"Attacking" \ "Defensive" fingerspin

[Richard]

I just did a search of stats for a few spinners playing in England and i guess i'll have to admit i'm wrong,dam.

I just don't like rating players too much of what surface they bowl, it doesn't seem right to me.
It's relying on the conditions, which is not something i enjoy talking about or even admiting in cricket, even though it plays a big part.

For lots and lots of players the conditions play a part in how good they are, it's not something there's shame in.
Only a very small handful of bowlers are good enough to bowl well on all surfaces. And obviously any batsman worth his salt will cash-in when the pitch is good for batting, what I don't like is when people speak highly of batsmen who average 55 on flat pitches and 27-30 or so when there's something for the bowlers.

 

[Richard]

That is true, but Udal (particularly to the left-handers) did turn quite a few, he was just so innocuous, spin or no spin, that he was never going to get any wickets.

Giles didn't turn it, IMO, because he was injured.

I can't say I noticed Udal turn many deliveries - the odd one, yes, but as tec once said - you could find the odd ball that seamed at Antigua, does that mean it was a seaming pitch?
I don't think Giles would've turned it in Pakistan, and I think that Udal would've been much more effective if the pitches had offered some turn.

 

[Richard]

I never said averages, i said trying to ignore the conditions.

As TH says - conditions make a huge impact on bowling, that's the entire skill of bowling, trying to do it well in as many conditions as you can.
I find it strange to try to judge bowlers without looking at conditions, as it will give false impression of the bowlers' ability.
Averages are not everything, of course, but equally there has never been a good bowler with a poor average. Equally, averages are all about breaking down, not just looking at every game as if it was the same thing.
It makes things less clear if you try to look at all games as equal.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I can't say I noticed Udal turn many deliveries - the odd one, yes, but as tec once said - you could find the odd ball that seamed at Antigua, does that mean it was a seaming pitch?

I think he turned more than the odd delivery to be honest. It wasn't consistent turn, and it didn't turn square, but it turned a lot more than English pitches IMO.

 

[Richard]

Well - judging by a few things Rose Bowl pitches turned (and bounced unevenly - as always) last season and the season before.
I've honestly always believed Udal a good bowler who'll exploit a turning pitch most of the time. He's not quite in the Robert Croft class because Croft was a skillful loop and drift bowler too, but I have always rated both pretty highly.
I really, really wish Udal had been selected for the ongoing game, and can see Plunkett being utterly innocuous (mind I can see him being innocuous most of the time).

 

[open365]

As TH says - conditions make a huge impact on bowling, that's the entire skill of bowling, trying to do it well in as many conditions as you can.
I find it strange to try to judge bowlers without looking at conditions, as it will give false impression of the bowlers' ability.
Averages are not everything, of course, but equally there has never been a good bowler with a poor average. Equally, averages are all about breaking down, not just looking at every game as if it was the same thing.
It makes things less clear if you try to look at all games as equal.

Gahhhh!!!

Doesn't anyone understand what i'm saying?

I wish conditions didn't matter in cricket, i couldn't care less if they played every game on a specially prepared pitch indoors, sport shouldn't be about what conditions you play in.

 

[Richard]

Really?
I couldn't wish more the opposite, frankly.
For me, variety of conditions is what cricket is all about. I love seeing play in different places with different pitches; different balls; different outfield conditions; different air (damp and dry; thin and thick); different heat; etc.
How bowlers and batsmen achieve in different conditions is what cricket is all about IMO.

 

[steds]

I don't think Giles would've turned it in Pakistan, and I think that Udal would've been much more effective if the pitches had offered some turn.

...and had Udal not been the worst spinner I've ever laid eyes on.











(....well, maybe 2nd worst after me.)

 

[Neil Pickup]

Gahhhh!!!

Doesn't anyone understand what i'm saying?

I wish conditions didn't matter in cricket, i couldn't care less if they played every game on a specially prepared pitch indoors, sport shouldn't be about what conditions you play in.

Would get very boring very quickly

 

[vic_orthdox]

Attacking and defensive bowling - especially spin bowling - isn't about economy and strike rates and never will be.

 

[Richard]

...and had Udal not been the worst spinner I've ever laid eyes on.











(....well, maybe 2nd worst after me.)

You seriously think Udal is anything close to as bad as Dawson and Batty?

 

[Richard]

Attacking and defensive bowling - especially spin bowling - isn't about economy and strike rates and never will be.

How do you attack if you don't take wickets?
How do you defend if you're giving away runs?
(Add a "quickly" on there for best effect, as anyone who bowls will, eventually, get wickets and give away runs)

 

[vic_orthdox]

How do you attack if you don't take wickets?
How do you defend if you're giving away runs?
(Add a "quickly" on there for best effect, as anyone who bowls will, eventually, get wickets and give away runs)

How do you take wickets if you don't attack?

That's the question of the current. Not of one in hindsight.

 

[open365]

Would get very boring very quickly

Look at other sports, cricket is so much more biased on the conditions than any other sport, yet you wouldn't say football got boring very very quickly would you?

 

[open365]

How do you attack if you don't take wickets?
How do you defend if you're giving away runs?
(Add a "quickly" on there for best effect, as anyone who bowls will, eventually, get wickets and give away runs)

The results of your bowliing doesn't determine the origanal objective.

 

[simmy]

Would get very boring very quickly

I agree. Its good for teams like India, Pakistan and England were playing at home is very advantageous.

If conditions remained the same throughout the world, Australias reign would dominate further.

 

[Richard]

How do you take wickets if you don't attack?

That's the question of the current. Not of one in hindsight.

How can you have attacked *succesfully* (and that's what bowling is about - your aim being successful) if you haven't taken wickets (as Cullen, for one, hasn't this season)?

 

[Richard]

Look at other sports, cricket is so much more biased on the conditions than any other sport, yet you wouldn't say football got boring very very quickly would you?

Cricket isn't other sports.
That's what sets it apart. Anyway, tennis has plenty of variety of conditions, too.

 

[tooextracool]

You seriously think Udal is anything close to as bad as Dawson and Batty?

what makes you think hes any better? an average of 92 is probably flattering him a little bit IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

I've honestly always believed Udal a good bowler who'll exploit a turning pitch most of the time. He's not quite in the Robert Croft class because Croft was a skillful loop and drift bowler too, but I have always rated both pretty highly.

in other words Udal is an off spinner who doesnt use loop or drift, 2 of the most important attributes of finger spin bowling. so all he does is turn the ball then? thats about as good as any off spinner whos ever set foot in county cricket.