CW decides the greatest test spinner ever. 43 names: Countdown/Rankings thread

[cnerd123]

Doesn't get anywhere near as many as Swann or Lyon. Comparatively little hip drive and pivot either.

Actually I think he does, despite the biomechanically flawed action. Don't know if there is any way to measure it, I'd like to see the results, but the amount of drift and spin he's capable of extracting suggests he spins it as much as they both do. It's what makes him special. He seems to generate most of the spin with his hand, and so in India he can push it through quicker without sacrificing many revs. But maybe that's also why he can't really sustain it, or struggles to slow it down and maintain the spin when bowling overseas.

 

[StephenZA]

Don't start this again. There was nothing scientific about the ICC testing. It was public relations stunt, not a controlled test..

I suspect School of Human Movement and Exercise Science, University of Western Australia, Perth would disagree with this assessment.

 

[Starfighter]

I'd disagree with anything coming out of Western Australia.

 

[StephenZA]

I'd disagree with anything coming out of Australia.

ftfy

 

[TheJediBrah]

I suspect School of Human Movement and Exercise Science, University of Western Australia, Perth would disagree with this assessment.

An 8th grade high school student who was awake for half a science class could see otherwise

btw nothing to do with "exercise science" has ever been proper science

 

[StephenZA]

Anecdotal evidence >> Scientific results wins once again.

 

[cnerd123]

The initial exercise by UWA was a good attempt at measuring and defining the flex/straightening in a bowlers arm during delivery. They also had a good sample size of bowlers with a wide range of styles and actions that they used to calibrate their method and arrive at the 15 degree figure.

However the methods utilised by the ICC right now are very dubious. The UWA scientists who developed the initial methods have criticised it iirc. Will need to go back and read the whole drama, but what I recall is that they modified the method as to not get sued, but the new method isn't properly scientifically verified, and as far as we know they haven't tested a wide range of clean looking actions to calibrate it. It's why when Ajmal and Senanayke (sp?) were found with >30 degrees of straightening it raised a lot of eyebrows.

However, I do have faith that the original methods devised and the research papers published for it are legit. But I'm not an expert and haven't read the actual paper so what do I know.

 

[Starfighter]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ajmal was sometimes going much greater than the 40° he was found to be averaging near the end. It seemed perfectly reasonable, he was just blatantly pegging them in.

 

[Bolo]

Actually I think he does, despite the biomechanically flawed action. Don't know if there is any way to measure it, I'd like to see the results, but the amount of drift and spin he's capable of extracting suggests he spins it as much as they both do. It's what makes him special. He seems to generate most of the spin with his hand, and so in India he can push it through quicker without sacrificing many revs. But maybe that's also why he can't really sustain it, or struggles to slow it down and maintain the spin when bowling overseas.

Swann got big movement. He and Maharaj really stand out amoungst finger spinners to me in terms of their ability to rip it on unhelpful surfaces

 

[TheJediBrah]

The initial exercise by UWA was a good attempt at measuring and defining the flex/straightening in a bowlers arm during delivery. They also had a good sample size of bowlers with a wide range of styles and actions that they used to calibrate their method and arrive at the 15 degree figure.

However the methods utilised by the ICC right now are very dubious. The UWA scientists who developed the initial methods have criticised it iirc. Will need to go back and read the whole drama, but what I recall is that they modified the method as to not get sued, but the new method isn't properly scientifically verified, and as far as we know they haven't tested a wide range of clean looking actions to calibrate it. It's why when Ajmal and Senanayke (sp?) were found with >30 degrees of straightening it raised a lot of eyebrows.

However, I do have faith that the original methods devised and the research papers published for it are legit. But I'm not an expert and haven't read the actual paper so what do I know.

The basic design of the studies were a joke. There was no control to ensure that the bowling being tested was the same bowling in match conditions. That alone completely invalidates any results. They made a laughable attempt at some stage to bring in "experts" to watch and check if it was the same but anyone with a basic education can tell you how suspect the veracity of that is.

I'm sure with the technology they have for hawkeye and stuff now, with so many cameras and mapping etc. they could model actions and even potentially measure degrees of elbow bend in game, per delivery. But clearly that would be absurdly wasteful and expensive.

 

[cnerd123]

Swann got big movement. He and Maharaj really stand out amoungst finger spinners to me in terms of their ability to rip it on unhelpful surfaces

Yea Maharaj is a real talent. Think he could end up as SAs best spinner since Tayfield.

 

[Starfighter]

Think he could end up as SAs best spinner since Tayfield.

That wouldn't be very hard really.

