Best ever English spinner?

[Richard]

emburey is in the running, along with shastri, hooper, giles, nicky boje, phil tuffnel and venkatraghavan, for the title of worst bowler to have taken more than 100 wickets in tests... too many of this sad list are left arm spinners.

Emburey > all of those, fairly comfortably. I honestly believe he could've done pretty well had he played in the days of uncovered wickets.

yes, i read richars' post on rhodes' early career. i strongly believe laker's overall record is still better than rhodes' best period.

It might be. ITBT, Laker is someone I've never studied extensively, while Rhodes is. Rhodes has simply always struck me as the greatest English fingerspinner of the 20th-century. Maybe, if I knew more of Laker, matters might be different.

 

[luckyeddie]

From that list, Hedley Verity

 

[Swervy]

Emburey > all of those, fairly comfortably. I honestly believe he could've done pretty well had he played in the days of uncovered wickets.

why do you think that Richard?

 

[Richard]

Because he was a pretty darn good fingerspinner, as was Phillippe-Henri Edmunds. Both beyond question better than the likes of Nico Boje, and almost certainly better than relatively standard fare like Venkat, Tufnell and Giles.

And it goes without saying better than batsmen-who-bowled like Hooper and Shastri.

 

[Swervy]

Because he was a pretty darn good fingerspinner, as was Phillippe-Henri Edmunds. Both beyond question better than the likes of Nico Boje, and almost certainly better than relatively standard fare like Venkat, Tufnell and Giles.

And it goes without saying better than batsmen-who-bowled like Hooper and Shastri.

I wouldnt really want to comment on Venkat as I never saw him play, but for me, Tuffers and Giles would have gotten more out of uncovered pitches than Emburey. Emburey rarely gave it a real rip, and was rarely a real wicket taking option.

Phil Edmonds was the better bowler out of the two as well, IMO

 

[Richard]

I know Emburey rarely gave it a real rip but he'd never have been any good at all if he didn't have other attributes. And it goes without saying that, like other spinners, he could easily have adapted everso slightly if the conditions helped. One thing he certainly had was an ability to bowl with intelligence.

TBH, Emburey vs Edmunds is never an issue I've seen as clear-cut. Edmunds had a phenomenal start to his career but really petered-out and for most of the rest of it seemed to be at very worst Emburey-esque.

 

[bagapath]

venkat must have been the best of the lot.

if not as a spinner, at least as a stylish dude. we were at the same table a few weeks ago in a party. have to admit the man looks very dapper and dignified even at this age.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, Venkat's great, and always loved him as an Ump. But he was easily a class behind Bedi, Chandra and Prasanna and if the lot of them had been available for every match over the span of their careers I don't imagine he'd have played more than 1 Test during their time.

 

[neville cardus]

Who was in your opinion the best ever spinner to have played for England in TESTS
I will give you a top ten, based on my ratings for Test bowlers and please vote for one of them.

My vote went to Verity, although it would have gone to Peate had that option been available. The negligible value of basing such rankings entirely on statistics is born out marvellously by the presence of Peel, Rhodes and Bates in his stead.

Although of roughly the same age, Peate and Peel did not play together often. The first-mentioned usually only left the Yorkshire sidelines when Peate was injured. Once Lord Hawke had kicked Peate out, however, Peel made the Tykes' spin berth his own, almost immediately winning a place in the England Test side. But no-one but Arthur Shrewsbury, to the best of my knowledge, adjudged him better than Peate.

Interestingly, Peel pissed all over Wilfred Rhodes in a number of contemporary rankings. If we accept that, and the nigh-unanimous ranking of Peate over Peel, it needs no great stretch of the imagination to assert that Peate was better than Rhodes.

As for Bates, you would be incredibly hard-pressed to find any contemporary who'd put him in contention.

According to Lord Hawke, whose autobiography I purchased today, "Peate was blessed with [the] most perfect action of any man I have seen deliver the ball, and, to look at him, you would have thought he was the very last man ever to have deputised in a troop [sic] of Clown Cricketers. [... H]e had no theories. No man ever bowled more with his head, but his only principle, with all his variations, was always to bowl a length -- a golden rule he acquired from watching Alfred Shaw."

 

[wpdavid]

(re Emburey) Interestingly, once went an entire 3 Test match series without taking a wicket.

Technically four matches, but as England didn't get to bowl in one of them I suppose we can't blame Embers for that one. When he twisted his ankle towards the end of the season, one commentator suggested it was the first thing he'd turned all summer.

