Best ever English spinner?

[neville cardus]

Was Rhodes a spinner?

Yes.

When with Vertity IIRC.

No. All the time.

 

[neville cardus]

My problem with Blythe is that he was a bit of a pansy, totally incapable of standing up to the rigours of Test cricket -- at least not without doing himself mental or psychological harm. After one fine exhibition against the South Africans, he lapsed into an epileptic fit. He stopped playing for England shortly thereafter. He simply couldn't take it.

 

[Richard]

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.

I'm not disputing Emburey's decline, but Croft's said 3 games came in 1998, when he was pretty much unquestioned as the premier slow-bowler in the country.

 

[Richard]

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.

10 out of Blythe's 19 Tests were against South Africa, but all of them were after they became worthy of Test status (the first 5, for instance, England lost 4).

In any case, his record against Australia (average 21.39) is still a match for Laker's entire career. A fine bowler, simply - as Rodders pointed-out - one who did not have the required temperament for the top level.

 

[Migara]

Laker.

 

[morgieb]

Yes.



No. All the time.

Meant went. My apologies

 

[a massive zebra]

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.

While your unflagging admiration for Peate is endearing, I cannot concur with your sentiments. A bowler capable of challenging comparison with the most prolific first-class wicket taker off all time should surely have shown his worth by considerably outclassing the majority of his peers with some outstanding performances in the important matches. However, in the two most significant events of his time, Test Matches and Gentlemen vs Players contests, Peate's record compares unfavourably with many of his colleagues. His Test bowling average of 22.03 is considerably inferior to the overall Test average of the 1880s (19.38), and of the 34 bowlers who took 30 or more wickets in Gentleman vs Players matches in the nineteenth century, 31 took them at a better average than Peate’s 25.53. Furthermore, many of Peate’s greatest feats were accomplished in seasons of unprecedented wet weather, a criticism that could not be made of Rhodes, and his career was very short in comparison to most other great spinners.

It is true that a number of people rated Peate as the greatest of all Yorkshire spinners, but most of these were men of Peate’s own generation, and the last 150 years are littered with instances of people rating players of their own era above equally proficient players of more recent vintage. For example, most people interviewed for Talks With Old English Cricketers thought the standard of first class cricket had declined since their retirement from the game, despite the fact that they were being interviewed during the so called “golden age.” Also, Bradman’s All-Time XI allegedly includes Alec Bedser and Clarrie Grimmett, two outstanding, but hardly unrivalled, bowlers of Bradman’s playing days, at the expense of equally deserving more recent bowlers such as Marshall, Murali or Hadlee.

The various editions of Wisden Cricketers Almanack covering Rhodes first few years in first class cricket give a rather different viewpoint as to the comparative merits of these two left arm spinners. The 1899 Wisden, covering Rhodes debut season, stated “Beyond everything else, the feature of Yorkshire’s season was the discovery of Wilfred Rhodes… Rhodes proved himself last summer as a left-handed slow bowler, the legitimate successor in the Yorkshire eleven to Peate and Peel. To say this is only to do him the barest justice, for as a matter of fact, neither Peate nor Peel on first coming out made half such a sensation.” The 1901 edition goes further “Those who hesitated, even after his fine record in 1899, to place him in the same class as Peate must now feel convinced that they did him less than justice… We personally place him on a level with Peate for the reason that as soon as the ground gives him any advantage he has the strongest sides to a great extent at his mercy, his break in combination with extreme accuracy of pitch fairly beating even the best of batsmen.” The 1902 Wisden went further still, giving a subtle hint that Rhodes had now surpassed his great predecessor, “Those who, when Rhodes first came out in 1898, argued that he would be a slow wicket bowler and nothing more, have proved very false prophets. He has obtained his records in seasons of unprecedented run-getting, and has never yet been favoured with a wet summer, such as Peate enjoyed in 1882 and other years. This is a fact which should always be bourne in mind when any comparison is instituted between Rhodes and his great predecessor. Having regard to what he has done under conditions exceptionally favourable to batsmen, we are justified in believing that he would accomplish marvels indeed if he should ever have a season such as those in which Peate’s well-deserved fame was established.”

