"Attacking" \ "Defensive" fingerspin

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

I haven't seen Panesar bowl, but you'd have to be a complete fool to think that Giles (for example) is a particularly attacking bowler. The fact is, however much you might like to pretend that every fingerspinner is the same, there are different ways for them to bowl, and some are more aggressive than others. Just like Shaun Tait is a more attacking bowler than Stuart Clark, there are fingerspinners - like say Dan Cullen or Harbhajan Singh - who are much more aggressive and more focused on wicket taking than Giles is.

Giles usually bowls a negative line with a fairly defensive field. This is mostly because his role in the team is largely to contain and give the seamers a rest (unless the pitch is taking turn). Even when he is given more room to attack, he never goes around the wicket (generally considered one of the key attacking moves for a left-arm fingerspinner) like someone like Dan Vettori does. His trade is to pitch the ball outside the right-hander's leg stump and turn it across them, basically frustrating them and waiting for a mistake. This is not a particularly attacking mindset compared to that of other fingerspinners.

And in fact, to offer an Australian example to go along with Panesar, there is a reason that virtually every commentator who has discussed him so far in his domestic career has referred to Dan Cullen as an "aggressive" or "attacking" off-spinner. And I assure you that it's not because he's asian.


edit: having spotted the line, I will now shut up and wait for someone to make a thread on the subject.

To avoid overtly swamping the Feedback thread, and to in-keep with the line both myself and Matt wish to draw under the subject...
Of course there are different ways to bowl fingerspin.
However, to simply stereotype one bowler as "he's attacking"; "he's defensive" is IMO utterly stupid, frankly. The best bowlers are capable of attacking and defending at the same time.
Quite simply - it just isn't possible to use fingerspin as an attacking option on the majority of non-subcontinental pitches. The ball doesn't turn - a spinner is not an attacking option. Fingerspinners can't turn the ball other than on especially dry pitches - referred to most simply as "turners".
To take the example of Daniel Cullen - if he's such an attacking bowler, he should have a good strike-rate and a high economy-rate. Yet that's not the case. Cullen took plenty of wickets last season, but has not done so this season. There's a reason for this. Fingerspinners very rarely find anything in the pitches in Australia. Plenty of bowlers, too, have a good\semi-decent 1st season, and people assume they'll get better. Richard Dawson is an English example of this, and I fully expect Cullen to fall into the same category.
Just because Ashley Giles has been forced to be primarily deployed as a defensive bowler, because of the fact that it's been pretty rare in his career for England to play on turning pitches, Giles gets the reputation "defensive bowler". This, as is demonstrated by his record on turning pitches, is quite a silly stereotype. Giles has demonstrated plenty, when he's played on turning pitches, that he's very capable of both keeping the runs down and taking wickets.
A lot of the Giles stereotype dates to that Bangalore Test, played on a seaming pitch under heaving skies. Yet the stupid irony of that is that this "negativity" didn't work. Tendulkar, the prime target, scored 90, and Giles took 1 for 74. In the previous Test, at Ahmedabad, Giles was able to attack, because the pitch turned, and he took 5 for 67 in the first-innings. To say Giles "never goes around the wicket" is again rather naive. In Pakistan 2000\01 and Sri Lanka 2000\01, Giles bowled around-the-wicket plenty, and reaped the rewards. Since Bangalore he's done it less often, but again - why does he need to? As he showed in the middle 3 Tests in 2004, he's still perfectly capable of bowling in an attacking vein from over-the-wicket.
There's only 1 occasion where I'd really criticise Giles for bowling over-the-wicket, and that's the second-innings of that Ahmedabad game I just mentioned. IMO England could have won that game if Giles had bowled round-the-wicket more on the final day. Despite this, I would criticise the selectors many times for picking him when it was clear the pitch was going to render him useless.
"Frustrating batsmen" simply doesn't work. Not for fingerspinners, certainly. If the pitch isn't offering turn, they can just advance down the wicket and smash the ball out of the park. No amount of "defensive" or "attacking" bowling can stop this.
With the case of Mudhsuden Singh Panesar, I can see him becoming a very formidable bowler at his home ground, because Wantage Road, Northampton has long been the most spin-friendly ground in the country. Unlike some people, I like it that way - for me, that's what cricket's all about and if you lose the spin-friendly venues the game becomes much more boring than if you keep them. Equally, I can see him doing very well whenever he plays a Test on a turning pitch.
But the reality is, that's not going to happen very often. And England fans hoping and expecting him to be some sort of saviour, being capable of doing things English spinners have not been able to do since 1973, are sadly mistaken. And, I can tell you now, they will be disappointed. Because if Panesar plays in England and we get typical conditions (ie extremely flat pitches) he won't cause many good batsmen many problems.
Because fingerspin can only be an "attacking" option when the pitch allows it to. No-one and nothing can change that.
And, frankly, with the seam-attack England look like having, with Hoggard having seemingly learned to bowl reverse-swing as well as conventional, we don't really need spinners on non-turning tracks.

