Apart from Ian Salisbury, who is the worst England player since 1990 of those........

[Richard]

And according to some of the prevailing logic around here, that he needed decent spinning conditions to be a threat describes all off-spinners

All fingerspinners; big difference.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I'm glad we're agreed Richard. He doesn't deserve to be on the list.

Such was a significantly better bowler than Croft; however, Such's deficiencies with the bat were numerous. He often showed a significant fear of the ball - but that didn't deter him from the longest duck in test history (as I recall?) at one time.

Such and Tufnell are pretty incomparable given their different styles, but I would say that Tufnell would be more likely to cause problems on a flat deck. However, Tufnell was also more likely to go missing when he should have been dominating.

Personally, I'd say that a right arm offie who can average about 30 at test level and go at less than 2.5 an over has shown that he is capable of test cricket. His inability to bat in the slightest cost him more test matches, I suspect.

Not dissimilar from Gary Keedy never getting the opportunity for England, I would think.

 

[Richard]

The trouble is, Such only averaged ~30 on generally turning decks. In the Sixth Test in 1993 (which was specifically prepared, not before time you might say, to suit the England seamers instead of the Australian spinners) he did nothing much and as I say in 1994 he had no effect whatsoever and was dropped for Salisbury.

I don't agree at all that he was a significantly better bowler than Croft; both possessed great stamina and guile, both were capable of attaining appreciable loop and drift; both were exceptionally accurate; and both spun the ball enough to get dangerous turn on a receptive pitch. About all I think you could say Such bettered Croft in was his ability to fire the ball through flat as well as toss it up, and that not by an enormous margin; Croft counterwise had more variation. When you throw in Croft's vastly superior batting, it's a no-brainer.

And quite what's so incomparable about Such and Tufnell I'm not sure. Yes, one was a right-armer, one a left-, but apart from that they're directly comparable in style - they were both fingerspinners. Such was however far more reliable than Tufnell as a cricketer; you never knew when Tufnell was going to completely self-destruct and have months out of the game.

Gary Keedy has never played for England because he's the same as several other bowlers around the country - average, middle-of-the-road fingerspinner. Would put him definitively below Croft, Such, Tufnell and probably others as well.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Well, I'll just have to disagree with you on this one. I watched a lot of Such at the time, and think he possessed more of the cunning, guile - and what was critical at the time, a desire to give the ball a lot of air - than any other right arm offie.

Why is Mark Ilott not on the list, by the way? If Paul Taylor is (rightly) on there, then Ilott should be too, no?

 

[Top_Cat]

And quite what's so incomparable about Such and Tufnell I'm not sure. Yes, one was a right-armer, one a left-, but apart from that they're directly comparable in style - they were both fingerspinners.

That's about the only similarity, though. Such was a bit short of medium pace, Tuffers was more orthodox. Besides that the lefties vs righties bowl different lines, etc. They're not incomparable technically but only very broadly comparable.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

That's about the only similarity, though. Such was a bit short of medium pace, Tuffers was more orthodox. Besides that the lefties vs righties bowl different lines, etc. They're not incomparable technically but only very broadly comparable.

Indeed. When I bat, I really struggle with the trajectory of left-arm spinners. Right armers, I find very different.

 

[Goughy]

It may not mean much but Such was a decent Test bowler. In fact, in my opinion the best offspinner I have seen play for England (granted, a shallow pool). Croft does not compare as a bowler.

I dont think he was quite the bowler Tufnell was but he could play a role and that is all you can ask.

As for Craig White, I played against him, watched most of his career and followed him closely and he was not a good Test cricketer. He was another typical player that had no defined role and was incapable of doining one thing well. A guy no better than a number 7 with the bat and worth only a couple of wickets at Test or as a 5th bowler. It is hard to carry a player like that that adds little. I have him as a better player than Adam H. but they are similar in their pointlessness at Test level.

My fav Craig White memory was, possibly, on debut when he sconed Martin Crowe

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The likes of Hugh Morris, James, Newport, Martin Bicknell etc. simply did not get a fair crack of the whip. It's possible that with more opportunities they could have been Test-standard players.

Total crap. Nothing more than a feeble excuse for leaving obvious candidates out of the poll.

 

[FBU]

I notice Batty has been removed from the list.

 

[Uppercut]

Chris Tremlett?!?

 

[Langeveldt]

Chris Tremlett?!?

R.Dickinson

 

[Uppercut]

 

[Richard]

Why is Mark Ilott not on the list, by the way? If Paul Taylor is (rightly) on there, then Ilott should be too, no?

Nah, Taylor was a decent solid county bowler who was about 26 before he established his credentials at county level; Ilott was a county regular at 20 and could've been a damn good bowler IMO had he not suffered such trouble with injuries. I've often wondered if he mightn't even have been international-class with a stronger body.

 

[Richard]

Total crap. Nothing more than a feeble excuse for leaving obvious candidates out of the poll.

No it's not, I'd made-up my mind about how I'd categorise every player before I made either of these recent polls, and given I'm me and you're not I know more about my thoughts than you will ever do. AFAIC, those names could conceivably have been Test-class cricketers with more chances, where instead inferior candidates were preferred.

 

[Richard]

I notice Batty has been removed from the list.

Eh? Gareth Batty's in the other poll; I'm not going to list him twice in different ones.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Nah, Taylor was a decent solid county bowler who was about 26 before he established his credentials at county level; Ilott was a county regular at 20 and could've been a damn good bowler IMO had he not suffered such trouble with injuries. I've often wondered if he mightn't even have been international-class with a stronger body.

Agree with this entirely. However, their success at Test level was roughly comparable.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No it's not, I'd made-up my mind about how I'd categorise every player before I made either of these recent polls, and given I'm me and you're not I know more about my thoughts than you will ever do.

True. But you also lie a lot to cover up the fact that you've posted ****.

 

[Richard]

As for Craig White, I played against him, watched most of his career and followed him closely and he was not a good Test cricketer. He was another typical player that had no defined role and was incapable of doining one thing well. A guy no better than a number 7 with the bat and worth only a couple of wickets at Test or as a 5th bowler. It is hard to carry a player like that that adds little. I have him as a better player than Adam H. but they are similar in their pointlessness at Test level.

Disagree considerably TBH, I certainly wouldn't claim he was a "good Test cricketer", but I do think he could've been with more star alignment. I'm surprised you don't think much of him having played against him because he was an excellent county cricketer for a long while (IIRR from 1993 to 2001 he averaged ~25 with the ball and ~31 with the bat). He may have been no better than a number-seven batsman but he, like Flintoff, was a bowling-all-rounder and as a bowler he had serious talent and was quite capable of playing Test cricket based on that alone IMO.

I don't remember him at all from his former stint in 1994-1995, but when he came back in 1999/2000-2002/03 he certainly had a lot to offer as a fourth bowler who batted extremely well by bowler's standards. Swung new ball and old plenty into the RHB (which made him far more dangerous against LHBs of course) and was seriously, and deceptively, quick.

 

[Richard]

True. But you also lie a lot to cover up the fact that you've posted ****.

As I've said before, I also know when I'm lying and when I'm not, so I'm also better placed to comment on whether or not I'm lying. You can merely guess.

 

[Richard]

Agree with this entirely. However, their success at Test level was roughly comparable.

Should probably have said "excluding players who weren't given a fair crack of the whip and those whose chances were wrecked by injury" in the opening post TBH, would've avoided some of this.