you need a spinner because some pitches turn and some batsmen are terrible against spin.
There are two surprises. The first is that West Indies played 4 pace bowlers, out of these 8, in only 30 of these during these 27 years. Of course they played other pace bowlers to come to four. The second surprise is that in tests in which West Indies had fielded 4 pace bowlers, out of the selected 8, their win percentage is below 50. This indicates that the best combination was three top pace bowlers and one bowler of different type, a spinner or even a medium pace swing bowler, to maintain balance. One would have again expected the win % to be higher. Maybe 3 pace bowlers + Gibbs/Holder/Richards/Gomes/Harper/Patterson was the more effective combination. Amongst this lot, Gibbs was a world-class spinner on his own rights. Patterson and Holder were good support bowlers.
Blogs: Eight genial giants: a pictorial view across 28 years | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo
- BenaudFortunately, tonight is a reminder that older people and older players have the opportunity to applaud all the good things done by the modern-day players – their ability to play outstanding attacking cricket, their flair and inspiration and innovation; and it’s a reminder also, in a quiet way, to the modern-day players that good things have happened before, that in every era there have always been cricketers who have served the game well and have loved it, and wanted to see it flourish
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
My Current XI 1.Cook 2.Murali 3.Sangakkara 4.Smith 5.DeVilliers* 6.Faulkner 7.Watling+ 8.Johnson 9.Roach 10.Steyn 11.Herath
Lyon 39 tests firstname.lastname@example.org Hauritz 17 tests 63w@35
Reasons teams should have a spinner-
- Some batsmen are poor at playing spin.
- Some wickets are very receptive to spin.
- Over rates are to be considered.
- When the ball is older, quite often a spinner is more effective than a quick.
- On day 5, a spinner can often take wickets where a quick won't.
- Monotonous fast bowling is ****ing boring.
- After facing pace for a long time, batsmen can find spin disconcerting.
That wasn't even your original argument.
It seems to me that you're justifying the lack of need for a spinner on the basis that the WI had a fantastically phenomenal crop of fast bowlers. But you're rating it as the "greatest attack of all-time" based on the fact that you don't consider a spinner important to the balance of an attack. Those who're big fans of Warne, Murali, spinners in general, would disagree that it was the greatest ever because there was no spinner. You can't use it as your justification and argument.
"If that Swann lad is the future of spin bowling in this country, then we're ****ed." - Nasser Hussain, 1997.
I don't think it's a given that the WIs were the greatest attack of all time by any means.
- McGrath, Gillespie, Lee/Kaspa, Warne
- Lindwall, Miller, Davidson, Benaud, Johnston (around that era anyway)
- Waqar, Wasim, Imran, Qadir
- Trueman, Statham, Tyson, Lock, Laker
Waqar, Wasim, Imran, Qatar probably the closest even though Imran was on the wane and Qadir was not really that great anyway. That's the thing about Roberts-Holding-Garner-Marshall-Croft... Not only were they all amazing but they were amazing together. ... No set of fast bowlers has ever peaked together to such an extent
And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
Kyear was suggesting that the WI fast bowling unit was the best attack ever. He was using his belief that the absence of a spinner makes no difference to the quality of an attack to determine this. He then used this as justification to suggest that therefore spinners are at some sort of lower level. Which doesn't really work.
You need spinners because four quicks cannot bowl 90 overs per day against good batsmen. WI pace quartret would have got away bowling to lesser line ups, but we are considering another ATG line up with brilliant batsmen.
Pluck out this line up: Gavaskar, Sutcliffe, Ponting, Sangakkara, Kallis, Barrington, A. Flower, Hadlee, Garner, Warne, Trueman (2nd ATG XI for me)
I don't expect even the mighty WI pace quartet to dislodge them within one day more than 50% of the times.
Last edited by Migara; 23-09-2013 at 08:54 AM.
Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)