[Armadillo]

Originally Posted by Richard

To avoid overtly swamping the Feedback thread, and to in-keep with the line both myself and Matt wish to draw under the subject...
Of course there are different ways to bowl fingerspin.
However, to simply stereotype one bowler as "he's attacking"; "he's defensive" is IMO utterly stupid, frankly. The best bowlers are capable of attacking and defending at the same time.
Quite simply - it just isn't possible to use fingerspin as an attacking option on the majority of non-subcontinental pitches. The ball doesn't turn - a spinner is not an attacking option. Fingerspinners can't turn the ball other than on especially dry pitches - referred to most simply as "turners".
To take the example of Daniel Cullen - if he's such an attacking bowler, he should have a good strike-rate and a high economy-rate. Yet that's not the case. Cullen took plenty of wickets last season, but has not done so this season. There's a reason for this. Fingerspinners very rarely find anything in the pitches in Australia. Plenty of bowlers, too, have a good\semi-decent 1st season, and people assume they'll get better. Richard Dawson is an English example of this, and I fully expect Cullen to fall into the same category.
Just because Ashley Giles has been forced to be primarily deployed as a defensive bowler, because of the fact that it's been pretty rare in his career for England to play on turning pitches, Giles gets the reputation "defensive bowler". This, as is demonstrated by his record on turning pitches, is quite a silly stereotype. Giles has demonstrated plenty, when he's played on turning pitches, that he's very capable of both keeping the runs down and taking wickets.
A lot of the Giles stereotype dates to that Bangalore Test, played on a seaming pitch under heaving skies. Yet the stupid irony of that is that this "negativity" didn't work. Tendulkar, the prime target, scored 90, and Giles took 1 for 74. In the previous Test, at Ahmedabad, Giles was able to attack, because the pitch turned, and he took 5 for 67 in the first-innings. To say Giles "never goes around the wicket" is again rather naive. In Pakistan 2000\01 and Sri Lanka 2000\01, Giles bowled around-the-wicket plenty, and reaped the rewards. Since Bangalore he's done it less often, but again - why does he need to? As he showed in the middle 3 Tests in 2004, he's still perfectly capable of bowling in an attacking vein from over-the-wicket.
There's only 1 occasion where I'd really criticise Giles for bowling over-the-wicket, and that's the second-innings of that Ahmedabad game I just mentioned. IMO England could have won that game if Giles had bowled round-the-wicket more on the final day. Despite this, I would criticise the selectors many times for picking him when it was clear the pitch was going to render him useless.
"Frustrating batsmen" simply doesn't work. Not for fingerspinners, certainly. If the pitch isn't offering turn, they can just advance down the wicket and smash the ball out of the park. No amount of "defensive" or "attacking" bowling can stop this.
With the case of Mudhsuden Singh Panesar, I can see him becoming a very formidable bowler at his home ground, because Wantage Road, Northampton has long been the most spin-friendly ground in the country. Unlike some people, I like it that way - for me, that's what cricket's all about and if you lose the spin-friendly venues the game becomes much more boring than if you keep them. Equally, I can see him doing very well whenever he plays a Test on a turning pitch.
But the reality is, that's not going to happen very often. And England fans hoping and expecting him to be some sort of saviour, being capable of doing things English spinners have not been able to do since 1973, are sadly mistaken. And, I can tell you now, they will be disappointed. Because if Panesar plays in England and we get typical conditions (ie extremely flat pitches) he won't cause many good batsmen many problems.
Because fingerspin can only be an "attacking" option when the pitch allows it to. No-one and nothing can change that.
And, frankly, with the seam-attack England look like having, with Hoggard having seemingly learned to bowl reverse-swing as well as conventional, we don't really need spinners on non-turning tracks.

This post is too long and I refuse to read it, same with all of Richard's posts really.

[open365]

Mmmmm...intresting debate.

