The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[smash84]

I have in the past, here on CC, done similar threads on players as seen by their peers. An example is a thread A Fast Bowler's fast Bowler and a feature I did on Bedser's death Getting To Know The Gentle Giant - From Those Who Did Know Him

I will try and do one on these three leg spinners of the inter-war period. Its not a promise . . . just a declaration of intent

Thanks for sharing these thread SJS

They are gun. Just going through the fast bowler thread

 

[SJS]

As regards the question of bowling long hops and full tosses, it is well recorded that Grimmett and O'reilly were very accurate with the former particularly miserly with every single ball he bowled. Mailey, on the other hand, seemed to make a virtue of bowling untidily, even by intention at times. Where Grimmett and O'reilly believed purely in line and length and putting shackles round the batsman's feet, Mailey was totally enamoured with precocious spin at the cost of length which, kind of, averaged a good length with the full tosses and long hops thrown in. For the other two bowling was very serious business, for Mailey it was fun and games as with everything else in life. He spun the ball like mad, tossed it up in the air and then waited for the batsman to make a fool of himself. If in the process a fairly large number failed to land on a good length that was part of the fun. In those days of suspicion of leg spin bowling even these could result in the batsmen losing their head and getting out.

Here are views of first hand accounts of revered writers and cricketers who saw all three play and who hold very high opinions of all.

He tossed up his spin to the batsman slow and alluringly; never have I seen on a cricket field such undisguised temptation as was presented by Mailey's bowling. It was almost immoral. He once clean bowled Hobbs with a slow full toss after the master and Sutcliffe had put on 283 together. Mailey needed to double up his body to express the humour of it.

No bowler has spun te ball with more than Mailey's twist, fingers and right forearm and leverage. He lacked the accuracy of Grimmett but Mailey bowled his spin with the lavishness of a millionaire, Grimmett bowled it like a miser - as ray Robinson once put it.

Terribly expensive, no doubt, according to the skinflint economy of our seamsters of 1963. It is doubtful, in fact, if Mailey would get a place in modern first class cricket matches in this country. The fact that he played cricket for fun would, in itself, keep his claims and talents under sever and suspicious scrutiny.

He bowled any amount of full tosses. 'If ever I bowl a maiden.' he once told me, 'it's the batsman's fault not mine.'​

- Cardus from Full Score, Cardus on the Ashes and Close of Play​

Mailey and Grimmett had (only) one point in common. Each was a bosey bowler. Their points of dissimilarity were so many . . .

In the post war (WW1) years he (Mailey) never looked on length as essential to success, claimimg that a ball spun viciously must do something different, and that even if it was a full toss or a long hop, it could cause the batsman to fall into error.

Mailey was almost a profligate, and cared little about cost so long as he brought home the victims. Compared with him Grimmett was a miser, out for wickets at the smallest possible cost. He rarely bowled a loose ball.

There was a legend that Mailey did not care very much whether he bowled a full toss, a long-hop or a regular snorter. It was good publicity . . . it made batsmen careless . . .

When the Mailey full-toss came down from the skies the ball had been spun viciously by powerful fingers with a supple wrist to help them. That spin would make the ball drop; often it would dip at the last minute; sometime it would make a late change of course. Now and again it would not do the unexpected, but the wise batsman was the one who feared Mailey the Greek bringing such gifts. Arthur took good wickets with that ball. He knew its possibilities. And I haven't any doubt he bowled it deliberately, hoping for the best. It was the same with the long-hop, a ball that from a medium pacer would bring four runs without risk. Here again, the Mailey brain worked it out that a ball spun with all the power he possessed would almost certainly do something different. If it landed half way down the wicket, what matter? There was a;ways a chance that the batsman may mistime it . . .​

- Johnny Moyes from Australian Bowlers and A Century of Cricketers​

As a bowler of slow leg-breaks and googlies, Mailey was imaginative and experimental. He would invite a batsman's contempt with a wide, lull him with long-hops. then send him witlessly pondering to the pavillion with one that struck venomously from leg stump to the top of the off. Like PGH Fender he was never devoted to precision for its own dull sake. . . "Sometimes", he once remarked, "I am attacked by waves of accuracy; and I don't trust them."​

- RC Robertson Glasgow from More Cricket Prints​

 

[watson]

"I am attacked by waves of accuracy; and I don't trust them."

