• 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.

Aussie spin

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Seriously, how delusional are Australians about the quality of spin currently lying around their country?

Has it really escaped their notice that between Benaud and Warne (that's nearly 40 years and, taking Warne's first hurrah as in New Zealand in 1992\93, and excluding matches during the Packer Schism, 227 Tests) Australia had one passable Test-class spinner, Ashley Mallett. Even he only had 24 good games, followed by 14 very poor ones.

Those tried included those noted fly-by-nights Rex Sellars (1 Test), David Sincock (3), Terry Jenner (9), Ken Eastwood (1), John Watkins (1, "the luckiest player ever to be picked for Australia"), Peter Sleep (1, then 10 more after a 4-year gap), Tom Hogan (7), Bob Holland (11), Murray Bennett (3), Peter Taylor (13) and Trevor Hohns (7). None did remotely well in their fleeting careers.

They also included John Gleeson (29), Kerry O'Keeffe (24), Ray Bright (25) and Tim May (24), who were poor to different degrees in their careers. Greg Matthews also played 33, doing even worse than those 4 but being a good enough batsman to hold down a place.

Bruce Yardley did better than some, enjoying a golden season in 1981\82 aged 34 but otherwise doing little (and playing just 19 Tests outside the Packer Schism in any case). Jim Higgs, who was almost certainly the best wristspinner between Benaud and Warne, got a raw deal, doing well enough in the 7 Tests he played outside the Packer Schism. His career was over at 30.

And if anyone really expects a Mallett or Higgs out of the likes of Cullen, Bailey, Hauritz and Casson, well, they're crazy. At the moment, none of those are even proven State players. Even the seeming comforts of having MacGill around for a few years aren't what they seem. MacGill has been a better spinner than most, but nonetheless his record looks far more impressive than it is. In 5 matches against Bangladesh and ICC World XI, neither credible Test sides, he has 42 wickets at 14.33. Knock out these and it’s 156 in 35 at 30.67. Still not the worst, but the truth is the only time he’s had consistent success was 2 games (MCG and SCG against England, a team noted for their virtually comic fallibility against wristspin) in 1998\99. Knock-out these 2 games, too, and it’s 137 in 33 at 33.11. Less impressive. Less impressive still, when you consider it’s actually 8 good games out of 33, and only twice managing success in successive matches. On isolated occasions (Rawalpindi 1998\99, Queen’s Park Oval 1999, ARG 1999-‘Gabba 2000\01-WACA 2000\01, Kensington Oval 2003, SCG 2004\05-Bellerive 2005\06) he’s played a big part in a victory. But mostly he’s been average or poor. And the portents are that his successors will be even worse.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
Now lets have a look at spinners from the rest of the world and compare?


And ofcourse bowlers will look worse if you take out all their best games.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Now lets have a look at spinners from the rest of the world and compare?
Where did I mention anyone else?
High-quality spin bowlers are rare. Given that fingerspinners always need something in the pitch and wristspin is incredibly difficult to bowl with the requistite accuracy while getting the neccessary spin it's hardly surprising, either.
How does the rest of the World's situation matter when considering Australia's?
And ofcourse bowlers will look worse if you take out all their best games.
It's not about taking out the best games, it's about the best games being very few and far between.

More than that, it's about good games against Bangladesh and ICC World XIs being utterly irrelevant to Test-cricket.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
Where did I mention anyone else?
High-quality spin bowlers are rare. Given that fingerspinners always need something in the pitch and wristspin is incredibly difficult to bowl with the requistite accuracy while getting the neccessary spin it's hardly surprising, either.
How does the rest of the World's situation matter when considering Australia's?
you didn't thats the point - if Australia's spin options have been so bad someone else must have had some brilliant spin options to make them appear that way. If Australians are delusional about the quality of spin bowling in Australia someone else must have been doing better?
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bailey, Casson and Doran have all got a lot of potential

Dont rate Cullen - fingerspin just doesnt cut it in Oz

Chances of replacing Warne anytime soon are negligible but I think we have a reasonable crop of youngsters who have a good chance of achieving success at the highest level
 

Great Birtannia

U19 Captain
Who rates the next generation of Australian spinners highly? I think Bailey will be an ok test prospect in time and Cullen can become a reasonable limited overs spinner but the rest are ordinary. The future of the Australian attack at this point is 4 quicks (from Lee, Johnson, Clark, Hilfenhaus, Tait atm) and Cameron White as a legitimate #6 batsman first and a negating spin option second. England have done ok with that sort of balance over the last few years, I don't see how it is the end of the world for us.
 