Tbh,i think "defensive finger spin bowler" is now a term used synymously with a bowler who isn't bowling very well because like you said, bowling defensively just doesn't work anymore.

I would say that all bowlers are attacking bowlers when they are on top of there game, which logically follows that the most attacking ones are the ones who are at the top of their game most often I.E. The Best ones.

In saying this though,i still think that some bowlers are more naturlly attacking than others,just as KP is more attacking than Dravid.

On the point of Giles and Panesar, i don't expect Panesar to be a saviour, i expect from what i've seen of him to finish his test career with a better average than Giles.

[Tom Halsey]

I agree with Richard.

When the pitch turns, even from over the wicket, Giles is a wicket-taking bowler (especially against left-handers) - the problem is you don't get many turning pitches in England - but we did in 2004, and, as Richard says, Giles was very good in 2004, and a wicket-taking bowler at that. The only time I can vividly remember being ****ed off with Giles' bowling was the OT Test last year. The pitch was turning a lot, and Giles bowled more overs than anyone else on the last day, and bowled absolute rubbish, no other way to describe it. But other than that instance, when the pitch allows, Giles is a dangerous bowler.

And when the pitch isn't turning, trying to attack as a fingerspinner isn't going to work, and you're just going to get hammered. Hence Giles is often used defensively by England.

[open365]

Originally Posted by Tom Halsey

I agree with Richard.

When the pitch turns, even from over the wicket, Giles is a wicket-taking bowler (especially against left-handers) - the problem is you don't get many turning pitches in England - but we did in 2004, and, as Richard says, Giles was very good in 2004, and a wicket-taking bowler at that. The only time I can vividly remember being ****ed off with Giles' bowling was the OT Test last year. The pitch was turning a lot, and Giles bowled more overs than anyone else on the last day, and bowled absolute rubbish, no other way to describe it. But other than that instance, when the pitch allows, Giles is a dangerous bowler.

And when the pitch isn't turning, trying to attack as a fingerspinner isn't going to work, and you're just going to get hammered. Hence Giles is often used defensively by England.

Has anyone ever considered that Giles had a great 2004 because he bowled better than he normally does?

[greg]

On the point of Giles and Panesar, i don't expect Panesar to be a saviour, i expect from what i've seen of him to finish his test career with a better average than Giles.

That may depend on how both his batting, and that of the other bowlers develops. Giles has the fundamental problem for a spinner looking to get a decent average of being in the team for more than just his bowling. A rabbit at batting and fielding, on the other hand, is only likely to play and bowl on pitches on pitches suiting him. Just look at MacGill. One shouldn't underestimate Giles' batting as a factor enabling England to put out a five man attack in recent years.

[Tom Halsey]

Originally Posted by open365

Has anyone ever considered that Giles had a great 2004 because he bowled better than he normally does?

No, Giles usually bowls perfectly well, within the team's plans.

Giles also bowled perfectly well in 2004, he merely gained more help from the pitch than he ususally does, and was used in a more attacking fashion, men around the bat and whatnot.

[open365]

Originally Posted by greg

That may depend on how both his batting, and that of the other bowlers develops. Giles has the fundamental problem for a spinner looking to get a decent average of being in the team for more than just his bowling. A rabbit at batting and fielding, on the other hand, is only likely to play and bowl on pitches on pitches suiting him. Just look at MacGill. One shouldn't underestimate Giles' batting as a factor enabling England to put out a five man attack in recent years.

Mmmm...i'm hoping batting will not be an issue with Monty and that he'll be a good enough bowler to merit a place regardess of his batting form.

I don't think he's got much challengers yet though (not counting Giles,who is more of a holder) and He looks a good prospect for the furure.

[open365]

Originally Posted by Tom Halsey

No, Giles usually bowls perfectly well, within the team's plans.

Giles also bowled perfectly well in 2004, he merely gained more help from the pitch than he ususally does, and was used in a more attacking fashion, men around the bat and whatnot.

I dis-agree, working on that basis, Giles bowls really well all the time but conditions don't suit him for most of it, which is complete crap.

The reaosn he got more men around the bat and was used in an attackign fashion was because he bowled better,not vice-versa.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by open365

Has anyone ever considered that Giles had a great 2004 because he bowled better than he normally does?

