worst leg spinner to play test cricket

[Richard]

Never even tried to, from what I saw. A legspinner who knew his limitations- spin (or lack thereof), primarily.

I saw him turn one. Had a very puzzled "What the **** was that?!" look on his face. Decent bat, though.

Decent number-eight bat yeah. And yeah I've only got the odd tape of him but he basically just seems to me to be someone who bowls slow-medium without ever having pretensions of spinning the ball.

 

[Migara]

How about this man?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Cameron White deserve a mention? Was basically picked as a pure leg-spinner for Australia, and duly delivered, with 5 wickets in 4 Tests in India at an average of 68.40. He's got a FC average of over 40 ffs, what on earth were they thinking picking White as their main spinner for most of the series?

But Krezja, Casson and Hauritz all averaged over 40 when they were picked. White was just one of the bunch.

Decent number-eight bat yeah. And yeah I've only got the odd tape of him but he basically just seems to me to be someone who bowls slow-medium without ever having pretensions of spinning the ball.

On CricInfo:

"Mahendra Nagamootoo is a bits-and-pieces man who admitted, after scoring 68 at Sydney in his second Test in 2000-01, that batting comes easier to him than the legbreak bowling he was actually picked to do."

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Garry Sobers averaged 50 despite bowling truckload of overs every match until he started blowing medium pace, which too was not good by any standards.Took 31 wickets in his first 30 matches @ 50 with a very shameful strike rate as well.Wow thats better than Salisbury who took 20 wickets in 15 matches.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He wasn't a legspinner. Left-arm offspinner.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Used to bowl both wrist & orthodox spin.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But unless you can somehow separate how well he bowled (statistically?) when varying between the two, you can't say how good or bad he was at one or the other. The fact that he bowled offspin too means you can't just look at his overall record.

Of course this is all relatively pointless because I know you weren't actually suggesting he's the worst legspinner to play Test cricket.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Of course.

 

[Nate]

But Krezja, Casson and Hauritz all averaged over 40 when they were picked. White was just one of the bunch.

He wasn't, because the three you mentioned previously were all being picked as bowlers for their State sides. When they were being picked.

 

[Richard]

On CricInfo:

"Mahendra Nagamootoo is a bits-and-pieces man who admitted, after scoring 68 at Sydney in his second Test in 2000-01, that batting comes easier to him than the legbreak bowling he was actually picked to do."

Yeah I've read that several times - was my immediate impression of him as well and seems to be that of the relatively few others who saw him.

How on Earth he, or Rawl Lewis for that matter, were ever preferred to Dinanath Ramnarine is utterly beyond me. Diabolical selection at its very worst. Neil McGarrell got the same treatment later.

 

[Richard]

But unless you can somehow separate how well he bowled (statistically?) when varying between the two, you can't say how good or bad he was at one or the other. The fact that he bowled offspin too means you can't just look at his overall record.

Often wondered how good he was at fingerspin and wristspin relatively. Shame I never got to see him bowl - all I've ever known is he was much better at seam than either spin.

 

[pasag]

He's got to be up there though, if we're honest with ourselves. He's definitely worse than Ian Salisbury.

Honestly, ridiculous comment. You've seen him play ONCE. Yes he had a horrible match on debut, but **** happens. Some people take longer than others to make the jump, I'm confident if given the chance he could have comeback very strongly and we'd be seeing threads like Swann vs Harris vs McGain on CC now.

The McGain overreaction is one of the worst on CC in the past couple of years.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Honestly, ridiculous comment. You've seen him play ONCE. Yes he had a horrible match on debut, but **** happens. Some people take longer than others to make the jump, I'm confident if given the chance he could have comeback very strongly and we'd be seeing threads like Swann vs Harris vs McGain on CC now.

The McGain overreaction is one of the worst on CC in the past couple of years.

Not at the same expense, but Shane Warne went for 2 more runs (for just 1 wicket) on debut. His next 45 overs in Tests produced figures of 0-185. Safe to say you can't write off some after one... or two Tests.