I like the quote SJS. But how inaccurate was Mailey? I think the best way to measure this is to look at some relative Economy Rates of some great leg-spin bowlers;

Bill O'Reilly = 1.94
Richie Benaud = 2.10
Clarie Grimmett = 2.16
Subhash Gupte = 2.34
Sydney Barnes = 2.36
Shane Warne = 2.65
Bhagwath Chandrasekhar = 2.70
Aubrey Faulkner = 3.09
DVP Wright = 3.11
Stuart MacGill = 3.22
Arthur Mailey 3.29

And for contrast some offies and lefties;

Lance Gibbs = 1.98
Jim Laker = 2.04
Derek Underwood = 2.10
Wilfred Rhodes = 2.49

So yes, after looking at those numbers we can easily see that Mailey had the worst Economy Rate, therefore making him the least accurate by implication.

However, what do those Economy Rates mean in real terms? If we assume that on average spinners bowl about 20-40 overs per innings then Mailey has supposedly given away 40-80 runs more per Test match than a more accurate bowler.

So I guess the obvious question is -
Does a very good Strike Rate (eg Mailey: 60.4 balls V Grimmett:86.4 balls against England) justify the cost of an extra run per over? Yes or no?

(Also, how about Ritchie Benaud's Economy Rate? If you want miserly then you should be just as likely to pick Ritchie as Clarrie in your ATG team)

 

[Dan]

"I am attacked by waves of accuracy; and I don't trust them."

I like the quote SJS. But how inaccurate was Mailey? I think the best way to measure this is to look at some relative Economy Rates of some great leg-spin bowlers;

Bill O'Reilly = 1.94
Richie Benaud = 2.10
Clarie Grimmett = 2.16
Subhash Gupte = 2.34
Sydney Barnes = 2.36
Shane Warne = 2.65
Bhagwath Chandrasekhar = 2.70
Aubrey Faulkner = 3.09
DVP Wright = 3.11
Stuart MacGill = 3.22
Arthur Mailey 3.29

(Also, how about Ritchie Benaud's Economy Rate? If you want miserly then you should be just as likely to pick Ritchie as Clarrie in your ATG team)

Era. Richie played in the 50s, which were notorious for defensive batsmanship. They didn't call Trevor Bailey 'barnacle' for nothing.

Although when Richie became skipper, he did everything he could to change that.

 

[watson]

Era. Richie played in the 50s, which were notorious for defensive batsmanship. They didn't call Trevor Bailey 'barnacle' for nothing.

Although when Richie became skipper, he did everything he could to change that.

Were they defensive because the bowling was accurate and the fields were defensive, or did all the batsman decide similtaneously not to play shots? In other words, it was a 'vogue' thing?

 

[Jager]

I know England were the best opposition for Australia back then, but using one average against one country to compare two bowlers just doesn't sit with me.

I could go and say Warne got flogged by the best batting lineup Australia faced in the 2000's (India) and is therefore a poor spinner, and it would have the same weight as that argument - thing is, there's so much more to it than just a single average

 

[Dan]

Were they defensive because the bowling was accurate and the fields were defensive, or did all the batsman decide similtaneously not to play shots? In other words, it was a 'vogue' thing?

I think it was the start of the 'a draw is as good as a win because we didn't lose' mentality. England, in particular, was starting lose its edge and wanted to avoid losing games at all costs IIRC.

 

[watson]

I know England were the best opposition for Australia back then, but using one average against one country to compare two bowlers just doesn't sit with me.

I could go and say Warne got flogged by the best batting lineup Australia faced in the 2000's (India) and is therefore a poor spinner, and it would have the same weight as that argument - thing is, there's so much more to it than just a single average

If you are comparing two bowlers that played against a line-up of different nations (like Warne and Murali) then I agree.

However, when Mailey played he didn't have the luxury of playing against 'minnows'. All but three of his matches were against strong England sides that contained Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Woolley, Hendren et al.

Since Mailey and Grimmett played nearly the same amount of Test matches against England (21 V 22) we can make a neat comparison between the two bowlers and draw some reasonable conclusions.

Since the averages bewteen the two bowlers against quality opposition were about the same we can ask a nice question: Which is more important to a Test match outcome - Grimmett's significantly better Economy Rate or Mailey's significantly better Strike Rate.

The answer may well be, neither. And on balance both bowlers are about the equal of eachother!

 

[Jager]

Dudley Nourse is South Africa's greatest middle-order batsman. Discuss

 

[watson]

I think it was the start of the 'a draw is as good as a win because we didn't lose' mentality. England, in particular, was starting lose its edge and wanted to avoid losing games at all costs IIRC.

Interesting point.