I don't think so.
I think he's bowled pretty much exactly the same in most of his Test-matches (excluding the first 2 in Sri Lanka in 2000\01 when he was troubled by his calf) and has been very effective on turning pitches and not on non-turners.
I don't think, TBH, Giles could be described as "effective" in the other Tests in 2004, and for me it's asking a bit much to believe that he could bowl well in the 3 Tests where the ball turned and not in the first 2 or the last 2.

[Tom Halsey]

Originally Posted by open365

I dis-agree, working on that basis, Giles bowls really well all the time but conditions don't suit him for most of it, which is complete crap.

Yes, he does bowl well - within the team's plans. Because the team has a lot of very good pace bowlers, and English pitches don't typically aid spin bowling (finger-spin really, someone like Warne will turn it on anything), Giles gets used as the stock bowler, keep the runs down when the seamers are having a rest. He usually does this perfectly well, with the odd exception, and fits perfectly within the team's plans.

In 2004, there were 3 pitches which turned a lot more than your typical English pitch (you only have took look at Giles's dismissal of Lara to see this - someone can't go from gun-barrel straight to turning it absolutely square just because they're bowling better - the pitch was turning). Giles was suddenly used in a much more attacking fashion, and suddenly started picking up lots of wickets. People who use the recent tour of Pakistan against him don't take into account the fact that Giles was injured - and I'm sure if he was in India now he'd be a constant threat.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by greg

That may depend on how both his batting, and that of the other bowlers develops. Giles has the fundamental problem for a spinner looking to get a decent average of being in the team for more than just his bowling. A rabbit at batting and fielding, on the other hand, is only likely to play and bowl on pitches on pitches suiting him. Just look at MacGill. One shouldn't underestimate Giles' batting as a factor enabling England to put out a five man attack in recent years.

MacGill hasn't neccessarily always played on bowler-friendly pitches, his average is better than I think it would be were he to have been a fixture for another reason - he's often played only a Test or two (especially against South Africa), meaning the only time he's ever really been collared and had a big rise in average was in 2003\04 (home vs India, away in Sri Lanka).
Having said that, Bangladesh excluded he's mostly been very ineffectual since Adelaide 2000\01. Between then and SCG 2004\05 he had basically 1 good game out of about 15. His form from that Test onwards has been a bit better but again - he's been in-and-out.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by open365

I dis-agree, working on that basis, Giles bowls really well all the time but conditions don't suit him for most of it, which is complete crap.

The reaosn he got more men around the bat and was used in an attackign fashion was because he bowled better,not vice-versa.

I don't think so.
I think it's stretching the bounds of likelihood to suggest that he bowled better at the same time as the pitches happened to assist him more than they usually do.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Tom Halsey

Yes, he does bowl well - within the team's plans. Because the team has a lot of very good pace bowlers, and English pitches don't typically aid spin bowling (finger-spin really, someone like Warne will turn it on anything), Giles gets used as the stock bowler, keep the runs down when the seamers are having a rest. He usually does this perfectly well, with the odd exception, and fits perfectly within the team's plans.

In 2004, there were 3 pitches which turned a lot more than your typical English pitch (you only have took look at Giles's dismissal of Lara to see this - someone can't go from gun-barrel straight to turning it absolutely square just because they're bowling better - the pitch was turning). Giles was suddenly used in a much more attacking fashion, and suddenly started picking up lots of wickets. People who use the recent tour of Pakistan against him don't take into account the fact that Giles was injured - and I'm sure if he was in India now he'd be a constant threat.

There's a far more significant thing - the pitches were 3 pancake-flat things that were utterly useless to fingerspin - only Kaneria looked like getting the ball off the straight, and even he didn't turn it phenominally most of the time.
You simply can't say "subcontinent, must have been spin-friendly wicket", as some people try to do, because it's not always like that. The pitch used at The SSC in 2003\04 was also one of the flattest pitches you will ever see - no fingerspinner was ever going to get good figures on it. Likewise, the one used at Bangalore in 2001\02 was your typical English pitch, seaming plenty, and with the Test played under overcast skies you couldn't have had more "English" conditions if you played at Edgbaston in May. Equally, the Nagpur wicket rarely deviated much for anyone, all spinners looked fairly innocuous, though Panesar produced that one magic ball.

[open365]

I just did a search of stats for a few spinners playing in England and i guess i'll have to admit i'm wrong,dam.

I just don't like rating players too much of what surface they bowl, it doesn't seem right to me.
It's relying on the conditions, which is not something i enjoy talking about or even admiting in cricket, even though it plays a big part.