International Captain
Laker
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
So we live in a world where Ashwin/Jadeja take considerable flack for away records. But still these decades past finger spinners, were very conditions dependent and absolute night and day on wet vs dry wickets due to uncovered pitches, and we're supposed to think they were any good. I don't get it.
Underwood played primarily on uncovered pitches, but importantly his record was pretty resilient to those conditions. Therefore he's pretty clearly better than all the conditions reliant finger spinners from decades past.
Honestly I'm pretty sure these past era spinners are mostly relics who wouldn't be able to hack it in the slightest in more modern professional level cricket.
The only ones whose games I really respect were O'Reilly, clearly the best of the old lot, as he was reported to rip the ball in unlike the lollipop merchants of his time (and the record resiliency and penetration across all conditions supports that) and a distinct rung below, Underwood, who also set himself apart to a somewhat lesser degree for the reasons mentioned above.
Underwood played primarily on uncovered pitches, but importantly his record was pretty resilient to those conditions. Therefore he's pretty clearly better than all the conditions reliant finger spinners from decades past.
Honestly I'm pretty sure these past era spinners are mostly relics who wouldn't be able to hack it in the slightest in more modern professional level cricket.
The only ones whose games I really respect were O'Reilly, clearly the best of the old lot, as he was reported to rip the ball in unlike the lollipop merchants of his time (and the record resiliency and penetration across all conditions supports that) and a distinct rung below, Underwood, who also set himself apart to a somewhat lesser degree for the reasons mentioned above.
Last edited:
Johan
Cricketer Of The Year
Can you post Laker's numbers in the covered Australian and Windies wickets? let's see how badly he failed.
Oh wait, he was good in Australia and decent in context for the West Indies, tragic.
Last edited:
sayon basak
Cricketer Of The Year
I don't know what made you think that Laker doesn't get downgraded a bit for his away record.
PlayerComparisons
International Captain
Ashwin’s away record is generally used against him when compared to ATGs which is fair. He’s generally rated higher than the bowlers in this poll.
West Indian pitches have had far more variety than any other place apart from South Africa/India. They're not all pace bowling wickets that Laker had to struggle on heroically.
Johan
Cricketer Of The Year
I mean, this has truth to it but only in a modern context, West Indies pitches were far and away known as "batting paraises" in the 1950s, Tests from these time frame were extremely high scoring, there was much for bowlers in it.
West Indies: Pitch like those of 60s
It resembles a Kensington Oval pitch of 1960s vintage 'flat and grassless 'and there is a reason for it
www-espncricinfo-com.cdn.ampproject.org
all of this changed when a certain Michael Holding came around, but Windies until early 70s was flat as hell, look at what Gavaskar, Turner, Amiss and Walter did in Windies in early 70s.
Actually, Verity was voted as 4th best spinner ever and Laker as 5th while Ashwin got 6, so No, he's not rated higher generally on the forum.
Last edited:
They still produced a variety of bowlers though? They weren't all pace dominant or spin dominant.
Johan
Cricketer Of The Year
The pitches were majorly batter dominated, flat, grassless with very late pitch degradation. Think of Australia before Sandpaper gate, that's why I don't really mind a finger spinner average in the low 30s there.
infact, here are some statistics.
average runs per wicket in Tests between England, Australia, South Africa and West Indies between 1949-50 and 1958-59:
In England: 28.10
In Australia: 27.01
In South Africa: 25.93
In West Indies: 39.58
infact, away batters also found West Indies the easiest to navigate, away batter averages
in England: 20.96
in Australia: 23.80
in South Africa: 27.28
in New Zealand: 33.66
in India: 32.79
in West Indies: 37.31
Touring bowlers of the time, also found West Indies by far the most brutal in this era. Trueman, Miller, Lindwall, Fazal — all averaged north of 30 in West Indies
in England: 28.89
in Australia: 26.65
in South Africa: 23.06
in West Indies: 40.14
these numbers tell a story, and averaging 31 on these wickets with 4 wickets a game is an achievement, not a negative for his career. for reference, Laker averages below 27 in games where other bowlers combined averaged 35+
At the end of the day, there's really nothing wrong with Laker's record, he performed everywhere he went bar South Africa, was perfectly respectable on tougher wickets and was one of the best ever when the pitches aided him, when not bowling to Sir Donald Bradman he averages 19.5 too, he's good.
