Would you play a specialist spinner regardless of pitch?

[subshakerz]

If you had a reasonably good spinner, would you play him regardless of pitch?

 

[Coronis]

If you had a reasonably good spinner, would you play him regardless of pitch?

Yes. First of all, pitches are changeable. Variety in bowling attacks is also important. Certain players are less capable against spin, etc.

The only time you wouldn’t/shouldn’t is if you are in a very unlikely position like the Windies were.

 

[Spark]

Yes, unless you have a spin-bowling all-rounder capable of doing basically the same job.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

In the words of the great Sir Curtly, "If you are good enough to be playing test cricket, then you are good enough to be playing anywhere."

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Not in NZ before Christmas.

 

[Ali TT]

Wanderers might be one I'm not that fussed about, and recent test history apart from last year would support that. Otherwise generally would play a frontline spinner. Although as from England I have to repress the urge to want to go into a test in India with a seam attack.

 

[Daemon]

I would not play a specialist spinner in a number of situations, for example if someone threatened to kill my family if I did, or offered me lots of money to pick a 5 man pace attack.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

To Windies Cricket: always play Gudakesh Motie, regardless of pitch.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, unless you have a spin-bowling all-rounder capable of doing basically the same job.

Came to say this.

 

[howitzer]

I would not play a specialist spinner in a number of situations, for example if someone threatened to kill my family if I did, or offered me lots of money to pick a 5 man pace attack.

Have you ever been introduced to Jay Shah?

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's always dependant on factors. Anyone answering with an absolute yes is not thinking right

or a Sith

 

[Flem274*]

Given that you said reasonably good, then yes.

A lot of allrounders have been given tests because selectors didn't have faith in the specialist spin options, and were hoping to at least get some runs out of the 11th player if the wickets didn't come.

 

[Starfighter]

Depends on how good 'reasonably good' is. If it was very green I'd think seriously about four pacers. This is where quality allrounders are really helpful in balancing sides.

 

[subshakerz]

Depends on how good 'reasonably good' is. If it was very green I'd think seriously about four pacers. This is where quality allrounders are really helpful in balancing sides.

The counter would be what would four pacers do that three pacers could not? Unless they are WI 80s level.

 

[Ali TT]

And what if not all the four seamers are "reasonably good" and can't bat, such that you end up with a 9-11 that all average below ten in FC cricket?

 

[Starfighter]

The counter would be what would four pacers do that three pacers could not? Unless they are WI 80s level.

They could allow a continuous attack without one player having to be overbowled. Be better if you answered my original question - if a 'reasonably good' spinner is a 30-32 averaging type overall (Shakib/Lyon sort of level) then it might not be hard to find four fast bowlers who'll do better on a very green pitch.

 

[Bolo.]

They could allow a continuous attack without one player having to be overbowled. Be better if you answered my original question - if a 'reasonably good' spinner is a 30-32 averaging type overall (Shakib/Lyon sort of level) then it might not be hard to find four fast bowlers who'll do better on a very green pitch.

At any given time, 1/4 quicks will probably not have their rhythm right as well, and there are some advantages in terms of variety too.

Spinner does give more variety, usually slows down scoring, can bowl more, less likely to get injured, and gets through overs faster. So it's not clear you should be forgoing the spin even if you are expecting all the quicks to outperform.

But I think it's (very) occasionally justified.

 

[subshakerz]

They could allow a continuous attack without one player having to be overbowled. Be better if you answered my original question - if a 'reasonably good' spinner is a 30-32 averaging type overall (Shakib/Lyon sort of level) then it might not be hard to find four fast bowlers who'll do better on a very green pitch.

Yeah but is there a chance of misreading a greentop and needing a spinner for the hard overs on days 2 to 4?

 

[Starfighter]

At any given time, 1/4 quicks will probably not have their rhythm right as well, and there are some advantages in terms of variety too.

Spinner does give more variety, usually slows down scoring, can bowl more, less likely to get injured, and gets through overs faster. So it's not clear you should be forgoing the spin even if you are expecting all the quicks to outperform.

But I think it's (very) occasionally justified.

It might very well be that one of the quicks you regularly select is the one not in rhythm. Not a very good argument. The variety argument is overreaching a bit through its assumptions. I might have four quite different pace bowlers. And variety is subordinate to ability.

Rembeber I specified a very green wicket. It might be that the spinners provides respite for the batsmen and gives them an opportunity to milk a few singles. Or that a specialist will do no better than a decent part timer or allrounder.

Yeah but is there a chance of misreading a greentop and needing a spinner for the hard overs on days 2 to 4?

That's not the situation I'm talking about.

 

[howitzer]

And what if not all the four seamers are "reasonably good" and can't bat, such that you end up with a 9-11 that all average below ten in FC cricket?

Reminds me of the time we put out Mullally, Tufnell and Giddins with i think Caddick as the 8.

At any given time, 1/4 quicks will probably not have their rhythm right as well, and there are some advantages in terms of variety too.

Spinner does give more variety, usually slows down scoring, can bowl more, less likely to get injured, and gets through overs faster. So it's not clear you should be forgoing the spin even if you are expecting all the quicks to outperform.

But I think it's (very) occasionally justified.

Most of this doesn't apply to Jack Leach. Good opener though.