shortpitched713
International Captain
They're better, almost exclusively so in the modern era barring two absolute freaks.The ball is only new for so long...
/thread
-
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 Do ATG XI's Have More Pacers Than Specialist Spin Bowlers?
- Thread starter SillyCowCorner1
- Start date
/thread
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
There are more good spinners than Patel and Lyon tho.
kyear2
International Coach
Agree
kyear2
International Coach
Exactly this, while spinners do play an important role, it is more niche and generally less efficient.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Spinners can bowl much longer spells to maintain pressure and usually just take a larger volume of wickets.
kyear2
International Coach
While it is a very formidable team, every one just looks a spot too high up the order and even though all bar one of the bowlers are capable with the bat. Tail just looks a bit long.
And I know I will be the only one to care, but cordon would be a kinda weak. Only one premium performer in there.
Coronis
International Coach
fwiw aside from Gilly and Sobers (who are batting one spot above their most common position) everyone is batting at either their most common position or lower (Marshall, Warne)
kyear2
International Coach
Yeah, ftr I'm always tempted to place Sobers at 4, can you imagine him and Bradman batting together?
And yeah I know, even acknowledged that Murali aside, they are all more than capable. But the tail just looks long and it feels a batsman short.
The advantage of a Gilly for me was that when you thought you made it through the batsmen, then here's this Colossus that can turn everything upside down in no time.
If I'm playing two spinner, think would drop a pacer, include the extra batsman and use Sobers as the 3rd fast option.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The scientist in me can't help but point out that this correlation isn't exactly evidence of causation.
It's not surprising that they have a better average in games where both spinners played because most likely they were conditions more friendly to spin bowling. Hence why they played 2 spinners in the first place.
If anything I'd expect the difference to be larger
Coronis
International Coach
Oh good I was waiting for someone to bring this up. Doesn’t really work in this case since they played together in 15/17 tests Australia had (last two tests of Bodyline where Australia was putting in random players with **** FC records who played 1-2 tests for some reason -including SCG a classic spinners ground) from O’Reilly’s debut to Grimmett’s unceremonious dumping.
Also lol wtf when I was looking into this iirc England even then played 28 tests to Australia’s 17. Just disgusting spam.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
It had always been thus. England would host a home Test series every year and tour regularly as well.
In the 14 years between the end of Bodyline in 1932/33 and the first post war series in 1946/47, Australia hosted one home series. Even allowing for the war break, that's ****ing ridiculous. What might Bradman's numbers have been if he got a home series every summer during the 1930s (albeit he would have missed at least one due to his illness after the 1934 Ashes tour), frequently against the minnows and not just England?
Last edited:
Patience and Accuracy+Gut
State Vice-Captain
Tiger was a freak though Grimmet’s record are probably due to him being far better bowler in the latter half of his career.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Grimmett was also basically a cheat code against the weaker teams - his record against South Africa and West Indies is extraordinary. Tiger was the better of the two against England, and the reason they played only 15 of the possible 17 Tests together is because Grum was actually dropped for the last two Tests of the Bodyline series, having taken just 5 wickets at 65 in the first three.
Patience and Accuracy+Gut
State Vice-Captain
Wouldn’t like to refer South African batting line up of 1935 as a minnow though.
Don’t agree with Bradman’s dropping of Grimmett in 1936 Ashes though Grimmett did get murder against ATG England’s batting line-up in Australia in his two series.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
In that post I actually used the term "weaker teams" rather than "minnow".
South Africa definitely were weaker than England, notwithstanding the couple of great batsmen they did have.
Coronis
International Coach
No doubt he was far better against the non English teams. God Bradman was an idiot though. Spinners stats pre-war post-Grimmett
O’Reilly 47 @ 24.78
Fleetwood-Smith 33 @ 36.06
Ward 11 @ 52.18
lol
There was a certain logic to not picking Grimmett in 1936-37. England had won the past two series in Australia easily, and as you say his wickets in those series were expensive: 48 runs apiece. Hammond in particular had taken a lot of runs off Grimmett and was never dismissed by him.
It was a different story in England where there was more turn. The leg-stump attack of Grimmett and O'Reilly restricted Hammond's scoring and caused him problems. Grimmett should have toured England in 1938 even at the age of 46. Also Don Tallon.
Considering that they developed wrist spin, the South Africans were vulnerable against it for some time, especially on their own pitches. Following Grimmett and O'Reilly, others to enjoy success against them included Wardle, Benaud and Jack Alabaster.
Last edited:
Didn't get much better through the 90s and 00s until they came across Bryce McGain