The best spinning combination since 1950

[Richard]

Iqbal Qasim as a rule is an interesting case. He and Abdul Qadir are about the only point in Pakistan's history where seam was not pre-eminent - and of course throughout the careers of both there was Imran Khan, who could turn just about any conditions to his advantage.

IIRR, Abdul-Iqbal's home\away difference is almost as pronounced as Bedi-Chandra-Prasanna's. As Imran could do as well on dustbowls as green seamers, they could play to the strength of Iqbal and Abdul while not undermining the greatest threat of Imran.

 

[Precambrian]

I can't believe Chandra did not spin the ball more out of the two - but both were said to have spun it less than your "typical" (read Warne or Grimmett) wristspinner, and also to have been much quicker through the air than most spinners - similar in pace to a fingerspinner like Derek Underwood.

AWTA. Chandra got more spin than Kumble and was deadly on undercooked pitches (muggy ones in England). He lacked the loop and turn of Warne. He had a good googly though.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Indeed - for example, I'm sure I once read you speak highly of Oliver Rayner, and I'm sure you also once said a bad word... somewhere... about Sir James Laker.

Aha! This must mean you consider Rayner > Laker!

(I had someone, repeatedly, use that logic on me - asserting that I thought Craig White > Glenn McGrath )

This is like when you said Vic Marks > Shane Warne, isn't it?

 

[Richard]

No, you tried to put it into my mouth (or it might've been Marc, can't remember - these things blur into one often enough). That's different to me actually saying it.

 

[Richard]

Oh, and John to rant in fury at the exclusion of Vettori-Patel. You heard it here first.

 

[Precambrian]

Iqbal Qasim as a rule is an interesting case. He and Abdul Qadir are about the only point in Pakistan's history where seam was not pre-eminent - and of course throughout the careers of both there was Imran Khan, who could turn just about any conditions to his advantage.

IIRR, Abdul-Iqbal's home\away difference is almost as pronounced as Bedi-Chandra-Prasanna's. As Imran could do as well on dustbowls as green seamers, they could play to the strength of Iqbal and Abdul while not undermining the greatest threat of Imran.

Yeah, but Imran Khan himself was more than a handful. There was also Sarfaraz Nawaz and Sikander Bakht to a lesser extent. But more stock than strike. Except Imran.

 

[Neil Pickup]

No, you tried to put it into my mouth (or it might've been Marc, can't remember - these things blur into one often enough). That's different to me actually saying it.

This looks conclusive...

 

[Precambrian]

Edmonds and Emburey must have been close to 100 wickets between them.

They have 94 wickets between them. However the average is around 38, which prompted their exclusion. Similarly excluded were Nadkarni and Durani who had 105 wickets together @ 29.

 

[Days of Grace]

Did Laker and Wardle ever bowl together?

I think that WA Johnson and Benaud would be quite good. WA, as opposed to Ian, has incredible stats, and is often overlooked.

 

[zaremba]

Did Laker and Wardle ever bowl together?

Good question. Going purely by average these are 2 of the best spinners in the modern era. Wardle's career and in particular his lack of recognition are a bit of a mystery to me.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There's something of a difference as "spin combinations" go between a pair or trio of spinners who played together only when the team management wanted to bring multiple spinners, and those who played together all the time. I think it's pretty hard to compare, say, Kumble/Harbhajan and Warne/MacGill because in one case, they were a genuine bowling pair, played together regularly for a long period of time with both the inherent advantages and disadvantages of that. They may have learned to bowl as a team, build pressure together and work together to exploit the weaknesses of batsmen, but they also played together on wickets which didn't assist spin and so on.

Warne and MacGill on the other hand almost exclusively played together on turning wickets, or when there was an expectation of spin being successful, at least. I think there's no doubt that the Australian pair was more "successful" on the occasions they bowled together, but I think if they bowled together for years on end in every match it'd a much more reasonable comparison to make.

 

[Precambrian]

Did Laker and Wardle ever bowl together?

I think that WA Johnson and Benaud would be quite good. WA, as opposed to Ian, has incredible stats, and is often overlooked.

They did. For 10 test matches between 1948 and 1957, taking 69 wickets together at an impressive average of 20. Wardle was clearly the frontrunner among them taking 42 wickets at 17, Laker took the remaining 27 at 25. However since they do not meet the criteria of minimum 100 wickets together, they have not been considered in my analysis.

