Memories of The Ashes 1974/75

[Top_Cat]

Mallett was a good off-spinner for the time but would be handled easily today.

Despite the fact he took the bulk of his FC wickets on the Adelaide Oval deck, which was far flatter in those days, and still averaged 29 as a Test off-spinner? Please. Ash is around 6'2" and spun the ball a mile. If anything he may have been more successful today because at least he'd get a bowl in the Test side, rather than being behind the rest of the pace bowlers. Surely to hold such an opinion, you never saw him bowl?

 

[luckyeddie]

Despite the fact he took the bulk of his FC wickets on the Adelaide Oval deck, which was far flatter in those days, and still averaged 29 as a Test off-spinner? Please. Ash is around 6'2" and spun the ball a mile. If anything he may have been more successful today because at least he'd get a bowl in the Test side, rather than being behind the rest of the pace bowlers. Surely to hold such an opinion, you never saw him bowl?

There's a school of thought that exists on CricketWeb today, Corey, that anyone playing in the past was rubbish, and that the batsmen wouldn't be able to survive against today's bowlers; conversely the bowlers of yesteryear would be tanked all round the park.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There's a school of thought that exists on CricketWeb today, Corey, that anyone playing in the past was rubbish, and that the batsmen wouldn't be able to survive against today's bowlers; conversely the bowlers of yesteryear would be tanked all round the park.

I don't think social ascribes to that particular point of view, honestly.

 

[luckyeddie]

I don't think social ascribes to that particular point of view, honestly.

No, neither do I - that's why I was surprised he made the off-hand remark. If it's been one of the children, I'd have probably posted 'zzzzzzzzzzzzzz' as a reply, thus cutting them to the quick with my maturity as well as my shining wit.

 

[social]

Despite the fact he took the bulk of his FC wickets on the Adelaide Oval deck, which was far flatter in those days, and still averaged 29 as a Test off-spinner? Please. Ash is around 6'2" and spun the ball a mile. If anything he may have been more successful today because at least he'd get a bowl in the Test side, rather than being behind the rest of the pace bowlers. Surely to hold such an opinion, you never saw him bowl?

Actually, the Adelaide Oval was better for spin back then. Fourth and Fifth day wickets were when spinners came into their own.

To say that "he would be handled easily" is probably a bit harsh but there is no way that he was as difficult a proposition as Murali, Harbijhan from time to time, or Saqlain of a few years ago.

Off-spin is about the only cricketing discipline that has come on in leaps and bounds over the past 30 years (primarily due to the introduction of the doosra and relaxation of flex restrictions) and I would place Mallett on the same level as Emburey and Tim May. Good bowlers but certainly not great and unlikely to run through a top batting lineup like the current Aus team.

BTW, Mallett did not "turn the ball a mile." He got good bounce from a high action and had a deceptive arm ball but was not in the same ball park as Murali or even Tim May where turn is concerned.

 

[social]

Gilmour didn't play in the 74/75 series.

My mistake.

He was in the team 3 months later so was obviously on the fringe at that time.

 

[archie mac]

Actually, the Adelaide Oval was better for spin back then. Fourth and Fifth day wickets were when spinners came into their own.

To say that "he would be handled easily" is probably a bit harsh but there is no way that he was as difficult a proposition as Murali, Harbijhan from time to time, or Saqlain of a few years ago.

Off-spin is about the only cricketing discipline that has come on in leaps and bounds over the past 30 years (primarily due to the introduction of the doosra and relaxation of flex restrictions) and I would place Mallett on the same level as Emburey and Tim May. Good bowlers but certainly not great and unlikely to run through a top batting lineup like the current Aus team.

BTW, Mallett did not "turn the ball a mile." He got good bounce from a high action and had a deceptive arm ball but was not in the same ball park as Murali or even Tim May where turn is concerned.

I thought Mallett hardly treated by his earlier Test captain (the one with the big nose) but was a very good bowler under Chappelli. One thing that would be in his favour today is the fact that his close catches could wear helmets. He was also one of the best gully fieldsman I have seen.