 

[Tom Halsey]

No-one else gets close, though obviously Underwood almost certainly would trump all of them had pitches become covered in, say, 1985 instead of 1970.

But this is quite relevant, IMO.

To assess who was the better bowler, you have to assess them in the same conditions. Underwood had to bowl part of his career on uncovered pitches, the others did not. When Underwood was bowling on uncovered pitches, he outperformed the likes of Verity.

It is Underwood's contrasting record on covered and uncovered pitches that makes me think that, as fingerspinners, none of Verity, Underwood, Rhodes, or any other fingerspinner you wish to mention would have done too well had they played today. Even Underwood's record on uncovered pitches is skewed somewhat by his 13/71 v Pakistan when water crept under the covers (EDIT: it didn't even creep under. The run-ups were covered, but the pitch itself wasn't, during the first innings). They'd have done well, yes, almost certainly better than the current crop, but they'd not have been world beaters like they were in their day, IMO.

 

[Matteh]

No Ashley Giles i see....farce of a poll.

 

[Jakester1288]

I have never seen any of them play, but going from what I've heard and read in the past, I say Laker.

 

[Spinksy]

Jim Laker imo.

 

[Richard]

But this is quite relevant, IMO.

To assess who was the better bowler, you have to assess them in the same conditions. Underwood had to bowl part of his career on uncovered pitches, the others did not. When Underwood was bowling on uncovered pitches, he outperformed the likes of Verity.

But he only did this for a relatively short time - thus Underwood's record on uncovered pitches, broadly fairly comparable to Verity and Rhodes', lacks the longevity they achieved.

There's almost certainly very, very little between any of Peate, Peel, Rhodes, Verity, Underwood and a few others as fingerspinners. Underwood simply had the misfortune of having the biggest advantage for fingerspinners taken away mid-career; his successors never enjoyed it at all.

It is Underwood's contrasting record on covered and uncovered pitches that makes me think that, as fingerspinners, none of Verity, Underwood, Rhodes, or any other fingerspinner you wish to mention would have done too well had they played today. Even Underwood's record on uncovered pitches is skewed somewhat by his 13/71 v Pakistan when water crept under the covers (EDIT: it didn't even creep under. The run-ups were covered, but the pitch itself wasn't, during the first innings). They'd have done well, yes, almost certainly better than the current crop, but they'd not have been world beaters like they were in their day, IMO.

This for mine goes without saying. I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that the likes of Underwood, Laker, Verity and even Rhodes would be anywhere near as effective in the days of fully covered wickets as they were in that of fully uncovered.

BTW, CBA to quote it, but amz's post above is deeply fascinating, thanks a lot.

 

[Richard]

I have never seen any of them play, but going from what I've heard and read in the past, I say Laker.

Jim Laker imo.

Laker benefits where several others don't from the knowledge possessed by the relatively historically naive of one fine performance. Not, obviously, that he did not have plenty of others, but I'd guess a fair amount of Laker votes wouldn't have been made but for 1956.

 

[fredfertang]

Is this another example of statistical purification Richard?

My vote would go to Verity by a short head - would you disregard his 10 for 10?

I am sure there is some statistical basis for disregarding stand out performances (standard deviation is it?) but surely not in sport - personally I believe a sportsman's stand out performances are the measure of him

 

[zaremba]

Laker benefits where several others don't from the knowledge possessed by the relatively historically naive of one fine performance. Not, obviously, that he did not have plenty of others, but I'd guess a fair amount of Laker votes wouldn't have been made but for 1956.

Funny, that.

1956: When one man took 46 wickets in an Ashes series, including a world-record 19 in one Test. When one man managed to tower over Trueman, Tyson, Statham, Lock, Bailey, Wardle, Miller, Lindwall, Davidson, and Benaud among others. When one man took 10 wickets in an innings twice against the touring Australians.

