• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Robert Croft vs Ian Salisbury

Which spinner contributed more to English cricket

  • Rober Croft

    Votes: 11 84.6%
  • Ian Salisbury

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Total voters
    13

slippy888

International Captain
Which spinner contributed more to English cricket, i think Salisbury was a very unlucky had a lot of dropped catches of his bowling and his international career stats dont do him justice really.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Croft would be ideal now for this current England side, wouldn't take many wickets but would keep an end tight and he could bat a bit. Never really did what he could as a bat in international cricket apart from that game against South Africa where he saved the match.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Unless we're talking trivia value here it's gotta be Croft. Dropped catches or not Salisbury is deservedly feted as one of the worst test players of all time (to have a 'career' that is. One test flops don't count). As mentioned, Croft could at least hold an end.
 

JRC67

U19 12th Man
Salisbury was the perennial attempt by England to find a leggie, only to find they lack the ability to generate any pressure at test level. The common factor with successful international leggies is they are all very accurate, with the ability to spin the ball being almost secondary. Croft was very economical and a decent enough player who could hold an end. He was somewhat found out as a batsman at test level. As a bowler he was the right arm Ashley Giles, very economical but not a big spinner. Croft by some way for me, probably at least as good as the current crop of county spinners.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Much under-rated was Ian Salisbury - considerably better bowler than his average of 76.95 suggests - twenty less would have been a fairer measure of his quality
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
Much under-rated was Ian Salisbury - considerably better bowler than his average of 76.95 suggests - twenty less would have been a fairer measure of his quality
An average of 57 would still place him as the worst bowler ever to have played more than a handful of Tests for England.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
Croft would be ideal now for this current England side, wouldn't take many wickets but would keep an end tight and he could bat a bit. Never really did what he could as a bat in international cricket apart from that game against South Africa where he saved the match.
the only thing he could keep tight was his arse.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
What surprises me about Croft was that his Test stats are pretty similar to his FC ones.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
What surprises me about Croft was that his Test stats are pretty similar to his FC ones.
They're not really, unless by "stats" you just mean "bowling average".

The fact that he played First Class cricket the ages of 19 to 42 probably contributed to that as well; his Test career was much more confined to what people would people would usually consider prime years (26-31). During the period he was in the Test side he averaged 37 with the ball in Tests but just 32 in First Class cricket, and that drops to 30 if you exclude the actual Tests he played in that time. That's a pretty normal split.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
They're not really, unless by "stats" you just mean "bowling average".

The fact that he played First Class cricket the ages of 19 to 42 probably contributed to that as well; his Test career was much more confined to what people would people would usually consider prime years (26-31). During the period he was in the Test side he averaged 37 with the ball in Tests but just 32 in First Class cricket, and that drops to 30 if you exclude the actual Tests he played in that time. That's a pretty normal split.
Yeah I did mean the bowling average. Which flounders point #3 of your sig but meh. :p

I still remember his stats looks very ordinary even about 10 years ago though. Must've had a pretty dire start to his career.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That was the point
Indeed - always felt sorry for Salisbury - his Test average makes him look almost as much of an outlier as Bradman, but he really wasn't that bad and has a perfectly acceptable First Class record. His problems were the expectation he would become an English Warne, the fact that he had no variations (at least none he could disguise very well), that he played a lot of the Tests he did against batsmen from the sub continent who were the most able to milk him round the park and to make it worse I don't ever recall him getting any luck
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This video's got some good Salisbury. His best match figures in tests.


I reckon he must have started out bowling off spin as his entry to the crease and bowling action remind me much more of a finger spinners.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
tbf Salisbury had a brilliant spin partnership with Saqlain at Surrey for a long, long time.
 

Top