 

[Uppercut]

Honestly, ridiculous comment. You've seen him play ONCE. Yes he had a horrible match on debut, but **** happens. Some people take longer than others to make the jump, I'm confident if given the chance he could have comeback very strongly and we'd be seeing threads like Swann vs Harris vs McGain on CC now.

The McGain overreaction is one of the worst on CC in the past couple of years.

No, you're just being harsh on Ian Salisbury, whose FC record pisses all over McGain's. Neither of them did themselves justice at test level. Salisbury was extremely dire for fifteen matches, McGain was unspeakably dire for one. What grounds are there for ranking McGain above Salisbury? That you've guessed that he might have improved in his next few tests if he played any? Nothing he's ever actually done gives him the right to be ranked above Salisbury. The only thing that does is non-existent wickets you estimate that he MIGHT have taken if he'd played a few more tests.

 

[BoyBrumby]

No, you're just being harsh on Ian Salisbury, whose FC record pisses all over McGain's. Neither of them did themselves justice at test level. Salisbury was extremely dire for fifteen matches, McGain was unspeakably dire for one. What grounds are there for ranking McGain above Salisbury? That you've guessed that he might have improved in his next few tests if he played any? Nothing he's ever actually done gives him the right to be ranked above Salisbury. The only thing that does is non-existent wickets you estimate that he MIGHT have taken if he'd played a few more tests.

TBF I bet if you look at the overall averages for spinners in the Sheffield Shield during McGain's career he's way ahead of the curve. I don't pretend to be an expert, but Oz seems to be a spinner's graveyard. Even St Shane's test figures are vastly superior to his SS ones.

Salisbury was a serviceable FC performer, but totally out of his depth in tests. Invariably bowled a "four" ball an over and wilted when attacked. His bowling at the Oval in 98 (which I witnessed in person) on a deck on which Murali took (IIRC) 16 redefined dire.

 

[gvenkat]

Mahendra Nagamooto..

 

[Uppercut]

TBF I bet if you look at the overall averages for spinners in the Sheffield Shield during McGain's career he's way ahead of the curve. I don't pretend to be an expert, but Oz seems to be a spinner's graveyard. Even St Shane's test figures are vastly superior to his SS ones.

Salisbury was a serviceable FC performer, but totally out of his depth in tests. Invariably bowled a "four" ball an over and wilted when attacked. His bowling at the Oval in 98 (which I witnessed in person) on a deck on which Murali took (IIRC) 16 redefined dire.

Yeah, but he is averaging significantly more than Salisbury. Salisbury has nearly 900 first-class wickets, McGain has 77. Their first-class records present the choice between a bowler who was largely unsuccessful at a very high standard of cricket and someone who was largely successful at a lower, but still high, standard of cricket.

McGain's test debut was a freak occurance, but that doesn't mean you can give him credit for how you think he would have done had he played more tests. Salisbury proved himself to be good enough for county cricket, and even more conclusively not good enough for tests. McGain never proved anything. What has he ever done to justify ranking him above Salisbury? You couldn't possibly conclude that based on his single test and tiny first-class experience. Nor could you conclude it by watching him bowl in first-class games, unless you watched Salisbury bowl in first-class games too.

 

[zaremba]

But unless you can somehow separate how well he bowled (statistically?) when varying between the two, you can't say how good or bad he was at one or the other. The fact that he bowled offspin too means you can't just look at his overall record.

Of course this is all relatively pointless because I know you weren't actually suggesting he's the worst legspinner to play Test cricket.

If he's switching between the two then presumably it's not a case of one being significantly better than the other, or else he'd have been sticking to the more effective variety in an effort to get his bowling average below 50?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If he's switching between the two then presumably it's not a case of one being significantly better than the other, or else he'd have been sticking to the more effective variety in an effort to get his bowling average below 50?

Unless he saw effectiveness in the variety. I don't think I'd question any of Sobers methods really.

 

[slowfinger]

Never did like Kreja for OZ, thought he bowled too much for what he was worth.