• 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.

2 spinners in a bowling attack

Leslie1

U19 Captain
Currently, I do not see the point of having two spinners doing essentially the same job at the expense of an extra seamer / batsman.

New Zealand did it with Vettori and Patel, and it backfired in the 3rd test against England.

Now India has exactly the same problem with Kumble (capt) and Bahji.

Be interested to hear what other people think.

What about having your spinner as your captain? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It's especially disastrous (in my mind) when the captain spinner (Vettori and Kumble) do not generate enough turn as a specialist spinner, and they get another spinner in. It's a waste of resources in my mind.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Currently, I do not see the point of having two spinners doing essentially the same job at the expense of an extra seamer / batsman.

New Zealand did it with Vettori and Patel, and it backfired in the 3rd test against England.

Now India has exactly the same problem with Kumble (capt) and Bahji.

Be interested to hear what other people think.

What about having your spinner as your captain? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It's especially disastrous (in my mind) when the captain spinner (Vettori and Kumble) do not generate enough turn as a specialist spinner, and they get another spinner in. It's a waste of resources in my mind.
Who would we have used instead? Iain O'Brien?

Vettori and Patel was the right move, it gave us a variation, two good bowlers and a point of difference on a flat Napier road.

And not playing two spinners in India unless its a greentop=madness.

And since you hate Vettori so much, I'll just be reaching into that salt bag thanks. :p
 
Last edited:

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I dont like it when its done for tactical reasons unless its on a 'bunsen'

However, if 2 spinners are part of the best 4-5 bowlers available then they should be picked.

Most of the time I think its a poor decision but there are times its legit.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It depends a great deal on the venue, really - there are some countries that regularly produce spin-friendly surfaces (such as Sri Lanka). England used to, in the days of uncovered wickets, but doesn't any more.

When not in such countries, mostly you can go into a Test without one, never mind two, fingerspinners.

Special cases, the extraordinary wristspinners (who are very, very rare - to have two, in Warne and Murali, at the same time has been nothing short of remarkable - and it did happen previously, too, in the early-1930s with Grimmett and O'Reilly) are worth a place on any surface. But fingerspinners aren't, and to give the captaincy to one is always a little dangerous.

I'd never want Monty Panesar to captain England, for example.
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
Bit confused at the use of "now India have the same problem", given their history of playing two or even more spinners. If Kumble and Harbhajan continue to take wickets, and provide as much threat as the quicker Indian bowlers, why not play both?

Same applies for New Zealand - if Patel and Vettori both deserve to be selected on merit, I don't see the problem. The only issue is that the pitches here tend to be less encouraging for the pair to play together. I don't think it backfired in the third test match, to be fair every NZ bowler (bar Southee in the first innings) got taken to and I doubt Gillespie or O'Brien or whoever (given that Mills and Oram were both injured) would've done any better than the two spinners.
 

roseboy64

Cricket Web Content Updater
Was talk of WI playing two spinners in this match and considering how it looks, might not have been a bad idea. Could just be Muralitharan magic though. Anyway, if the pitch traditionaly offers spinners assistance or it seems it will, then play the two.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
You pick your best bowlers for the situation. If your 2 out of your top 4 or 5 bowlers are spinners for that pitch and opponent then you pick two spinners. Just like you don't pick one spinner in the side for sake of variety. If your best four bowlers are seamers, then pick four seamers. For example even though on Sri Lankan pitches you could go with 2 even three spinners each game. More often then not they pick 3 seamers, cus the 3rd seamer is better then 2nd spinner.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
For some reason, we find Kumble or Harbhajan often missing out on Tests abroad, despite each having a least 250 wickets (we know how much Kumble has) and the third seamer getting barely ten. Another one of cricket's latest mysteries.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You pick your best bowlers for the situation. If your 2 out of your top 4 or 5 bowlers are spinners for that pitch and opponent then you pick two spinners. Just like you don't pick one spinner in the side for sake of variety. If your best four bowlers are seamers, then pick four seamers. For example even though on Sri Lankan pitches you could go with 2 even three spinners each game. More often then not they pick 3 seamers, cus the 3rd seamer is better then 2nd spinner.
Couldn't be put better.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
It all depends on the balance of your team. Like the great England side of the 50's where you had Trueman/Statham with the new ball, Bailey very solid third seamer & Laker & Lock.

Hardly many sides have had that quality in history, but if your spinners are amongst a sides best bowlers you might as well pick them.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It all depends on the balance of your team. Like the great England side of the 50's where you had Trueman/Statham with the new ball, Bailey very solid third seamer & Laker & Lock.

Hardly many sides have had that quality in history, but if your spinners are amongst a sides best bowlers you might as well pick them.
Had pitches in the 1950s been covered, there's no way Lock and Laker would have been anywhere near as successful as they were - and possibly one or both wouldn't even have been especially good Test bowlers.

Equally, had they been uncovered in the 1970s and 1980s, Emburey and Edmunds might well have been a combination not that far behind Lock and Laker.
 

Top