Last edited:
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
Looking at the history of covered and uncovered pitches since there seems to be some confusion.
The complete covering of wickets in Sheffield Shield cricket from the early 1920s was said to be responsible for the decline of bowling in Australia and the almost entire absence of finger-spin,” although this conveniently overlooked the number of world-class wrist-spinners produced by that system. Nevertheless, this posed problems for Australian batters when they did encounter sticky wickets, such as in the case of Donald Bradman’s supposed inferiority to Hobbs or Wally Hammond in those conditions. But covering was made compulsory in Australia from the 1924–25 season, which has remained the case ever since for their domestic competitions. Only games played by touring teams and Test matches retained the old regulations on covering.
The more usual ruling in force from 1934 to 1957 was: “The wicket shall be completely protected against rain if necessary and as far as practicable twenty-four hours before the time advertised for the start of a Test Match or until play begins. After the first ball has been bowled the covers shall not protect more than 3 ft. 6 inches in front of the popping crease at each end.” If the start of the match was delayed, full covering was used after the scheduled start until play began. This meant that Test matches were largely following the same rules as the County Championship. Attempts by the Imperial Cricket Conference to come up with some rules for Test covering before a match were blocked by Warner (oddly representing South Africa at the meeting) in 1930. It was not until 1960 that full covering during a game was used in a Test match in England.
Tests in other countries were a different question, and various rules applied. For example, the pitches for the 1929–30 series between the West Indies and England employed full covering throughout, something which had not been agreed beforehand and for which the West Indies board later apologised. The same happened in the third Test of the 1934–35 series in British Guiana. But the MCC generally did not want covering to be used for Tests involving England. A request from Australia to use full covering during the 1936–37 Ashes series was denied, but several rain-affected pitches in that series — which had a bearing on the outcome of the series — persuaded the English captain Gubby Allen that full covering might be necessary in Australia. The MCC also declined a request from the South African authorities to have full covering for the 1938–39 series.
When the West Indies toured Australia in 1951–52, which fell outside the direct jurisdiction of the MCC, full covering was used for the first time in Test matches. This proved successful, as did South Africa’s 1952–53 series in Australia; therefore when the Australia authorities proposed that the 1954–55 Ashes series should have full covering, the MCC reluctantly agreed although it was to remain “experimental”. But this full covering endured afterwards in Australian Test matches, ending the prospect of a sticky wicket in Australia. In 1956–57, the MCC agreed for full covering for a series in South Africa.
After much discussion and the report of a sub-committee, full covering was made compulsory in county cricket and Test matches from the beginning of the 1959 season: the entire pitch had to be covered each evening and on Sundays; and it also had to be covered whenever play was abandoned owing to rain. The only uncovered period remaining was when the players came off for rain but play was not abandoned.
The traditionalists were not entirely happy though. Prompted by an unconvincing argument that leg-spinners were suffering from the new rules (leg-spinners rarely benefited as much from sticky wickets as finger-spinners, and often preferred drier conditions), the rules were changed once more in 1963: pitches were only covered before a match and on Sundays so that rain during a match could still produce a sticky wicket. To further confuse an already muddy situation, matches by touring teams fell under two rules, one for Test matches (where the 1959 rules applied about covering during games) and another for first-class matches.
Finally, in another abrupt reversal of direction, the rules were changed again in 1969 to enforce uniform covering: before play and after any abandonment during county matches and Test matches; only during county matches against touring teams was full covering permitted during a rain break.
The last changes came at the end of the 1970s. In 1979, Test matches in England had total pitch covering during rain. And the final end of sticky wickets came in 1981, when this same full covering was enforced in all English first-class matches.
full article @ https://oldebor.wordpress.com/2022/...cket-the-confusing-history-of-pitch-covering/
I’m not sure about exact stats involving matting pitches. Pretty sure the last matting pitch in a test was in 1960 Pakistan? And I know they were used in South Africa and Pakistan regularly at points. May have also been India? More info on that subject would be appreciated.
