The greatest-ever left-arm finger-spinner

[subshakerz]

Surprised nobody has mentioned Bedi. Forgive my ignorance, but isn't he generally recognized as the best left-armer?

 

[The Sean]

Surprised nobody has mentioned Bedi. Forgive my ignorance, but isn't he generally recognized as the best left-armer?

He certainly deserves to be ranked among the very finest, though I don't think too many outside of India would consider him the greatest of all.

Struggling to pick a winner in this one tbh - I'm leaning toward Verity, but it could so easily be Underwood or Rhodes too.

A little disturbed by the votes for Monty though...

 

[Neil Pickup]

He certainly deserves to be ranked among the very finest, though I don't think too many outside of India would consider him the greatest of all.

Struggling to pick a winner in this one tbh - I'm leaning toward Verity, but it could so easily be Underwood or Rhodes too.

A little disturbed by the votes for Monty though...

I thought Monty was the traditionally humorous final option.

 

[Engle]

Bishen Singh Bedi, the epitome of delightful classical left-arm spin.....lost nothing in comparison to his illustrious colleagues Prasanna and Chandra.
A dream trio

 

[silentstriker]

Bishen Singh Bedi, the epitome of delightful classical left-arm spin.....lost nothing in comparison to his illustrious colleagues Prasanna and Chandra.
A dream trio

Certainly unparalled in the fourth innings - but overall no way better than guys like Rhodes IMO.

 

[neville cardus]

I thought Monty was the traditionally humorous final option.

Saw right through me again, eh?

 

[neville cardus]

I'm struggling to grasp Monty's picking up more votes than Edmund Peate, the man who won this type of bowling its first proper renown. Many ancient critics rated him ahead of both Rhodes and Verity, and, besides, he was far more interesting a character than the mind-numbingly genteel Panesar.

 

[Glacier]

I voted for Monty because I thought nobody else would vote for him. Otherwise its Bedi for mine.

 

[steds]

Verity. Not bad for a frog.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

My heart says Tuffers, my head anything but.

 

[shortpitched713]

Went with Underwood. Can't believe you forgot him though.

 

[Richard]

Playing 33 Tests in the 19th-century is a massive achievement in itself ITBT.

 

[Richard]

Verity. Not bad for a frog.

Cannot fathom you bringing yourself to vote for a Yorkshire(French)man.

 

[Nate]

No Heal, no vote.

 

[Richard]

Certainly unparalled in the fourth innings

He wasn't bad in the third either - averaging 23.16 in the third-innings in India, 13.32 in the fourth-innings in India. However, even outside of India his fourth-innings record (average 18.21) is impressive, though this does total just 14 wickets.

but overall no way better than guys like Rhodes IMO.

He might have been had he played his entire career in the days of uncovered wickets, though.

 

[Richard]

I'm struggling to grasp Monty's picking up more votes than Edmund Peate, the man who won this type of bowling its first proper renown. Many ancient critics rated him ahead of both Rhodes and Verity, and, besides, he was far more interesting a character than the mind-numbingly genteel Panesar.

TBH, even on such a high-calibre board as this, I'd be surprised if that many had even heard of Peate and Peel before now - several may not even know the first thing about Rhodes, Verity, Lock et al.

Even myself I've read perhaps three or four references to Peel, and one of those is the famous Hawke incident. Very little of the actual calibre of his bowling.

I am very much prepared to believe Peate may have been the best of the Famous Four, certainly, and if votes were only allowed to be cast by those who were well-informed of each of the pre-1970 (plus Bedi and Qasim) lot, I'd be surprised if Peate were not to be right up there.

Nonetheless, for me the legends I have read of Rhodes well exceed those I've read of Peate, and hence, I voted for him. I can't believe there'd have been that much between the two, nor Verity, nor Peel, either.

 

[grecian]

Went with Underwood. Can't believe you forgot him though.

Yes, surprised by his omission, also this chap may be worth a mention.

 

[Chubb]

Does anyone else think that Derek Underwood is pretty much as close as we are likely to get to seeing how Sydney Barnes bowled? I mean although different armed the ball turns the same way, and Barnes must have got similar effects to the ball shown in the link by Silentstriker, though Barnes apparently denied he cut the ball like Underwood did, saying he spun it.

 

[Richard]

So far as pace and still turning the ball is concerned, undoubtedly so.

Barnes, however, undoubtedly had more variation and, unlike Underwood, also still offered huge turn when the wicket wasn't rain-affected or just plain dry TSW.

So Underwood on a wet-and-dried wicket might almost be a replay of Barnes, but even then only might almost.

 

[neville cardus]

Went with Underwood. Can't believe you forgot him though.

Neither can I, and he's one of my favourites, too.