 

[vic_orthdox]

There's a school of thought that exists on CricketWeb today, Corey, that anyone playing in the past was rubbish, and that the batsmen wouldn't be able to survive against today's bowlers; conversely the bowlers of yesteryear would be tanked all round the park.

Did you ever see graphite on the bats in the 70s?
And no, aluminium doesn't count.

 

[Top_Cat]

Off-spin is about the only cricketing discipline that has come on in leaps and bounds over the past 30 years (primarily due to the introduction of the doosra and relaxation of flex restrictions)

So off-spinner has come along in leaps and bounds, eh? Why are there so few decent ones around? Why did off-spinners used to figure more prominently in Test sides? If anything I'd say the art of decent off-spin bowling has been lost somewhat; in this mad rush to increase the tricks in the bag (if you can't bowl a doosra then you're nothing these days), offies have forgotten how to use flight, deception and the rest or at least just don't get picked.

And why is the doosra looked upon as such an innovation? It sure is difficult to bowl but by that same token, it's none too difficult to pick either. This is evidenced by the fact that Murali in the last series against the Aussies barely got a wicket with it and in fact the comment was made many times during the series that he was relying on it far too much. The basics of off-spin practiced for many generations remain true; throw in the odd trick ball but use varying levels of spin, flight and speed to get good batsmen out. That's exactly what makes Murali a great bowler, not his doosra and in fact it was only when he figured that out that he really started to trouble the Aussie batsmen in that series.

Saqlain became a far less effective bowler the more he used his doosra and so has Harbi. Think about it.

BTW, Mallett did not "turn the ball a mile." He got good bounce from a high action and had a deceptive arm ball but was not in the same ball park as Murali or even Tim May where turn is concerned.

Answer me this; did you see him bowl at all?

 

[social]

So off-spinner has come along in leaps and bounds, eh? Why are there so few decent ones around? Why did off-spinners used to figure more prominently in Test sides? If anything I'd say the art of decent off-spin bowling has been lost somewhat; in this mad rush to increase the tricks in the bag (if you can't bowl a doosra then you're nothing these days), offies have forgotten how to use flight, deception and the rest or at least just don't get picked.

And why is the doosra looked upon as such an innovation? It sure is difficult to bowl but by that same token, it's none too difficult to pick either. This is evidenced by the fact that Murali in the last series against the Aussies barely got a wicket with it and in fact the comment was made many times during the series that he was relying on it far too much. The basics of off-spin practiced for many generations remain true; throw in the odd trick ball but use varying levels of spin, flight and speed to get good batsmen out. That's exactly what makes Murali a great bowler, not his doosra and in fact it was only when he figured that out that he really started to trouble the Aussie batsmen in that series.

Saqlain became a far less effective bowler the more he used his doosra and so has Harbi. Think about it.



Answer me this; did you see him bowl at all?

Off-spinners in world cricket

England - Giles, Batty
SA - Boje
India - Harbijhan, Kartik
Pakistan - Saqlain
SL - Murali
NZ - Vettori, Paul Wiseman
WI - Banks, etc

As you can see, there are no fewer off-spinners today than at most other times in test cricket history. In fact, the major difference is that the better bowlers from Asia have added more variation to the usual accuracy and are therefore more penetrative.

Australia has the benefit of selecting from 2 of the greatest leg-spinners in history and, as such, the dearth of test-standard off-spinning talent is largely irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the number of matches played today, coupled with television and computer analysis, means that closer scrutiny is made of every facet of a bowler's arsenal and variations do not remain a mystery for long. As such, some batsmen can learn to pick the doosras of Murali and Saqlain and render them less effective than previously was the case.

However, to say that a doosra is "easy to pick" is incorrect. Time and again, when used sparingly, the doosras of Murali and Harbi continue to confound batsmen the world over.

Moreover, Saqlain's problem lies not in the fact that batsmen are able to pick his doosra but in his inability to bowl a traditional off-spinner. This has led him to use the doosra as a stock-ball rather than as a variation and made him far more predictable..

Unless you use his first series against Aus as a standard, Harbijhan has not decreased in potency at all.

In any event, unless you are discussing the very top echelon of off-spinners (who utilise the skills that you describe), throughout history they have been little more than a stock bowler (as their standard delivery spins into a batsman's pads) until the last 10 years.

