Leach, Ahmed, Hartley - terrible England spin "attacks" in the SC

[Line and Length]

I'm interested to see the "since Underwood" aspect of this discussion of England's spinners. Since Underwood's last Test was in the early 80s we are talking about 40+ years of Test cricket. In that time England have produced very few quality spin bowlers, Swann being the obvious exception. Others (I include Moeen, Penesar, Giles, Tufnell, Hemmings, Edmonds and Embury) have had opportunities without impressing greatly.
Compare this with the 20 years of Test cricket prior to Underwood's debut in 1966 and England have produced Laker, Wardle. Tattersall, Lock, Appleyard, Titmus and Illingworth among others. A glance at their stats is enough to illustrate the huge difference between 'before and after Underwood'.
There are numerous factors involved in this obvious decline in quality. Spin used to be a strength of English attacks. Recently they fail to compare favourably to the spin attacks of most other Test nations.

 

[Coronis]

I'm interested to see the "since Underwood" aspect of this discussion of England's spinners. Since Underwood's last Test was in the early 80s we are talking about 40+ years of Test cricket. In that time England have produced very few quality spin bowlers, Swann being the obvious exception. Others (I include Moeen, Penesar, Giles, Tufnell, Hemmings, Edmonds and Embury) have had opportunities without impressing greatly.
Compare this with the 20 years of Test cricket prior to Underwood's debut in 1966 and England have produced Laker, Wardle. Tattersall, Lock, Appleyard, Titmus and Illingworth among others. A glance at their stats is enough to illustrate the huge difference between 'before and after Underwood'.
There are numerous factors involved in this obvious decline in quality. Spin used to be a strength of English attacks. Recently they fail to compare favourably to the spin attacks of most other Test nations.

Not necessarily a quality of just their spin attacks. I’d say they’ve only had 1 pace bowler on par/better with Willis (ret 1984) and 1 batsman better than Boycott (ret 1982)

 

[Line and Length]

Not necessarily a quality of just their spin attacks. I’d say they’ve only had 1 pace bowler on par/better with Willis (ret 1984) and 1 batsman better than Boycott (ret 1982)

You raise an interesting point. Prior to Willis England had Bedser, Statham, Trueman, Tyson and, more recently, Snow. Since Willis the obvious notables are Botham, Anderson, Broad, Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff, Gough and Caddick. I prefer the quality over the quantity here.
Looking at pre/post Boycott, if I had to nominate the leading half dozen from each era it might look like (I'm rushing a bit and might overlook some) Hutton, Compton, Barrington, May, Cowdrey and Dexter vs Gooch, Gower, R.Smith, Pietersen, Cook, Root. I think consensus would be going for the earlier group.

 

[Yeoman]

I'm interested to see the "since Underwood" aspect of this discussion of England's spinners. Since Underwood's last Test was in the early 80s we are talking about 40+ years of Test cricket. In that time England have produced very few quality spin bowlers, Swann being the obvious exception. Others (I include Moeen, Penesar, Giles, Tufnell, Hemmings, Edmonds and Embury) have had opportunities without impressing greatly.
Compare this with the 20 years of Test cricket prior to Underwood's debut in 1966 and England have produced Laker, Wardle. Tattersall, Lock, Appleyard, Titmus and Illingworth among others. A glance at their stats is enough to illustrate the huge difference between 'before and after Underwood'.
There are numerous factors involved in this obvious decline in quality. Spin used to be a strength of English attacks. Recently they fail to compare favourably to the spin attacks of most other Test nations.

Spinners in the earlier period benefitted from uncovered pitches. It both boosted their statistics and meant that they bowled more at county level and so got in more practice than contemporary spinners.

 

[Yeoman]

I think the key problem nowadays is that so few of the County wickets take spin, and those which do take spin tend to be the subject of criticism. It is no coincidence that Swann and Panesar both developed at Northampton when it turned more and, at a lower level, Leach and Bess at Taunton when it was often criticised for turn. The declining use of outgrounds does not help the spinners’ cause in this respect.

 

[Molehill]

I think the key problem nowadays is that so few of the County wickets take spin, and those which do take spin tend to be the subject of criticism. It is no coincidence that Swann and Panesar both developed at Northampton when it turned more and, at a lower level, Leach and Bess at Taunton when it was often criticised for turn. The declining use of outgrounds does not help the spinners’ cause in this respect.

Not to mention the fact that most FC Cricket is played in April or September.

