Is spin bowling a dying art in modern day cricket?

[chaminda_00]

The point that i am trying to make is that there are a lot of people around the world who are rolling their arms over and trying to turn the ball, but their quality is highly questionable.


There is no young upcoming spinner around the world who one can say has something special in him, because one has to agree unless a spinner is good and has some good "toys" in his kitty he can't survive in modern day cricket.

Vettori? You can develop into a good spinner without so called limited 'toys' The thing is everyone wants everyone to be the next Murali or Warne. What is so wrong with being the next Vettori, a solid tradesmen.

 

[chaminda_00]

And before him there was Bandaritilleke (sp?) too.

A shame indeed that there has rarely been much top-quality spin Murali-aside in SL over the past 15 years.

There were others who were decent spinners as well, but never got much of a run in the Test and ODI side, due to preference to play bowling all rounders or three seamers. Lack of chances doesn't mean lack of quality.

 

[Richard]

What I meant was lack of chances for the quality that did exist.

Poorly phrased.

 

[marc71178]

The point that i am trying to make is that there are a lot of people around the world who are rolling their arms over and trying to turn the ball, but their quality is highly questionable.

That it is, fortunately for those that are Australian and don't bowl Orthdox, they seem to get central contracts...

 

[SJS]

Australia sure had a strong tradition between 1964 and 1993, didn't they? Those mighty spinners Rex Sellars, David Sincock, John Gleeson, Terry Jenner, Kerry O'Keeffe, Ken Eastwood, John Watkins, Ray Bright, Bruce Yardley, Peter Sleep, Tom Hogan, Bob Holland, Murray Bennett, Peter Taylor, Tim May and Trevor Hohns?

And aside from Abdul Qadir and Iqbal Qasim followed by Mushtaq Ahmed and Saqlain Mushtaq, I struggle to think of many fine upstanding Pakistani spinners either.

I can't see that the quality has vanished, it makes no sense. Simple truth is that England was until 1970 a good place to bowl fingerspin as there was often a decent chance of a rain-affected pitch (and as such we didn't really need wristspinners, and never had any of great quality, Douglas Wright being the best). Since covering that has ceased to be the case (there are 2 or 3 at best, none Test, grounds which offer something to fingerspin in Britain), so even the best English fingerspinners (Underwood post-1972, Edmunds, Emburey, Tufnell, Croft, Giles) have rarely achieved much.

Oh you are right about all you say.

The cupboard is looking very threadbare right now with Warne gone and Kumble going and Murali in the latter part of his caree.

The numbers in the last two decades werent as many as those in the 70's and 80's but these three phenomenal wicket takers did not allow at least three of the top eight nations miss a spinner in the test sides. The problem gets really serious now.

Both quality AND quantity are missing.

I go to visit cricket academies around Bombay and Delhi, one hardly comes across many spinners. The enthusiasm for pace is huge and for spin it is hardly there.

I have started going to Sulakshan Kulkarni's nets here since last week and was amazed to see a young fast bowler.

The boy may was about 4' 6" and looked about 8-9 years old. I was told he was 12 or so. He was very slightly built which with his very small stature made him look too small to be at serious nets.

He came to bowl. Started marking out his run up and went on and on. I guess he was bowling from around 18 yards !! As much as some of the fastest bowlers I have seen. I thought he was having fun. But no.He looked dead serious. In fact his serious demeanour was another thing that stood out in one so small. He ran all of those 18 yards and delivered a seam up delivery on a good length but at a military medium. He kept bowling from that long run up which did no favour to his small frame and at speeds that did no justice to his long run up. The only thing I would say in his favour was that he was very serious about what he was doing and the ball landed very well.

There was a young leg spinner who kept coming back to Sulakshan to say that he did not want to bowl since he wasnt getting it. I dont speak Marathi but guessed the boy did not want to bowl leg spin. I asked Sulakshan how long he had been coming and he said just ten days.

Its the same story everywhere.

 

[JBH001]

Australia sure had a strong tradition between 1964 and 1993, didn't they? Those mighty spinners Rex Sellars, David Sincock, John Gleeson, Terry Jenner, Kerry O'Keeffe, Ken Eastwood, John Watkins, Ray Bright, Bruce Yardley, Peter Sleep, Tom Hogan, Bob Holland, Murray Bennett, Peter Taylor, Tim May and Trevor Hohns?

And aside from Abdul Qadir and Iqbal Qasim followed by Mushtaq Ahmed and Saqlain Mushtaq, I struggle to think of many fine upstanding Pakistani spinners either.