BTW, I have seen Ashley Mallett bowl live and highlights of matches in which he was a participant on many occasions (including this week on ESPN). You obviously rate him very highly but my assessment of him being on a par with Emburey and May is realistic. Anything above that contemplates a standing as an all-time great which is not justified at all.

 

[luckyeddie]

Did you ever see graphite on the bats in the 70s?
And no, aluminium doesn't count.

If you remember rightly, the aluminium didn't count then either.

 

[vic_orthdox]

In all seriousness, did they make them rebowl all the balls that he faced with it?

And now in jest, if they didn't, then it did count to an extent.

 

[Top_Cat]

However, to say that a doosra is "easy to pick" is incorrect. Time and again, when used sparingly, the doosras of Murali and Harbi continue to confound batsmen the world over.

I dispute that. I think that the doosra has largely been found out by most batsmen world wide and Harbi in particular is not as effective as he was. The reason Murali keeps taking wickets is becuase he does everything else so well. He's pared back the use of his doosra and he's still taking wickets. When he and the rest relied on it, they were far less effective.

Moreover, Saqlain's problem lies not in the fact that batsmen are able to pick his doosra but in his inability to bowl a traditional off-spinner. This has led him to use the doosra as a stock-ball rather than as a variation and made him far more predictable..

So his more frequent use of the doosra has nothing to do with the deterioration of his stock off-spinner? Of course it has. The less he bowled the doosra, the more wickets he took and the harder he was to play. I have no idea why he stopped trying to be an off-spinner because he was a far better bowler.

Unless you use his first series against Aus as a standard, Harbijhan has not decreased in potency at all.

I don't use that series and I say he has. He may be taking wickets at a similar rate (averaging around 30 over his past 10 Tests) but I thought in the last series against the Aussies, he just looked a bit less likely to take a bag of wickets.

In any event, unless you are discussing the very top echelon of off-spinners (who utilise the skills that you describe), throughout history they have been little more than a stock bowler (as their standard delivery spins into a batsman's pads) until the last 10 years.

Well nothing's changed then. Of that list, I'd only count Murali as being anywhere near the top echelon (assuming Prasanna, etc. are what you term the top echelon). The rest are just above 'stock bowlers' because if you have a look at their records, they are no more attacking bowlers than any other off-spinners in the last 30 years. You obviously rate Tim May, John Emburey and Mallett lowly so where does that put the rest in your list? All bar Saqlain, Murali and Harbi average 30+ which puts the rest in the same bracket as Tim May and John Emburey BUT below Mallett (who averaged around 29). By your logic, they're therefore all stock bowlers.

My problem isn't that you're over-rating the off-spinners of today (you do; saying off-spinning has come along in 'leaps and bounds' isn't supported by the facts); it's that you under-rate a guy like Mallett. No he's not a great and I never claimed him as such you you do a great disservice to him when you say he would be 'played easily' because 1) you can't know for sure, 2) he possesses a better record than all bar two of the spinners you mentioned and he has a comparable record to Harbi and 3) having seen plenty of him bowling, I still say he turned the ball as much as any off-spinner around today save Murali.

 

[luckyeddie]

In all seriousness, did they make them rebowl all the balls that he faced with it?

And now in jest, if they didn't, then it did count to an extent.

It was banned on the advice of a Harley Street Audiologist (that's 'Hearing Doctor') after its first use - listen.....

huffa plod huffa plod huffa plod huffa plod hup thump whoosh CLANGGGGG

 

[marc71178]

Doesn't Giles turn it from leg to off though, ie the same way that Warne turns it?

 

[social]

I dispute that. I think that the doosra has largely been found out by most batsmen world wide and Harbi in particular is not as effective as he was. The reason Murali keeps taking wickets is becuase he does everything else so well. He's pared back the use of his doosra and he's still taking wickets. When he and the rest relied on it, they were far less effective.

Naturally.

If a delivery is used too frequently, the batsman either learns to read it or at least can anticipate it and make the necessary adjustments.