Astonishing that this might have prompted a few "historically naive" people to vote for him. Well done for putting Jakester and Spinsky so firmly in their place.

 

[fredfertang]

Of course the Australians have always maintained there was a conspiracy between the Lancashire and England authorities to produce a pitch that would break up early on and make Laker and Lock unplayable - Aussie opener Colin MacDonald was still maintaining that in 2004 when he was interviewed for the 50th anniversary book about the game that Vic Rigby published in 2006 – but even if the conspiracy theory were true I dont see how it can devalue that particular achievement as if the pitch were a lottery shouldn’t Laker and Lock have taken 10 each? Unless Lock were rubbish of course - but then he had a 10 for in 1956 and his overall figures - 155 @ 12.46 were better than Laker's so for Laker to get 19 while LOck got one is quite remarkable - I change my mind - I'm with Jakester and Spinksy - Laker not Verity

 

[Richard]

Is this another example of statistical purification Richard?

My vote would go to Verity by a short head - would you disregard his 10 for 10?

I am sure there is some statistical basis for disregarding stand out performances (standard deviation is it?) but surely not in sport - personally I believe a sportsman's stand out performances are the measure of him

I made no suggestion of disregarding anything - simply said that a one-off event which is obviously famous (which Laker's 19-90 was, and Verity's 10 for 10 simply doesn't come close to in terms of wide repute) will often mean people who don't know much about cricket history will often vote for the perpetrator ahead of someone who they've never heard of because he didn't have such a famous one-off performance, even if that person might have been a better performer over a longer time.

 

[Tom Halsey]

But he only did this for a relatively short time - thus Underwood's record on uncovered pitches, broadly fairly comparable to Verity and Rhodes', lacks the longevity they achieved.

I'm going purely on memory here, but I thought there was quite a big difference tbh.

IIRR, Underwood's pre-covered-pitches average was sub-20, whereas Verity was 24, and IIRR Rhodes was 26? Not sure, but if so that isn't, to me, "fairly comparable".

 

[Richard]

Of course the Australians have always maintained there was a conspiracy between the Lancashire and England authorities to produce a pitch that would break up early on and make Laker and Lock unplayable - Aussie opener Colin MacDonald was still maintaining that in 2004 when he was interviewed for the 50th anniversary book about the game that Vic Rigby published in 2006 – but even if the conspiracy theory were true I dont see how it can devalue that particular achievement as if the pitch were a lottery shouldn’t Laker and Lock have taken 10 each? Unless Lock were rubbish of course - but then he had a 10 for in 1956 and his overall figures - 155 @ 12.46 were better than Laker's so for Laker to get 19 while LOck got one is quite remarkable - I change my mind - I'm with Jakester and Spinksy - Laker not Verity

It was always said, was it not, that Lock tried too hard in that Old Trafford match, firing the ball in faster and faster as he saw his partner take wicket after wicket?

(That's, obviously, not to devalue Laker's bowling, merely to explain the extraordinary inequity between two very fine bowlers)

As regards the "conspiracy theory" stuff, I damn well hope it's true, because if so it's quite bloody right. As a home team, you are stupid if you don't play to your strengths. If you've two spinners of the calibre of Lock and Laker, you prepare turning surfaces unless you're a complete dunderhead or don't actually want to win the series.

 

[Richard]

I'm going purely on memory here, but I thought there was quite a big difference tbh.

IIRR, Underwood's pre-covered-pitches average was sub-20, whereas Verity was 24, and IIRR Rhodes was 26? Not sure, but if so that isn't, to me, "fairly comparable".

In Test matches, yes, their records differ, but even in Underwood's day Test matches weren't the sole basis for performance of importance and certainly not in Rhodes and Verity's day. In the 1900s, 1920s and 1930s, not a little domestic cricket was of a higher standard than Tests. In domestic cricket, Rhodes, Verity and Underwood (of the uncovered wickets era) are all broadly comparable.

In any case, Rhodes' career Test average is even more meaningless than that of virtually anyone. When playing as a bowler his average was somewhere around the 21-22 mark or something. Certainly far better than 26.