I think you underestimate the tradition of great and good Australian spinners - in fact, arguably the 3 greatest spinners of all time came from Australia. I mean a list from Hugh Trumble, to Arthur Mailey, Ironmonger, Johnston, Benaud, Mallett would easily fit in one level below the 3 greats of Grimmet, O'Reilly and Warne.

Despite what people say about Australian pitches and conditions, it does tend to produce some good quality spinners (at least perhaps until very recently) though, strangely, spinners from other cricketing nations usually seem to have trouble bowling there.

Also, I think you should add Tauseef Ahmed to that list of Pakistani spinners.

 

[Richard]

Haha, Ironmonger and Johnstone? They were both seamers UIMM.

Australia have had 4 outstanding wristspinners (incredibly in the case of Grimmett and O'Reilly, 2 at the same time for a while) and a hell of a lot of wholly mediocre ones. Then one or two middle-ground wristspinners like Mailey and MacGill, plus one single fingerspinner worth his salt, in Mallett.

This fact, the fact that they've had more wristspinners than pretty well the rest put together, tends to obscure the fact that there have also been periods where their spin-cupboard has been near totally bare.

Tauseef Ahmed was simply not in the class of Qadir and Qasim, TBH, too.

 

[chaminda_00]

Ironmonger was a flat off break bowler more off a spinner then seamer, a bit like Underwood and many spinners around that time. Johnston bowled both seamers and spinners, but i think he was regarded as a better spinner. A lot of bowlers back them mixed it up and bowled a bit of both.

 

[Richard]

I always thought Johnstone was regarded as the Walker to Lindwall and Miller's Lillee and Thomson. Never heard of him being a spinner.

Ironmonger, meanwhile, made his Test debut at 47, and was generally regarded as left-arm slow-medium, certainly not what you'd call a classical spinner.

 

[chaminda_00]

I always thought Johnstone was regarded as the Walker to Lindwall and Miller's Lillee and Thomson. Never heard of him being a spinner.

Ironmonger, meanwhile, made his Test debut at 47, and was generally regarded as left-arm slow-medium, certainly not what you'd call a classical spinner.

Bill Johnston from his cricinfo bio " Alternating between a sharp medium-pace and finger-spin, left-handed Bill Johnston was a fixture in Australian XIs for a decade after the war"


Brett Ironmonger from his cricinfo profile, " A slow-medium left-arm spin bowler, he achieved some remarkable performances during his brief Test career.

Like mainly bowlers of that era they both bowled a bit of both. They both had more success with their finger spin, due to the nature of the pitches.

 

[Richard]

All I've read about Ironmonger suggests he was more seamer than spinner (that Wisden obituary describes, to me, more of a slow-medium-cutters type bowler than an out-and-out spinner), and I've not read too much about Johnstone but I'd never before heard of him being a spinner of any type. Though from reading the entire of that Gideon Haigh brief it seems he was a seamer who sometimes bowled spin, certainly not someone who'd be classified a spinner in the Mallett mould.

 

[pup11]

One thing is for sure that the game has evolved with time and so have the pitches, today pitches in odi games are flat all over the world and the test matches are also being played on much more batsmen-friendly tracks (and the test matches are hardly lasting 5 days, for the wicket to assist spin bowling) .



Anyways a Warne,Murali or Kumble can stamp their class even on such tracks, but where does that leave the lesser spinners.

 

[Richard]

Typical spinners have never really been that good ODI bowlers since the restrictions on leg-side fielders were brought in:

A standard wristspinner has always been too inaccurate and only the exceptional Warne\Murali\Mushtaq Ahmed types have prospered;

Normal-pace-and-flight fingerspinners have always needed something in the pitch, otherwise, because it's not turning, batsmen can just walk down the wicket and smash it;

The only way to prosper without spinning it loads has been to bowl very fast and flat, like Kumble (up to WC99) and Dharmasena did, or to have a Doosra and very, very skillful use of variation in flight, like Saqlain and Harbhajan do\did. And then there's Croft and Vettori... who do\did a bit of two of those three (the Doosra excepted, of course).

 

[chaminda_00]

All I've read about Ironmonger suggests he was more seamer than spinner (that Wisden obituary describes, to me, more of a slow-medium-cutters type bowler than an out-and-out spinner), and I've not read too much about Johnstone but I'd never before heard of him being a spinner of any type. Though from reading the entire of that Gideon Haigh brief it seems he was a seamer who sometimes bowled spin, certainly not someone who'd be classified a spinner in the Mallett mould.