 

[Chin Music]

Spinners in the earlier period benefitted from uncovered pitches. It both boosted their statistics and meant that they bowled more at county level and so got in more practice than contemporary spinners.

A perfectly valid point as is Molehill's that April and September hosting so much of the Championship does a great deal to sideline spinners development in modern cricket. I do think that some of the bowlers who bowled from the early 80s to 00s might have had a bit of a boost in the DRS era. It was always a thing that a batsman only needed to take a half stride and many an umpire wouldn't raise the digit. I think spinners were inordinately disadvantaged.

 

[GIMH]

Not naming Bashir in the OP is the only thing stopping this thread from being the most embarrassing thing on CW that isn’t Shri

 

[Aidan11]

LOL.

 

[Ali TT]

India still winning this test series

 

[cnerd123]

India still winning this test series

Absolutely shameless

 

[Ali TT]

Absolutely shameless

I still stand by the original point, especially since Leach went home. The spinners have done well, better than we anticipated but India could win this series 4-1 still with the spinners getting slapped again in the fifth test as they did the last.

 

[cnerd123]

I still stand by the original point, especially since Leach went home. The spinners have done well, better than we anticipated but India could win this series 4-1 still with the spinners getting slapped again in the fifth test as they did the last.

You should get slapped

 

[Ali TT]

You should get slapped

It's good to see passion in supporting England fledgling spin attack, but no need to resort to violence.

 

[andruid]

I'm interested to see the "since Underwood" aspect of this discussion of England's spinners. Since Underwood's last Test was in the early 80s we are talking about 40+ years of Test cricket. In that time England have produced very few quality spin bowlers, Swann being the obvious exception. Others (I include Moeen, Penesar, Giles, Tufnell, Hemmings, Edmonds and Embury) have had opportunities without impressing greatly.
Compare this with the 20 years of Test cricket prior to Underwood's debut in 1966 and England have produced Laker, Wardle. Tattersall, Lock, Appleyard, Titmus and Illingworth among others. A glance at their stats is enough to illustrate the huge difference between 'before and after Underwood'.
There are numerous factors involved in this obvious decline in quality. Spin used to be a strength of English attacks. Recently they fail to compare favourably to the spin attacks of most other Test nations.

Another interesting paradigm might be the 1990s to early 2000s media (by which I mean Sky Sports) obsession with England producing an answer to Shane Warne. If my memory serves me right, Rashid and Panesar were two good examples of players singled out for that role in the media hyperbole.

 

[wpdavid]

Another interesting paradigm might be the 1990s to early 2000s media (by which I mean Sky Sports) obsession with England producing an answer to Shane Warne. If my memory serves me right, Rashid and Panesar were two good examples of players singled out for that role in the media hyperbole.

Chris Schofield springs to mind too.

 

[kevinw]

Ian Salisbury took 20 wickets in 15 Tests, averaging more than 75 for each wicket, because of Shane Warne.

It's worse than I thought - took 5-122 on debut (followed it up with 0-184 next Test). In his last ten Tests, he took eight wickets.

 

[Ali TT]

Chris Schofield springs to mind too.

And Salisbury.

Not sure I fully share andruid's take. Panesar and Rashid emerged very late in Warne's career and while there was excitement about Rashid being a leggie and comparisons with Warne did happen, I'm not sure either were over-hyped. Panesar held the test role for a few years and was comfortably the best going during that period but he was never free of media criticism. Rashid had an early debut in a few T20s I think but then had to wait until well after Swann went before he secured the limited over berth, which he has excelled in, but he was never really fancied in tests.

 

[wpdavid]

And Salisbury.

Not sure I fully share andruid's take. Panesar and Rashid emerged very late in Warne's career and while there was excitement about Rashid being a leggie and comparisons with Warne did happen, I'm not sure either were over-hyped. Panesar held the test role for a few years and was comfortably the best going during that period but he was never free of media criticism. Rashid had an early debut in a few T20s I think but then had to wait until well after Swann went before he secured the limited over berth, which he has excelled in, but he was never really fancied in tests.

The only reason I didn't mention Salisbury is because his first few tests were before the summer of 1993, when we first encountered Warne.

 

[kevinw]

The only reason I didn't mention Salisbury is because his first few tests were before the summer of 1993, when we first encountered Warne.

Mushy played in the 92 ENG v PAK series that Salisbury debuted in. Bowled pretty well for an overseas leggie.