As for WA Johnston, aka Bill Johnston, and Richie Benaud have played together in 15 test matches, from 1952-55, ie, towards the end years of Johnston. They together took 82 wickets at an average over 30, and again fail short of the minimum requirements of my study. Johnston took 43 wickets @ 33 in these 15 tests, clearly way off from his impressive career average of 23 (160 wickets) from 40 tests.

 

[Days of Grace]

They did. For 10 test matches between 1948 and 1957, taking 69 wickets together at an impressive average of 20. Wardle was clearly the frontrunner among them taking 42 wickets at 17, Laker took the remaining 27 at 25. However since they do not meet the criteria of minimum 100 wickets together, they have not been considered in my analysis.

Maybe you should drop this down to a minimum of 50 wickets together.

 

[Precambrian]

There's something of a difference as "spin combinations" go between a pair or trio of spinners who played together only when the team management wanted to bring multiple spinners, and those who played together all the time. I think it's pretty hard to compare, say, Kumble/Harbhajan and Warne/MacGill because in one case, they were a genuine bowling pair, played together regularly for a long period of time with both the inherent advantages and disadvantages of that. They may have learned to bowl as a team, build pressure together and work together to exploit the weaknesses of batsmen, but they also played together on wickets which didn't assist spin and so on.

Warne and MacGill on the other hand almost exclusively played together on turning wickets, or when there was an expectation of spin being successful, at least. I think there's no doubt that the Australian pair was more "successful" on the occasions they bowled together, but I think if they bowled together for years on end in every match it'd a much more reasonable comparison to make.

Very valid points. However I would like to point out that such a scenario, like the Warne-MacGill is more of a modern phenomenon, where two spinners, one of them usually substituting the other, complemented each other in test matches. However, this being strictly a statistical analysis, with criteria of minimum 100 wickets shared between them, I could not ignore such cases, since I thought the said criteria would be sufficient to weed out exceptional cases as you pointed out.

That said, Warne-MacGill could be taken as an exception, and I think I could find solace in that.

 

[Precambrian]

Maybe you should drop this down to a minimum of 50 wickets together.

I did not because that would make many cases of oddities, like FaaipDeOiad pointed out, to creep in the analysis. Also refer to my above post. I also think that to qualify as an all time spinning combination, atleast statistically, they should have played a certain number of games together or taken a certain number of wickets together.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Kumble and Harbhajan seem to be better than the three combinations of the four pronged spin attack surprisingly. Heard their praises sung so often, surprising their record isn't much better.

 

[Uppercut]

Maybe you should drop this down to a minimum of 50 wickets together.

Quite incredibly, that would put Murali and Mendis just three short of making the cut after three tests together.

 

[Richard]

This looks conclusive...

Not really. As I say, Marc trying to put words on my keyboard. That post refers to ODIs, which were a different game in the 1970s and 1980s to the 1990s and 2000s.

In fact, re-reading that post, I state so much in it. Marc says "could it not be that these bowlers played when the game was a more even match between bat and ball?"; I reply "yes (except in Dale's case)". I say that the game in the 1970s and 1980s is incomparable to that in the 1990s and 2000s.

 

[Richard]

Did Laker and Wardle ever bowl together?

I think that WA Johnson and Benaud would be quite good. WA, as opposed to Ian, has incredible stats, and is often overlooked.

WA Johnston was also primarily a seamer and a spinner second.

 

[Goughy]

Not really. As I say, Marc trying to put words on my keyboard. That post refers to ODIs, which were a different game in the 1970s and 1980s to the 1990s and 2000s.

In fact, re-reading that post, I state so much in it. Marc says "could it not be that these bowlers played when the game was a more even match between bat and ball?"; I reply "yes (except in Dale's case)". I say that the game in the 1970s and 1980s is incomparable to that in the 1990s and 2000s.

Hmm it reads as

Marc asked
"So you're trying to tell us that the likes of Max Walker, Chris Old, Simon Davis, Mike Whitney, Adam Dale, Vic Marks and John Lever are all better bowlers than ANY current bowler?"
You replied
"Most of them, yes, rather obviously, but not Dale"