So his more frequent use of the doosra has nothing to do with the deterioration of his stock off-spinner? Of course it has. The less he bowled the doosra, the more wickets he took and the harder he was to play. I have no idea why he stopped trying to be an off-spinner because he was a far better bowler.

Chicken and the egg argument.

Either way, he ended up with a ball spinning to slips (when delivered to a right hander) and the batsmen adjusted accordingly.

I don't use that series and I say he has. He may be taking wickets at a similar rate (averaging around 30 over his past 10 Tests) but I thought in the last series against the Aussies, he just looked a bit less likely to take a bag of wickets.

If he's taking wickets at a similar rate, then how has he deteriorated?

Well nothing's changed then. Of that list, I'd only count Murali as being anywhere near the top echelon (assuming Prasanna, etc. are what you term the top echelon).

Has leg-spinning changed? No
Pace bowling? No

Unlike other forms of bowling, off-spinners alone have intorduced "new" deliveries and more attacking approaches.

The rest are just above 'stock bowlers' because if you have a look at their records, they are no more attacking bowlers than any other off-spinners in the last 30 years
You obviously rate Tim May, John Emburey and Mallett lowly so where does that put the rest in your list? All bar Saqlain, Murali and Harbi average 30+ which puts the rest in the same bracket as Tim May and John Emburey BUT below Mallett (who averaged around 29). By your logic, they're therefore all stock bowlers.

Firstly, a bowler's record alone cannot be used to determine their bowling approach. For example, Harbi and, say, Giles may have similar records but their approaches are poles apart. One's first instinct is to take wickets whilst the other is to strangle the opposition and frustrate them into error.

Secondly, it's a fact that Aus has generally favoured leg-spin over finger-spin because they were prepared to trade economy for wickets. However, Murali, Harbi and Saqlain give lie to the distinction by being both economical and attacking. Except in isolated examples, most notably the great Indian spinners of the 70s, this is a recent phenomenon

Thirdly, I dont downplay the performances of Mallett, etc (they are obviously fine bowlers) just not in the class of today's top practitioners or, in fact, Prasanna and Bedi.

My problem isn't that you're over-rating the off-spinners of today (you do; saying off-spinning has come along in 'leaps and bounds' isn't supported by the facts); it's that you under-rate a guy like Mallett. No he's not a great and I never claimed him as such you you do a great disservice to him when you say he would be 'played easily' because 1) you can't know for sure, 2) he possesses a better record than all bar two of the spinners you mentioned and he has a comparable record to Harbi and 3) having seen plenty of him bowling, I still say he turned the ball as much as any off-spinner around today save Murali.

If a bowling style has evolved from being largely defensive with few variations to (in certain hands) attacking with many variations whilst remaining economical, then it stands to reason that it has improved.

Finally, comparing the amount that Mallett turned the ball to today's practitioners (bar Murali) is very different to saying that he's a big turner of the ball. Fact is, very few (including Mallett) turn the ball appreciably in either direction.

 

[Dasa]

Doesn't Giles turn it from leg to off though, ie the same way that Warne turns it?

By off-spinners, he's probably referring to finger spinners - i.e. Boje, Giles.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Did anyone else in the UK watch Dennis Nordons Laughter File last night (July 5th)?
It included an interview from 1975 with Tony Greig. Apparently during this tour the players were told by Lords that they could only sleep with their visiting wives 21 times. To combat this restriction they would sneak out in the middle of the night to where their wives were staying and spend the night and sneak back in before they were missed. Greig had a fairly good series so it worked for him, but it could explain the lack of runs from Amiss and Fletcher.

 

[marc71178]

By off-spinners, he's probably referring to finger spinners - i.e. Boje, Giles.

Oh right!

 

[luckyeddie]

Did anyone else in the UK watch Dennis Nordons Laughter File last night (July 5th)?
It included an interview from 1975 with Tony Greig. Apparently during this tour the players were told by Lords that they could only sleep with their visiting wives 21 times. To combat this restriction they would sneak out in the middle of the night to where their wives were staying and spend the night and sneak back in before they were missed. Greig had a fairly good series so it worked for him, but it could explain the lack of runs from Amiss and Fletcher.

From what I heard, that'd have only lasted Tanny Grig the weekend - no wonder there was a stink.