Ashley Giles v Paul Harris v Johan Botha

[GIMH]

Not getting into this argument, but don't most bowlers have lower averages in the second innings, rather than being a trait unique to spinners? Just throwing it out there...

edit, ****ing cribbage

 

[Richard]

To add to this, some overall stats:

Spinners in the last 10 years
1st innings: 894 wickets @ 42.01(seamers: 2426 @ 34.49)
2nd innings: 1002 wickets @ 36.46 (seamers: 2311 @ 33.78)
3rd innings: 977 wickets @ 32.44 (seamers: 1791 @ 30.98)
4th innings: 535 wickets @ 31.45 (seamers: 983 @ 29.82)

NOTE: I've taken matches involving Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the ICC World XI out of the analysis.

It may not be as exaggerated as it once was, but the phenomena is still there. As the match progresses, bowling becomes easier - comparatively more for spinners than for seamers.

You can individually go through all 365 matches if you like to pick the bones out of that, Richard, but I don't think such a large sample size can be discounted with a few isolated cases.

I suppose it might be interesting to see what would happen if we took the subcontinent out...

I think you need to look hard at cases where spinners have been effective in the third\fourth-innings having not been so in the first\second-innings. Ideally you'd have actually watched the games, rather than presumed that good figures = turning the ball and bowling well.

Of course, there'll be a few in as many matches as that. But I doubt there'll be anywhere near as many as those which feature either fingerspinner being ineffective all game or fingerspinner being effective all game.

Unlike a nice simple overall grouping like that, though, it's not (I don't think) something you'd be able to do without going through a fair number of games (not every single one, obviously, but a fair few).

However, no, I don't see that an overall grouping proves anything much. And certainly, my point has nothing to do with wristspinners, as I've seen Shane Warne, Murali, Mushtaq Ahmed and many others (including woefully inaccurate bowlers who aren't close to Test-standard) turn the ball on the opening day of a Test more times than you can possibly wish to see.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not getting into this argument, but don't most bowlers have lower averages in the second innings, rather than being a trait unique to spinners? Just throwing it out there...

edit, ****ing cribbage

Haha, beaten.

But yeah, as I pointed out, whilst all bowlers tend to do better as the match progresses, spinners benefit more from this phenomena than quicks.

 

[JimmyGS]

Harris is woeful, Botha chucks it.

Only really leaves one option from my point of view.

 

[Goughy]

Haha, beaten.

But yeah, as I pointed out, whilst all bowlers tend to do better as the match progresses, spinners benefit more from this phenomena than quicks.

Also, using your numbers, not only do their averages drop more than those of seamers, their role and contribution changes.

1st innings of a Test- Seamers 2426 wkts Spinners 894 wkts. Spinners take 27% of wickets

4th innings of a Test- Seamers 983 wkts Spinners 535 wkts. Spinners take 35% of wickets

The proportion of wickets spinners take moves from 1/4 to 1/3.

 

[Ikki]

TBH, anyone defending Giles as a quality bowler needs some serious medication.

Did he bowl some useful overs? Yes. Was he the best available? Possibly. Was he useful with the bat at the number 8 position? Yes. However, he was a very limited role player and bowling was not much above part time standard.

He failed when it was expected, his record in the 4th innings of Tests is almost an embarassment for a spin bowler and is further evidence that he was a support player and seldom capable of carrying an attack when required.

Paul Harris is not the the 2nd coming of Bedi, but he asks more questions and has been a leading bowler in South African domestic cricket (leading wickettaker in a season etc). Something I dont think Giles could replicate in English FC cricket.

Harris is a bowler. Id struggle to term Giles the same.

EDIT- Id put Botha in the same bracket as Giles. Ordinary bowler, decent bat, tough character with decent cricket brain.

Agree with this. And also a little on Richard's point. Not all pitches deteriorate for the benefit of spinners. If it gets too slow with little bounce it can actually be worse.

That said, Giles is awful IMO. At least Harris looks capable to me.

 

[Richard]

Botha chucks it.

Apparently, what's actually the case is that he did and now does not.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's pretty hard to get past the, ah, unorthdoxy (sic) of Botha's action when assessing him. It's possibly slightly better now than when he first came onto the international scene, but that really isn't saying much 'cos it was egregiously dire then. A bastard son of Muralitharan. Just not actually much use.

Of the other two I'd say there's not much in it. Harris looks very, very ordinary (in fact I hardly remember him turning a ball off the straight this summer), but seems quite a canny bowler for all that. His arm ball is appreciably quicker than his stock delivery, but seems to be quite well-disguised given the number of times he catches batsmen with it, possibly a happy by-product of his (for a finger-spinner) low arm-action. Gilo, meanwhile, was maybe the bigger spinner of the ball (not a sentence one uses that often, it must be said) and had decent control, but did cop the odd pasting on occasion. This was particularly apparent in the 2005 Ashes when he bowled rather better than his figures suggested, but was "got after" (especially by the tail, which had more wags than a bloody England football squad), possibly because he was a softer option to score off than his seaming confreres.

If we're considering them just as bowlers I think I might edge towards Harris but, of course, cricket doesn't work like that (especially for finger-spinners), so Ashley's superior batting carries the day for him.