• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Why aren't there more spinner all rounders?

0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Why have the best all rounders tended to be pace bowlers (in recent times - i.e. last 40-50 years), which seems to be far more draining physically (batting, then running in to bowl multiple overs/spells in a day).
Spin requires a lot less 'work' (especially in tropical etc conditions), so you'd think the game would have produced more spin all rounders.

Obviously Shakib is one, Jadeja another at the moment, Warne and Vettori (last one rather loosely) from generation by gone. But the top top bowling all rounders have been pace bowlers - especially the 80s lot, and even a few of the 90s (Wasim, Cairns - Kallis from the batting side). Sobers obviously could do both
 
MrPrez

MrPrez

International Debutant
When it comes to batting all-rounders, the pacers tend to be used for shorter, powerful spells - see Kallis, Watson etc.

In contrast, one of the benefits of spin bowlers is the fact that they eat up lots of overs - something you don't really want to be happening to a top 6 batsman.

That's why I reckon a lot of batting all-rounders who bowl spin are much closer to being "part time" than the pacers - see guys like Jayasuriya, Gayle, and even your Sehwags and Tendulkars - who actually were part-timers.

Of course there are exceptions - Shakib, as you said, as well as Jadeja/Ashwin and late-career Vettori. All but the first were basically traditional bowling all-rounders who surprised with the bat.

Shakib is just Shakib. (Faulkner is another)..
 
aussie tragic

aussie tragic

International Captain
I think it's more to do with genetics.

Fast bowlers are born fast and have a tendency to hit out, so adding a bit of batting technique is not a big leap.

Players that can't bowl fast focus on their batting and fielding and occasional spin as they don't want to embarrass themselves with their medium pace trundlers.

The spinning allrounder is a failed batsman that then had to focus more on bowling spin to get a game ;)
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Surely if you have the innate talent to excel at two disciplines, you wouldn’t waste it on bowling spin. Being exceptional, you would always choose fast bowling over spin, especially finger spin.
 
Last edited:
T

Tom Flint

International Regular
The spinners in the colts in my club are usually the geeky kids or ones not athletic enough to have a run up.
All the kids who look the best at a younger age are the ones who play football cricket and rugby (the more natural sportsmen) and they all like to run in and bowl pace
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Aren't spin bowlers on average better batsmen than fast bowlers anyway? The trope of spinner-who-bats-at-8 exists for a reason.

We don't actually have that many fast bowling all-rounders going around. There are fast bowlers who can hit a ball, sure, but there are also guys like Keshav Maharaj, Shadab Khan, Dananjaya, Cornwall, Chase, Rashid Khan, Sunil Narine, etc.

I think there are more great fast bowling allrounders just because there are more great fast bowlers in general. Fast bowling as a style lends itself to being a spearhead of an attack a lot more than spin. Spin is always a bit limited unless you're playing on certain pitches or are a great legspinner. And teams very rarely need more than one or two spinners in an attack because of how many overs they can bowl in a day. You're always going to have more fast bowlers in an attack, and thus there are likely to be more fast bowling all-rounders throughout history.
 
cpr

cpr

International Coach
You've also got the trope of the better batsmen also bowling some decent spin (Smith, Root, Williamson jump to mind). Whilst you wouldn't call them all rounders, they are bowling options on a pitch thats spinning, and can act almost like a 2nd all rounder to complement the guy at 8.

Maybe its just the spin all rounders are just too good at batting compared to the pace sloggers ;)
 
SillyCowCorner1

SillyCowCorner1

Moooo
_00_deathscar said:
Why have the best all rounders tended to be pace bowlers (in recent times - i.e. last 40-50 years), which seems to be far more draining physically (batting, then running in to bowl multiple overs/spells in a day).
Spin requires a lot less 'work' (especially in tropical etc conditions), so you'd think the game would have produced more spin all rounders.

Obviously Shakib is one, Jadeja another at the moment, Warne and Vettori (last one rather loosely) from generation by gone. But the top top bowling all rounders have been pace bowlers - especially the 80s lot, and even a few of the 90s (Wasim, Cairns - Kallis from the batting side). Sobers obviously could do both
Click to expand...
Rahkeem Cornwall have filled that void.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Seems to be plenty of spin-bowling all-rounders to me, relatively speaking.

I mean by the same token there are generally less spin bowlers than seam bowlers in cricket in general, why would it be any different with all-rounders.
 
A

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
FWIW (probably not much): according to Statsguru if you take all players batting at 7 or lower, as "not designated wicket-keeper"
- filtered on "spin bowlers", the batting average is 18.38
- filtered on "pace bowlers", the batting average is 15.65
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
There Is almost an expectation spinners will know one end of the willow from the other. We had Giles (and Richard Illingworth, occasionally) preferred to Tuffers and then Croft to Such primarily based on their batting rather than their bowling.

& if one looks at the premium spinners of the last couple of decades Warne, Harbhajan, Kumble, Swann, Herath, Ashwin, Jadeja, Vettori & Saqlain were all at least useful lower order batters or better. Only really Murali (an outlier in so many respects), MacGill and maybe Lyon are what would be loosely called tailenders.

Maybe there's an unspoken or tacit expectation that, outside of the sub continent, spinners will only win matches in favourable conditions so they're expected to contribute with the bat more than their seam-up confreres would.

Back in the days of uncovered pitches there were some absolute bunnies amongst the spinning fraternity. Bert Ironmonger, Chandrasekhar and Lance Gibbs spring to mind, but there's doubtless others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top