Last edited:

dontcloseyoureyes

BARNES OUT
Yeah, I don't think anyone really rates the Aussie spin bowling youngsters highly bar people in the media, who are generally idiots. There's no doubt some of them have potential (Bailey, Heal, Doran IMO).

It's worth noting that young spin bowlers generally have rubbish starts to their domestic careers, Warne was atrocious yet people saw his potential. Cullen's trash, of that I have no doubt. Australia won't produce a world class finger spinner anytime soon, if ever again. Bailey has potential, and could possibly get there, though I'm doubtful over his longevity. White will play as a #6 batsman who can bowl defensive spells, and has potential to average low 30's if he works hard on his accuracy ala Kumble.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
As everyone with a head on their shoulders will point out, nobody thinks Australia have a group of ready-made spinners waiting to come in and dominate test cricket. The players you list, Cullen, Bailey, White, Casson etc are the players who might appear in the Australian side in the next few years, not stars of the domestic circuit. Those players get discussion because, after MacGill, Australia will need to have a spinner come into the team, and they are the best options at the moment. Would you prefer people didn't discuss them, or that Australia didn't attempt to find a quality spinner merely because it's difficult?

Absolute waste of a thread.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Bizarre really. Most posters here are in agreement that MacGill is a very good spinner, but certainly not in Warne's class, but that after MacGill there's no spinner who really merits a place in the national team yet. Cullen and Bailey had good starts to their career and attracted some attention, as did Cameron White, but none of them are test standard, and their own mums probably wouldn't say they were. All of them are under 25 and the two SAs have the potential to develop into fine FC and serviceable international bowlers, while White might be a better option for a batting allrounder than Watson, but all of them are going to need to put in a lot of work - spinners tend to be late bloomers anyway...
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Strange indeed - I don't remember anyone from Australia on here being "delusional" enough to say that the new Warne was just around the corner. As posters have stated, there is going to a be a giant hole in the Australian attack that will require filling by a spinner, and so many of us have been discussing the options available - whilst almost invariably lamenting that Warne is nigh-on irreplaceable and that we hope whoever carries the spinning torch for Australia in Test cricket for the coming years isn't burdened to much by Warne's ghost or weight of expectation.

Incidentally, between MacGill's games against Bangladesh, the ICC World XI, his two big performances against England and then his 8 "other" good games, you've taken away his 15 best Tests, out of a total of only 40. Do that to any player and their record will look inferior.

Though if you've decided that Tests against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and for/against ICC World XIs don't count as real Test cricket, I assume you'll be breaking the news to our Murali fans on here that his wickets tally has now been revised back to 532?

Just another bitter attempt at bagging Australian cricket, cricketers and fans imo.
 

pasag

RTDAS
Strange indeed - I don't remember anyone from Australia on here being "delusional" enough to say that the new Warne was just around the corner. As posters have stated, there is going to a be a giant hole in the Australian attack that will require filling by a spinner, and so many of us have been discussing the options available - whilst almost invariably lamenting that Warne is nigh-on irreplaceable and that we hope whoever carries the spinning torch for Australia in Test cricket for the coming years isn't burdened to much by Warne's ghost or weight of expectation.

Incidentally, between MacGill's games against Bangladesh, the ICC World XI, his two big performances against England and then his 8 "other" good games, you've taken away his 15 best Tests, out of a total of only 40. Do that to any player and their record will look inferior.

Though if you've decided that Tests against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and for/against ICC World XIs don't count as real Test cricket, I assume you'll be breaking the news to our Murali fans on here that his wickets tally has now been revised back to 532?

Just another bitter attempt at bagging Australian cricket, cricketers and fans imo.
And it's getting ****ing tedious as well I might add.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Incidentally, try taking the best 37.5% of Warne's test performances away from him and see how his record is. One might imagine it'd look a fair bit worse.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah. From anyone else, I'd see this as a particularly ridiculous attack on Australian cricket and Australian cricket fans. From Richard, it's just par for the course really. This could be about any nation except for New Zealand or South Africa.
 

Top