I will assume then that the runs scored per over in the 1950s is significantly lower than other decades. That would fit your understanding/idea.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Dudley Nourse is South Africa's greatest middle-order batsman. Discuss

For me it's really tough to split between Nourse and Pollock. If I was asked even a month ago, I would comfortably say Graeme Pollock but after I read more about Nourse, my appreciation for the man increased more. Nourse might not be as gifted as Pollock but he scored and scored heavily against greater opposition from his eras. Nourse could adapt greatly according to situation and was more of a fighting batsman.

It can be argued that Nourse didn't have the support that Pollock had. Nourse's double century against Australia facing O'Reilly and Grimmett and the century against England before war against Verity prove he's one of the greatest players of spin. After war he scored centuries against England facing Bedser and against Australia facing Lindwall, Miller and Johnston. His marathon double century against England gave South Africa win and a knock to remember.

I really can't split between Nourse and Pollock but maybe that some videos/footage of Pollock's batting got stuck in my mind, I'm inclined to put Pollock slightly ahead but it's arguable.

Here's a feature on Dudley Nourse by Stuart Wark: http://www.cricketweb.net/blog/features/93.php

 

[watson]

For me it's really tough to split between Nourse and Pollock. If I was asked even a month ago, I would comfortably say Graeme Pollock but after I read more about Nourse, my appreciation for the man increased more. Nourse might not be as gifted as Pollock but he scored and scored heavily against greater opposition from his eras. Nourse could adapt greatly according to situation and was more of a fighting batsman.

It can be argued that Nourse didn't have the support that Pollock had. Nourse's double century against Australia facing O'Reilly and Grimmett and the century against England before war against Verity prove he's one of the greatest players of spin. After war he scored centuries against England facing Bedser and against Australia facing Lindwall, Miller and Johnston. His marathon double century against England gave South Africa win and a knock to remember.

I really can't split between Nourse and Pollock but maybe that some videos/footage of Pollock's batting got stuck in my mind, I'm inclined to put Pollock slightly ahead but it's arguable.

Here's a feature on Dudley Nourse by Stuart Wark: Cricket Web - Features: Dudley Nourse

Nice argument on behalf of Nourse. Didn't know much about him, now I do. Thanks.

However, South Africa must have a 3rd and 4th ATG middle-order batsman that run close to Nourse/Pollock as they can't be that bereft of talent. Just wondering who though.

Kallis?

 

[ankitj]

Kallis would be it. Those 3 make a middle order as good as any other team's. In fact SA ATXI can compete with any other team. They have all the ingredients with 3-4 all rounders in the team.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nice argument on behalf of Nourse. Didn't know much about him, now I do. Thanks.

However, South Africa must have a 3rd and 4th ATG middle-order batsman that run close to Nourse/Pollock as they can't be that bereft of talent. Just wondering who though.

Kallis?

Also Herb Taylor. Barely averaged over 40 but played against some really dominant bowling attacks; my standardised averages metric gave him an adjusted average of much closer to 50, and he was playing Test cricket into his early 40s.

 

[watson]

Also Herb Taylor. Barely averaged over 40 but played against some really dominant bowling attacks; my standardised averages metric gave him an adjusted average of much closer to 50, and he was playing Test cricket into his early 40s.

Of course. Herbie Taylor, the batsman who made SF Barnes hurl the bowl at the ground in frustration and yell, "It's Taylor, always Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, Taylor!" Or something like that.

Opener or middle-order though?

 

[Prince EWS]

Of course. Herbie Taylor, the batsman who made SF Barnes hurl the bowl at the ground in frustration and yell, "It's Taylor, always Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, Taylor!" Or something like that.

Opener or middle-order though?

He did a bit of both as most good batsmen did during his era but he batted in the middle order more than he opened. I would've mentioned Bruce Mitchell as well although I think he was more of a genuine opener.

 

[Jager]

SA
Richards
Mitchell
Kallis
Pollock
Nourse
Taylor
Waite †
Procter
Tayfield
Donald
Adcock

 

[watson]

SA
Richards
Mitchell
Kallis
Pollock
Nourse
Taylor
Waite †
Procter
Tayfield
Donald
Adcock

Looks pretty good.

I suppose that;
Smith will contest Mitchell's spot.
Faulkner will contest Taylor's spot.
And S. Pollock will contest Adcock's spot.

Also, just checked; Taylor batted up and down the order, but most often at No.4 (x15) and No.1 + 2 (x21)

 

[NUFAN]

There is no way that Shaun Pollock makes my all time SA side and there is no way that Dudley Nourse is South Africa's greatest middle order bat.

Don't discuss..

 

[smash84]