The complete covering of wickets in Sheffield Shield cricket from the early 1920s was said to be responsible for the decline of bowling in Australia and the almost entire absence of finger-spin,” although this conveniently overlooked the number of world-class wrist-spinners produced by that system. Nevertheless, this posed problems for Australian batters when they did encounter sticky wickets, such as in the case of Donald Bradman’s supposed inferiority to Hobbs or Wally Hammond in those conditions. But covering was made compulsory in Australia from the 1924–25 season, which has remained the case ever since for their domestic competitions. Only games played by touring teams and Test matches retained the old regulations on covering.
The more usual ruling in force from 1934 to 1957 was: “The wicket shall be completely protected against rain if necessary and as far as practicable twenty-four hours before the time advertised for the start of a Test Match or until play begins. After the first ball has been bowled the covers shall not protect more than 3 ft. 6 inches in front of the popping crease at each end.” If the start of the match was delayed, full covering was used after the scheduled start until play began. This meant that Test matches were largely following the same rules as the County Championship. Attempts by the Imperial Cricket Conference to come up with some rules for Test covering before a match were blocked by Warner (oddly representing South Africa at the meeting) in 1930. It was not until 1960 that full covering during a game was used in a Test match in England.
Tests in other countries were a different question, and various rules applied. For example, the pitches for the 1929–30 series between the West Indies and England employed full covering throughout, something which had not been agreed beforehand and for which the West Indies board later apologised. The same happened in the third Test of the 1934–35 series in British Guiana. But the MCC generally did not want covering to be used for Tests involving England. A request from Australia to use full covering during the 1936–37 Ashes series was denied, but several rain-affected pitches in that series — which had a bearing on the outcome of the series — persuaded the English captain Gubby Allen that full covering might be necessary in Australia. The MCC also declined a request from the South African authorities to have full covering for the 1938–39 series.
When the West Indies toured Australia in 1951–52, which fell outside the direct jurisdiction of the MCC, full covering was used for the first time in Test matches. This proved successful, as did South Africa’s 1952–53 series in Australia; therefore when the Australia authorities proposed that the 1954–55 Ashes series should have full covering, the MCC reluctantly agreed although it was to remain “experimental”. But this full covering endured afterwards in Australian Test matches, ending the prospect of a sticky wicket in Australia. In 1956–57, the MCC agreed for full covering for a series in South Africa.
After much discussion and the report of a sub-committee, full covering was made compulsory in county cricket and Test matches from the beginning of the 1959 season: the entire pitch had to be covered each evening and on Sundays; and it also had to be covered whenever play was abandoned owing to rain. The only uncovered period remaining was when the players came off for rain but play was not abandoned.
The traditionalists were not entirely happy though. Prompted by an unconvincing argument that leg-spinners were suffering from the new rules (leg-spinners rarely benefited as much from sticky wickets as finger-spinners, and often preferred drier conditions), the rules were changed once more in 1963: pitches were only covered before a match and on Sundays so that rain during a match could still produce a sticky wicket. To further confuse an already muddy situation, matches by touring teams fell under two rules, one for Test matches (where the 1959 rules applied about covering during games) and another for first-class matches.
Finally, in another abrupt reversal of direction, the rules were changed again in 1969 to enforce uniform covering: before play and after any abandonment during county matches and Test matches; only during county matches against touring teams was full covering permitted during a rain break.
The last changes came at the end of the 1970s. In 1979, Test matches in England had total pitch covering during rain. And the final end of sticky wickets came in 1981, when this same full covering was enforced in all English first-class matches.
full article @ https://oldebor.wordpress.com/2022/...cket-the-confusing-history-of-pitch-covering/
I’m not sure about exact stats involving matting pitches. Pretty sure the last matting pitch in a test was in 1960 Pakistan? And I know they were used in South Africa and Pakistan regularly at points. May have also been India? More info on that subject would be appreciated.
Last edited:
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah, I'd actually put Ashwin higher than O'Reilly for longevity too, but that seems a bridge too far for most people.