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

[bagapath]

thanks mate. And thanks to everyone else who gave me nice feedback. It was a lot of fun

this was such a smart thread. May be you should do one for ODI fast bowlers next. Thanks for your effort and all the enjoyable write ups.

 

[Bolo]

Nothing against him. Just 37 tests and never played in Asia or against an Asian side. That's all. High strike rate too but that just means he bowled a lot of overs and gave away very little.

11 year career. Basically the same number of tests as Grimmett and verity, and a bunch more than O'Reilly. Not sure any of them played Asia.

For some of tayfields career there was only India, who who more or less minnows. Pakistan joined and were a bit better, but couldn't bat when they started out. Tayfield likely missed out on a free lunch, or at worst nothing to hold against him.

SR is pretty low, but it's mostly an era thing. I doubt anyone below him on the list is much quicker from a similar era.

Except to say he's below the very best, it's hard to pick holes in his record without attacking half the list at the same time. I somehow feel he is flattered by his record. I don't know why, but the idea of a modern spinner who doesn't really turn the ball averaging mid 20s without being heavily aided by conditions just seems a bit implausible.

Anyway, even if his figure do flatter him, I feel like every bowler with comparable stats is flattered by their figures in some way (except Warne and benaud), and he's definitely ranked about right.

 

[AndrewB]

Verity had a good tour of India in 1933-4.

 

[weldone]

Hafeez is higher than O'Reilly on that list.

AB de Villiers is ahead of Herath and Grimmett. Even ignoring the fact that de Villiers was obviously not a bowler, he didn't even bowl spin when he bowled.

Lasith Malinga and Shoaib Akhtar also got a mention ahead of Grimmett.

flat earth society guys are smarter

 

[marc71178]

I literally cant even find his cricinfo profile. I think the guy voting accidentally wrote his own name instead of the cricketer he was voting for.

Sounds like something Shri would do...

 

[jimmy101]

Great stuff MM. Glad that you went ahead and conducted this exercise yourself.

Some other ideas that might be fun could be ATG opening batsmen/opening bowling partnerships.

 

[Engle]

How about a Top 20 ' Complete Cricketer ' or ' Most Versatile Cricketer ' . This would a ranking of those cricketers who could bat, bowl and captain.

 

[jimmy101]

How about a Top 20 ' Complete Cricketer ' or ' Most Versatile Cricketer ' . This would a ranking of those cricketers who could bat, bowl and captain.

Considering the greatest ever captain thread came down to Benaud vs Worrell, I couldn't see this idea transpiring any differently.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Considering the greatest ever captain thread came down to Benaud vs Worrell, I couldn't see this idea transpiring any differently.

But Engle really wants Imran to win!

 

[mr_mister]

After doing two bowling ones in a row I was thinking the next could be best ODI batsmen. I think it'd be quite an open field with a lot of potential winners

 

[bagapath]

viv richards
tendulkar
kohli
abdv

then a bunch of equally great guys...

lets see where it goes

start it asap MrM

 

[a massive zebra]

I somehow feel he is flattered by his record. I don't know why, but the idea of a modern spinner who doesn't really turn the ball averaging mid 20s without being heavily aided by conditions just seems a bit implausible.

Absolutely. Tayfield seems to be very overrated but this forum and should be nowhere near the top 10. What exactly does he have over a contemporary like Johnny Wardle who failed to make the top 20 but was more versatile, had more variety and more attacking weapons, was equally accurate, more of a matchwinner and had a stronger overall record. And what exactly places him leagues ahead of his contemporary Tony Lock who has a similar record and yet didn't even make the top 35? What exactly makes him almost the equal of Jim Laker who finished only 2 places higher and yet span the ball with much more venom, had a greater arsenal up his sleave and was infinitely more devastating on a helpful wicket? Why did pretty much all the England players of that time rate Laker the better bowler by a distance? Tayfield averaged over 34 against Laker's bunnies Australia, and Tayfield averaged 43 in the first innings while Laker averaged under 24 in all four innings of a Test.

Tayfield preferred to bowl over the wicket from close to the stumps where he could bowl a tight line with a packed leg side field to starve the batsmen of runs. In my opinion, quality bowler as Tayfield undoubtedly was, he was fortunate to bowl in the era he did. Had he been born 20 years later and played after the introduction of limitations on the number of leg side fielders and the abolition of uncovered pitches, he would have been far less successful. In summary, Tayfield was a somewhat improved version of John Emburey and would have been lucky to average under 30 in the modern game.

 

[cnerd123]

Tayfield preferred to bowl over the wicket from close to the stumps where he could bowl a tight line with a packed leg side field to starve the batsmen of runs. In my opinion, quality bowler as Tayfield undoubtedly was, he was fortunate to bowl in the era he did.

Do you expect him to bowl a style that suits the era he didn't play in?

I find this line of arguing pretty poor. Cricketers play a style to win games in the conditions they are playing in, not to rank high on some internet cricket forum's list way down in the future. Tayfield found a way to bowl that was successful for his era, was probably the third best spinner in the world during his career (took more wickets than Laker did but played one game less, and out of all spinners only Benaud took more wickets than him - 11 more wickets in 8 more games), and was his nation's best bowler at the time. His raw figures (average and economy) read better than Ramdhin - a right arm finger spinner who bowled with the same benefits, but who averaged 28 over 41 games instead - and also read better than a couple of other spinners who ended up on this list (Valentine, Gupte). Tayfield also played for one of the weaker teams going around, and so that's bound to hurt his overall stats. He was a huge factor behind their wins during his career - in SA's 11 wins he took 74 wickets at 18.8.