Or, considering the lack of success in that field, you could say it's extremely hard.

 

[Dendarii]

Yea Maharaj is a real talent. Think he could end up as SAs best spinner since Tayfield.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that he's there already. The only real competition for that title is Paul Adams, and Maharaj has the better record.

 

[mr_mister]

#6th. Hedley Verity, 418 points

Featured on 31 of 35 lists
Highest finish: 3rd (1 time)
Ranking within spin discipline: 1st of 14 (Slow Left Arm Orthodox)
Test WPM ranking: 32nd of 43 (3.60)


Verity ranks in as the best ever left arm spinner according to this exercise. His also posses the best FC bowling average from 1900 onwards and his sub 15 average is in the top 10 of all time(but it's a bit unfair to compare him 19th century bowlers like Lohmann who bowled on ridic helpful pitches when batsman barely averaged 25). His test average of 24 is great but not mind blowing. And this is in a big way due to the fact that he played half his tests against Don Bradman. Nobody on this list had to bowl to the Don more than Verity and he still managed some victories against the undisputed greatest batsman ever. Bradman had this to say about Verity: I think I know all about Clarrie (Grimmett), but with Hedley I am never sure. You see, there's no breaking point with him. Needless to say that's high praise. He took the Don's wicket 8 times in tests, more than any other bowler. That is some feat. People always remember Larwood to be Bradman's greatest challenge but there's certainly an argument that Verity equally contributed to the Don's test average not reaching in excess of 110.

Another complete miser to feature in this countdown, Verity only gave 1.88 runs away per over in tests. His average away was 27 and at home 22. Against Australia it was 28(with a rampaging Don), against the Windies 23(with Headley) and against the Saffers 25 (with Nourse and Mitchell). In his one tour to India he took 23 wickets in 3 tests @ 16. He has a very polished record anyway you look at it and is a worthy number 6 here.

 

[StephenZA]

The basic design of the studies were a joke. There was no control to ensure that the bowling being tested was the same bowling in match conditions. That alone completely invalidates any results. They made a laughable attempt at some stage to bring in "experts" to watch and check if it was the same but anyone with a basic education can tell you how suspect the veracity of that is.

I'm sure with the technology they have for hawkeye and stuff now, with so many cameras and mapping etc. they could model actions and even potentially measure degrees of elbow bend in game, per delivery. But clearly that would be absurdly wasteful and expensive.

They did use some pretty advanced technology; I believe Murali was tested 3 times with improved technology each time. They also clearly reported the effects and pitfalls of both in and out of game determinations; Including using video footage; and surprisingly the evidence showed that the naked eye which believed players like Donald, McGrath and some other were perfect actions, actually bowled with a angle of between 5-10%, particularly with regards bowling bouncers. It is natural reflection in joints that give us all that.

People always think that all these scientists did in isolation was check Murali, when checking angles, reflection biomechanical movements, skeletal structures for all sorts of biomedical and sport research, is what they do for a living as researchers and experts. If you want a conspiracy theory that they were told, fudge you numbers so Murali can play, so be it... considering I can go onto google scholar lookup biometric of bowling actions and find a plethora of papers talking about all these issues, great I know which way I'm going lean when it comes to trust issues.

 

[trundler]

But TJB used a protractor on his TV screen.

 

[Borges]

You guys do not know what you are talking about; a protractor on the TV screen is very scientific;
more scientific than the any of the joke studies that the lab conducted; most scientific.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

players like Donald, McGrath

So, Fast bowlers

 

[Starfighter]

They did use some pretty advanced technology; I believe Murali was tested 3 times with improved technology each time. They also clearly reported the effects and pitfalls of both in and out of game determinations; Including using video footage; and surprisingly the evidence showed that the naked eye which believed players like Donald, McGrath and some other were perfect actions, actually bowled with a angle of between 5-10%, particularly with regards bowling bouncers. It is natural reflection in joints that give us all that.

People always think that all these scientists did in isolation was check Murali, when checking angles, reflection biomechanical movements, skeletal structures for all sorts of biomedical and sport research, is what they do for a living as researchers and experts. If you want a conspiracy theory that they were told, fudge you numbers so Murali can play, so be it... considering I can go onto google scholar lookup biometric of bowling actions and find a plethora of papers talking about all these issues, great I know which way I'm going lean when it comes to trust issues.

I have a few of these papers floating around, and I think you're putting a bit too much stock in them. As an aside, I find people tend to slightly exaggerate the amount of extension that was actually found in them.

 

[Migara]

At least flat is straight.

Meh . . .