Most people in Australia would remember Johnston as spinner due to the fact he played the Invincables tour as the main spinner and his performances in that role. Doug Ring and Ian Johnson started the tour as the main spinner, but both struggled with form, so Bradman turned to Johnston to do all the spin bowling duties for most of the tour. He was quite successful and that success coupled with the sucess of the tour, is why most Australia regard him more as spinner then seamer. He did play alot of his cricket as 3rd seamer though, as Ian Johnson found his feet at international level after that tour.

Ironmonger on the other hand is one of those player no one really knows what he really bowled. There are a lot of different descriptions. But due to fact Australia hasn't had many great finger spinner, most seem to classifly him as spinner, just for debate sake.

Thats my take on it all, but im not sure if all that 100% accurate.

 

[Richard]

The fact that Australia haven't had many fingerspinners of note is precisely why I would not classify Ironmonger as one. I'd say it's very possible that people do so to try and detract from the pattern.

I'd always thought of Johnson as the spinner and Johnstone as the seamer, TBH - you've educated me on the matter there.

 

[pup11]

Rich that just tells you that you never stop learning something new, even after 31,736 posts.

 

[Richard]

Oh, I'd never have dreamt of thinking otherwise, TBH.

 

[JBH001]

I did not know that Ironmonger sometimes bowled seamers, tbh. Everything I had ever heard of him characterised him as a spinner, a fast spinner maybe, but a spinner nonetheless and one who spent most of his bowling career as a spinner. As for the other spinner, I may have gotten the names mixed up - I meant the Aussie spinner who was on the 1948 tour who seems to have been Johnston who certainly does seem to have done a considerable amount of seam/pace bowling as well.

I concede that I may have been wrong in the latter instance, but I still hold that Ironmonger was a spinner, and a decent one at that.

I also forgot to mention MacGill, and I think Bruce Yardley was another good spinner, if not in the echelon of very good, but for all that a decent spinner with a good record.

It is the case that Australia tends to favour over the wrist bowlers, rather than finger spinner, due obviously to the bounce and the nature of the conditions. But it would be a fallacy to state that Australia is not conducive to spin bowling - specifically leg spin.

But it is true, that Australia along with India have historically produced the greater number of quality spinners. In fact, arguably, they have produced more than any country.

 

[Richard]

Australia have indeed produced more quality wristspinners than anyone else. But given that those others amount to... 2...? it's not terribly surprising.

(Those 2 - in the post-1930 era - would be Chandra and Qadir)

In that time Australia have had 4 - Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud and Warne.

To suggest that Yardley was in Mallett's class, though, would be wrong to me. He was a serviceable fingerspinner who had a year in the sun at 34, nothing more. It's not inconceivable he'd never have played Test cricket but for the Packer Schism. Same with Jim Higgs, who was undoubtedly the only decent wristie between Benaud and Warne.

I presume you got Johnson and Johnstone mixed-up. Johnson was probably, along with Mallett, the only really good fingerspinner Australia have produced.

The point about Australia and conduciveness, though, is that wristspin is not bound by conduciveness. Wristspinners can turn the ball on anything. Of course, the bounce found in certain Australian pitches will make such turn even more effective. The fact that there have been very few Australians who've profited from bowling the type of spin that does require conducive conditions - the finger variety - suggests to me that it's not a place that encourages spin.

 

[SJS]

I did not know that Ironmonger sometimes bowled seamers, tbh. Everything I had ever heard of him characterised him as a spinner, a fast spinner maybe, but a spinner nonetheless and one who spent most of his bowling career as a spinner. As for the other spinner, I may have gotten the names mixed up - I meant the Aussie spinner who was on the 1948 tour who seems to have been Johnston who certainly does seem to have done a considerable amount of seam/pace bowling as well.

I concede that I may have been wrong in the latter instance, but I still hold that Ironmonger was a spinner, and a decent one at that.

I also forgot to mention MacGill, and I think Bruce Yardley was another good spinner, if not in the echelon of very good, but for all that a decent spinner with a good record.

It is the case that Australia tends to favour over the wrist bowlers, rather than finger spinner, due obviously to the bounce and the nature of the conditions. But it would be a fallacy to state that Australia is not conducive to spin bowling - specifically leg spin.

But it is true, that Australia along with India have historically produced the greater number of quality spinners. In fact, arguably, they have produced more than any country.

Ironmonger WAS a spinner although fastish. A spinner or a seamer is to be classified by what they bowl and not purly by differential speed which can at times overlap. Mophinder Amarnath bowled for most of the latter half of his career at speeds lower than or similar to Kumble's but no one would change the classification of either bowler.

While on Australian finger spinners, I am amazed how people tend to forget Mallet, One of the finest off spinners I have seen. Height is not a great asset to genuine orthodox spinners since it makes for a different and mostly less deceptive flight. Inspite of that handicap he was a superb bowler.