England Players

[Swervy]

Emburey? At least his action was nice to look at.

Emburey could have been a lot better if only he allowed the ball to spin, I dont know the reason why (one day games or just Englands batting was so terrible back then that he didnt have that many runs to play around with), but he was a really dart it into the legs type of bowler as he got older.

I always thought Phil edmonds was a better bowler

 

[luckyeddie]

I loved his appeals with his heavy Scottish accent;

"HOE-ZAAAT?!?"

It was the "Gi yer one wi' the heed, Jimmy" stare which resulted in so many decisions in his favour.

 

[Richard]

I thought Peter Such wasn't a bad bowler. Bowled well against the Aussies and took both of his Test 5-fers against them. I remember the 6-fer he took; he bowled really, really well that day.

Such was a decent bowler on a turning pitch, but no more than decent.
Not in the Giles-Croft class.

 

[Richard]

Emburey? At least his action was nice to look at.

Such's action was one of the sights I enjoyed most in my early days.
Love to see a jerky action.

 

[Richard]

I agree..Such was possibly the best offy England have produced other than Tuffnell for a good 25 years

Giles and Croft are better than both and they're probably equal with Emburey and Edmonds.

 

[Swervy]

Giles and Croft are better than both and they're probably equal with Emburey and Edmonds.

I would suggest that Edmonds was a better left arm spinner than Giles

 

[Richard]

Go on, then, let's see some supporting evidence.
To get you started

 

[Swervy]

Go on, then, let's see some supporting evidence.
To get you started

again, I dont really know what you are getting at.

its only my opinion,and to be honest given the type of pitches that were common in the 80's Edmonds has a pretty reasonable record..from what I remember he was a bowler who used flight pretty well and used variation better than Giles does

 

[Richard]

In other words, I'm guessing, he got more poor strokes...
I've never seen Edmonds bowl (aside from the delivery before the Gatting incident) but his name has rarely if ever been mentioned, with most talking of Emburey far more. This leads me to guess he wasn't an especially good bowler.
Maybe I'd better examine his career a bit more...

 

[Swervy]

In other words, I'm guessing, he got more poor strokes...
I've never seen Edmonds bowl (aside from the delivery before the Gatting incident) but his name has rarely if ever been mentioned, with most talking of Emburey far more. This leads me to guess he wasn't an especially good bowler.
Maybe I'd better examine his career a bit more...

he wasnt an especially good spinner, but when really have England produced a really good spinner apart from Underwood in the last 40 years (and Underwood is a bit of a special case really given the type of bowler he was)

 

[Swervy]

In other words, I'm guessing, he got more poor strokes...
I've never seen Edmonds bowl (aside from the delivery before the Gatting incident) but his name has rarely if ever been mentioned, with most talking of Emburey far more. This leads me to guess he wasn't an especially good bowler.
Maybe I'd better examine his career a bit more...

Emburey certainly was more in favour with the England selectors, probably mainly due to the fact that Edmonds was seen to have possible character flaws. Both bowlers slowly got less and less effective as time went on...again that is possibly down to the pitches being geared more towards pace attacks, and that spinners tended back then to really bowl it flat and defensive..Edmonds however was a more attacking spinner than Emburey

 

[Richard]

he wasnt an especially good spinner, but when really have England produced a really good spinner apart from Underwood in the last 40 years (and Underwood is a bit of a special case really given the type of bowler he was)

England have never produced a regularly effective spinner since covered pitches - and those of us with sense realise that the two are actually connected.
Underwood, of course, was really effective up to 1972 and pretty average (except sometimes in the subcontinent) from 1972\73 onwards.
Fact is, England have produced a few bowlers (Croft, Giles, Tufnell) who could exploit turning pitches but got the chance nowhere near as often as the like of Rhodes, Verity, Lock, Laker and pre-1972 Underwood; Edmonds might be another, but guessing by the amount I've heard his name I'd think not.
And the logical deduction leads us to the conclusion that modern-day high-calibre bowlers such as Giles and Croft are every bit as good as their predecessors but simply don't get the favourable conditions fingerspinners have always needed anywhere near so regularly.

 

[Richard]

Emburey certainly was more in favour with the England selectors, probably mainly due to the fact that Edmonds was seen to have possible character flaws. Both bowlers slowly got less and less effective as time went on...again that is possibly down to the pitches being geared more towards pace attacks, and that spinners tended back then to really bowl it flat and defensive..Edmonds however was a more attacking spinner than Emburey

I'm always hugely wary of descriptions of "attacking" and "defensive" spinners; if you took the word of the unwary Giles would be a defensive bowler and Tufnell an attacking one when in fact they were virtually the same bowler except for Giles' infinately better temperament.
There seems to be something in the ascertation that Emburey didn't spin the ball as much as he could have, but Giles spins the ball as much as any fingerspinner can.
Were pitches seriously less spin-friendly in the late 80s and early 90s than the early 80s? Because supporting evidence for that is thin.

 

[Swervy]

England have never produced a regularly effective spinner since covered pitches - and those of us with sense realise that the two are actually connected.
Underwood, of course, was really effective up to 1972 and pretty average (except sometimes in the subcontinent) from 1972\73 onwards.
Fact is, England have produced a few bowlers (Croft, Giles, Tufnell) who could exploit turning pitches but got the chance nowhere near as often as the like of Rhodes, Verity, Lock, Laker and pre-1972 Underwood; Edmonds might be another, but guessing by the amount I've heard his name I'd think not.
And the logical deduction leads us to the conclusion that modern-day high-calibre bowlers such as Giles and Croft are every bit as good as their predecessors but simply don't get the favourable conditions fingerspinners have always needed anywhere near so regularly.

yeah well whatever..I am only stating my opinion, I have seen Edmonds bowl and therefore I think my opinion has a tiny bit of weight to it, when compared to someone who is just guessing all the time

 

[Richard]

And here I've freely admitted I'm guessing - on other occasions where we've come head-to-head I, too, have had evidence to weight my argument.
Your opinion will inspire me to take a closer look at Edmonds' career.

 

[Swervy]

And here I've freely admitted I'm guessing - on other occasions where we've come head-to-head I, too, have had evidence to weight my argument.
Your opinion will inspire me to take a closer look at Edmonds' career.

erm...right then...got to be said I am trying to recall when those other occasions might have been. .

 

[Richard]

Suit yourself, but believe it or not there are ways to watch cricket other than at the time it's happening, and they can be pretty much every bit as revealing.

 

[SpeedKing]

I can see Swann possibly being a long term Giles replacement, especially for the ODI team.

It would seem that he is in the selectors minds but ATM, as of this evidence
http://content.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/208712.html

Unfortunately [hoping to be proven wrong] Batty seems to ahead in the spinners pecking order as Batty was selected for the Banglas tests.

 

[Richard]

Which makes utterly no sense whatsoever.
How anyone can possibly think Batty a superior bowler is totally beyond me.

 

[SpeedKing]

Batty seems to have been prefered because of his batting, yet he has actually lesser stats than Swann. Maybe it was because of that test saving batting against Murali. How much turn does Swann actually get if anyone knows, is it near Warne proportions or like the slight turn that Giles gets