He had a quite extraordinary test career, almost spanning 20 years despite twice getting himself banned and despite obviously being considerably past it for the last 8 years or so. One can only shudder at what the standard of our other spinners at the time must have been.

 

[Richard]

Robert Croft also went 3 Tests without taking a wicket - would you say he didn't play his part in winning games for England?

 

[Richard]

Although of roughly the same age, Peate and Peel did not play together often. The first-mentioned usually only left the Yorkshire sidelines when Peate was injured. Once Lord Hawke had kicked Peate out, however, Peel made the Tykes' spin berth his own, almost immediately winning a place in the England Test side. But no-one but Arthur Shrewsbury, to the best of my knowledge, adjudged him better than Peate.

Interestingly, Peel pissed all over Wilfred Rhodes in a number of contemporary rankings. If we accept that, and the nigh-unanimous ranking of Peate over Peel, it needs no great stretch of the imagination to assert that Peate was better than Rhodes.

Where would Verity sit in relation to the three before him? Second after Peate?

 

[neville cardus]

Not in his reckoning, no -- he thought himself the best of the lot -- but, in mine, most certainly.

 

[Richard]

It truly does seem a great shame that Peate did not have a) a more sympathetic captain and b) more Test cricket played in his day. With both of these, I am ever more convinced, he might just have had an unequivocal case to be the best left-arm fingerspinner we've ever seen.

BTW - where does he stand (for you) in comparison to his near-contemporary Johnny Briggs?

 

[neville cardus]

Most telling, perhaps, is Peate's sordid love affair with the stumps behind W.G. Grace. A random browse through contemporary scorecards reveals that, in 1879, Peate bowled Grace for thirteen; in 1881, he bowled him again, this time for eight; in 1882, Grace had his furniture rearranged (by Peate, of course) before he had scored a run, and managed just one in 1885 before falling to the Yorkshire left-armer, again bowled; finally, in 1886, he was bowled by Peate for nine.

In 1887, Peate was missing from the Yorkshire ranks, the conspicuous cleft matched only by the odour surrounding it. W.G. immediately took his chance, cashing in to the effect of 183 not out, 97, 92 and twenty in his four innings against Hawke's men.

Briggs was a fine cricketer, arguably finer than Peate by virtue of his batting and fielding; but, as a bowler, he lacked his supreme control, his temperate form, his subtle variations and his ingenious cricketing brain. Briggs's Test record is also grossly inflated by a pair of jokes masquerading as Test Matches against South Africa in 1888/89. It is significant that his first great bowling year was Peate's last.

 

[morgieb]

Was Rhodes a spinner?
When with Vertity IIRC.

 

[shortpitched713]

Damnit, meant to vote Laker.

 

[Days of Grace]

Most telling, perhaps, is Peate's sordid love affair with the stumps behind W.G. Grace. A random browse through contemporary scorecards reveals that, in 1879, Peate bowled Grace for thirteen; in 1881, he bowled him again, this time for eight; in 1882, Grace had his furniture rearranged (by Peate, of course) before he had scored a run, and managed just one in 1885 before falling to the Yorkshire left-armer, again bowled; finally, in 1886, he was bowled by Peate for nine.

In 1887, Peate was missing from the Yorkshire ranks, the conspicuous cleft matched only by the odour surrounding it. W.G. immediately took his chance, cashing in to the effect of 183 not out, 97, 92 and twenty in his four innings against Hawke's men.

Briggs was a fine cricketer, arguably finer than Peate by virtue of his batting and fielding; but, as a bowler, he lacked his supreme control, his temperate form, his subtle variations and his ingenious cricketing brain. Briggs's Test record is also grossly inflated by a pair of jokes masquerading as Test Matches against South Africa in 1888/89. It is significant that his first great bowling year was Peate's last.

How do you rate Colin Blythe? 18 matches, 100 wickets @ 18.

 

[wpdavid]

Robert Croft also went 3 Tests without taking a wicket - would you say he didn't play his part in winning games for England?

One or two, I'm sure. Actually, I'm not quite sure what your point is, tbh. Emburey's series sans wickets came in 1987, 9 years after debut, when he was a fixture in the side, and was indicative of seriously failing powers. Which was emphasised by his track record for the rest of his career. IIRC his test record after the 1986/87 doesn't brook much argument. Prior to that, he had generally been OK. Subsequently, he was almost a parody of the typical non-spinning English slow bowler.

 

[wpdavid]

How do you rate Colin Blythe? 18 matches, 100 wickets @ 18.

How many of those came against what was then a very weak SA side? Not that we can really gain a lot from averages in those days.