Keith StackPole: AUS need a finger spinner

[Rik]

very true. put simply sachin has outplayed warne. if warne were to have come back last year and australia toured india the same year i would say warne would be odds-on to win. great bowlers don't have be outplayed without ever getting revenge. and with saching being horribly out of form i think warne would have hid him. but it's difficult. because i'd still rate sachin out of form as good. sachin currently is somewhat unstoppable however. warne will just be thankful his first tour is sri lanka and not india i guess.

Sachin has never really been out of form. If you think he was out of form in the Away Series against Australia, then he gave a pretty big shove to that idea in last Test...

 

[Top_Cat]

Australia has always had decent finger spinners but the selectors refuse to pick them at home. Why? Can anyone name the last finger spinner to really dominate the bowling in Australia? Sure, Saqlain Mustaq, Danny Vettori, Ray Price and the like have had their moments but during the 90's, it was exceedingly difficult to be a finger-spinner in Australia. And on Aussie pitches, finger-spinners tend to get pumelled. The really good ones might get the occasional bag of wickets but to back it up for a series, well that's been a rarity for at least 10 years.

Of the current crop, Xavier Doherty looks solid, David Hussey gives the ball a rip and Nathan Hauritz is solid but there's no spectacular talents on the way up as yet.

 

[Craig]

It's nonetheless one of the stronger ones in World Cricket.

Did you just say England's line-up (bowling) is one of the stronger ones in the world?

If not please clarify.

 

[Neil Pickup]

No, the Sri Lankan tail.

 

[Richard]

But the Indian batsmen are simply better players full stop though!

Yes, true.
About the only area Sri Lanka are superior to India is in openers.
Tendulkar is better than even Aravinda ever was.
Dravid is better than Jayawardene
Laxman is better than Sangakkara
Ganguly is better than Dilshan or Vandort.
All pretty darn good, though.

 

[Richard]

Australia has always had decent finger spinners but the selectors refuse to pick them at home. Why? Can anyone name the last finger spinner to really dominate the bowling in Australia? Sure, Saqlain Mustaq, Danny Vettori, Ray Price and the like have had their moments but during the 90's, it was exceedingly difficult to be a finger-spinner in Australia. And on Aussie pitches, finger-spinners tend to get pumelled. The really good ones might get the occasional bag of wickets but to back it up for a series, well that's been a rarity for at least 10 years.

Of the current crop, Xavier Doherty looks solid, David Hussey gives the ball a rip and Nathan Hauritz is solid but there's no spectacular talents on the way up as yet.

Very few wickets Worldwide offer significant turn for fingerspinners to be a threat ATM.
Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are the only ones to have produced wickets conducive to fingerspin recently.

 

[Andre]

Richard - Vandort is an opener.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I know.
But until Dilsham re-emerged he was basically the only option I could think of to replace Aravinda.
Jayasuriya could bat three, or Vandort could be tried there.
Doesn't often work, but just something I think could be worth a try.
But while Dilshan's scoring the runs, no problems.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Very few wickets Worldwide offer significant turn for fingerspinners to be a threat ATM.
Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are the only ones to have produced wickets conducive to fingerspin recently.

Very true. It is a shame that there are no world class fingerspinners around anymore, due to pitches. But what it does mean is...UP THE WRISTIES!

 

[Richard]

Not entirely sure I'd agree with your wording - maybe "a shame no World-class fingerspinners are that succesful anymore", and hence their ability is not realised.
But that's not the fault of the curators or those who ask for the type of pitches. It's the fault of those who don't realise that fingerspin is only effective in certain conditions, and that those conditions aren't as prevolant as they used to be.
Plenty of people seriously think that bowlers of the ability of Rhodes, Verity, Ramadhin, Lock, Laker, Gibbs, Underwood, etc. don't exist any more - and that's patently not true, laws of numbers state that it can't be.
Fingerspinners are every bit as good as they ever were now, and their ability should not be underestimated. Nor should that of their predecessors be overrated.
Quite honestly, Giles and Croft are very likely to be in the class below Rhodes and the like I list above. Just English wickets don't help them like they did in the '60s and before.
Similarly, Saqlain and Harbhajan are probably equal in ability to the top lot.

 

[marc71178]

Similarly, Saqlain and Harbhajan are probably equal in ability to the top lot.

Funny how you put that about Harbhajan (didn't look up Saqlain)

Outside of India, he's played 18 matches for 55 wickets @ 37.43.

Not that bad, but definitely not awe-inspiring!

 

[Tom Halsey]

Not entirely sure I'd agree with your wording - maybe "a shame no World-class fingerspinners are that succesful anymore", and hence their ability is not realised.

No, the reason there are no world class finger spinners is because not as many people bowl the stuff now as they used to, because of the quality of the pitches.

 

[Richard]

Funny how you put that about Harbhajan (didn't look up Saqlain)

Outside of India, he's played 18 matches for 55 wickets @ 37.43.

Not that bad, but definitely not awe-inspiring!

That is the exact point I was making - Harbhajan, and Saqlain, are no good whatsoever on wickets that don't suit fingerspin (ie mostly those outside the subcontient, but the recent New Zealand series didn't exacty see many pitches offering much turn, did they?), however on wickets that offer significant turn they are both brilliant bowlers.
My point is that in Laker, Lock, Underwood and Gibbs' day pitches like this weren't basically confined to the subcontinent. It is often basically assumed that this is not the case. Because less wickets assist fingerspin, it is assumed fingerspin is now not what it was.
You put the precise point across about Giles (and even that isn't entirely accurate because not EVERY wicket in the subcontinent suits fingerspin - and that's adding weight to your argument, not detracting from it), that he is a perfectly good bowler in conditions which help fingerspin.
I have said this for ages, and it's a relief someone else realises it. But it doesn't mean Giles is worth a place anywhere else.
Fingerspin is not inferior now - the wickets that make it good are simply less frequent.

 

[Richard]

No, the reason there are no world class finger spinners is because not as many people bowl the stuff now as they used to, because of the quality of the pitches.

But more people bowling fingerspin doesn't make them better.
The fact that wickets are better doesn't detract from the quality of the fingerspinners. But it does mean they are less effective.