Tony Lock chucked, and Wardle suffers from not being able to crack the first XI ahead of Lock and Laker (played around 1/3rd of all the Tests that England played at the time) - kind of the same problem when it comes to rating Stuart MacGill, altho in Wardle's case it does seem driven by off-field shenanigans and not purely cricketing reasons.

There is nothing wrong with rating Tayfield highly IMO.

 

[Starfighter]

Every spinner who played in that era was lucky. Tayfield used a lot of forward of the wicket fielders and didn't seem as reliant on the leg trap as say, Lock or Laker. I'm not sure you're even allowed Laker's 19/90 field anymore (it's been a while since I saw the diagram of it), and you certainly weren't for a while when they had the max five on the leg side rule.

 

[a massive zebra]

Do you expect him to bowl a style that suits the era he didn't play in?

I find this line of arguing pretty poor. Cricketers play a style to win games in the conditions they are playing in, not to rank high on some internet cricket forum's list way down in the future. Tayfield found a way to bowl that was successful for his era, was probably the third best spinner in the world during his career (took more wickets than Laker did but played one game less, and out of all spinners only Benaud took more wickets than him - 11 more wickets in 8 more games), and was his nation's best bowler at the time. His raw figures (average and economy) read better than Ramdhin - a right arm finger spinner who bowled with the same benefits, but who averaged 28 over 41 games instead - and also read better than a couple of other spinners who ended up on this list (Valentine, Gupte). Tayfield also played for one of the weaker teams going around, and so that's bound to hurt his overall stats. He was a huge factor behind their wins during his career - in SA's 11 wins he took 74 wickets at 18.8.

Tony Lock chucked, and Wardle suffers from not being able to crack the first XI ahead of Lock and Laker (played around 1/3rd of all the Tests that England played at the time) - kind of the same problem when it comes to rating Stuart MacGill, altho in Wardle's case it does seem driven by off-field shenanigans and not purely cricketing reasons.

There is nothing wrong with rating Tayfield highly IMO.

Obviously he should bowl in a style that suits his era. This doesn't mean we should merely judge by results and ignore the style, skills and attributes of a bowler when comparing them with other bowlers from different eras who played under dissimilar playing conditions, tactics, skill bases and expectations. Otherwise guys like Maurice Tate and Charlie Turner would be considered at least the equal of Harold Larwood and Jeff Thomson, which by general consensus they are not.

I'd put Tayfield as the joint fourth best spinner of his era after Laker, Wardle, Benaud and alongside Ramadhin. As you say, Wardle's non selection was for non cricketing reasons. He was tremendously skilled and effective in the matches he did play. If non cricketing controversies should affect his ranking, there is no way Warne should be anywhere near 1st. Tayfield's figures do read better than Ramadhin but he played in a much stronger attack and I think Ramadhin's greater variety, in particular his prequel to the doosra, might make him at least equally effective in a less favourable era.

The quality of an attack a bowler plays in has a far bigger impact on his success as a bowler than the strength of his side as a whole. The attack Tayfield played alongside was actually pretty darn good (although not England standard) and the question of South Africa's best bowler at the time is highly debatable. Neil Adcock took over 100 wickets at a significantly better average and also took a higher proportion of top order wickets. Peter Heine and Trevor Goddard finished with similar averages to Tayfield. So this was not a one man attack or even a weak attack at all, and I don't think Tayfield's figures would have been negatively impacted by playing in it.

 

[ankitj]

Tayfield has nearly identical away and home average. His highest average anywhere is 28.xx in Australia. That's superb.

 

[Engle]

Considering the greatest ever captain thread came down to Benaud vs Worrell, I couldn't see this idea transpiring any differently.

Missed that thread, would like to have a link to it.

My point is that we have All-Rounders contests and Captain contests separately.....but when do we ever have a contest where you bring ALL of the players skills together ?

After all, the moment a player steps into the dressing room, they bring their full worth to the team.
So, why do we artificially slice off this and slice off that and then attempt to rate them in separate slots ?

 

[StephenZA]

Missed that thread, would like to have a link to it.

My point is that we have All-Rounders contests and Captain contests separately.....but when do we ever have a contest where you bring ALL of the players skills together ?

After all, the moment a player steps into the dressing room, they bring their full worth to the team.
So, why do we artificially slice off this and slice off that and then attempt to rate them in separate slots ?

Because it comes down to whether you like Bradman or Sobers more..... (with a few other laughs on the way).

 

[AndrewB]

Do you expect him to bowl a style that suits the era he didn't play in?

I find this line of arguing pretty poor. Cricketers play a style to win games in the conditions they are playing in, not to rank high on some internet cricket forum's list way down in the future. Tayfield found a way to bowl that was successful for his era, was probably the third best spinner in the world during his career (took more wickets than Laker did but played one game less, and out of all spinners only Benaud took more wickets than him - 11 more wickets in 8 more games), and was his nation's best bowler at the time. His raw figures (average and economy) read better than Ramdhin - a right arm finger spinner who bowled with the same benefits, but who averaged 28 over 41 games instead - and also read better than a couple of other spinners who ended up on this list (Valentine, Gupte). Tayfield also played for one of the weaker teams going around, and so that's bound to hurt his overall stats. He was a huge factor behind their wins during his career - in SA's 11 wins he took 74 wickets at 18.8.

I agree with your first point - I get a bit tired of the assumption that how well a player would do in modern conditions, and arguments like "WG wouldn't cope with modern fast bowling", while you seldom see people arguing that modern batsmen "couldn't cope with the wickets of the 1870s".

But the 1950s South Africans were noted at the time for their good fielding. Laker actually says "... Hugh came to the fore at the same time that the Springboks developed their fielding. Indirectly, I should say that this wonderful fielding machine that the Springboks have developed has led to at least half of Hugh's Test victims."

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah Tiger belongs in the same tier at least. Grimmett too perhaps.

Most certainly.