• 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.

What Is A Good Test Average For A Spinner?

Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I cannot conceive that if the media had the influence on selection that they have today Gibbs would have played anything like that long.
I'm not totally sure what he was actually supposed to be giving to the side when he was averaging 34.45 over his last 45 Tests, but it must have been something (he was, after all, going at just 2.01-an-over). That period was one of the few (before the last decade) since 1950 when West Indies' attack was not the strongest.
Nonetheless, had the media of the day been like that of today, anyone whose average had been down at 23.47 would not have had been playing long enough for that average to rise to 29.09! I'd imagine Gibbs would have been pensioned-off in about 1970.
 
SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Difficult and slightly unfair to judge a spinner (or any bowler for that matter) purely on his career average since that would really depend on many things, not least how long after he started did he mature and how lang after he declined did he continue to play.

Its how he bowled when at the height of his craft that should really be the parameter and there too the wickets , the type of bowler that he was etc matters.

A Bedi or a Prasanna at their best were great to watch because they always tossed it up and the batsman felt here is a juicy half volley to drive and it just wasnt there. They made you play for the over pitched ball which wasnt there.

Chandrashekhar, Underwood, Kumble (for most of his career) made batsmen feel they could play back and find themselves cramped as since they had misjudged the length (and height and speed) in the other dimension. Now these two types of bowlers would also differ in their economy rates and their strike rates besides the help they could get from different surfaces.

I think the fact that a spinner is able to induce doubt in the batsman's mind about the length of the delivery , in either direction, is jis greatest asset and all great bowlers have had that.

Next the ability to move the ball of the surface. Clearly wrist spinners get more movement but sacrifice control and vise versa. Finally the variations in direction of deviation and speed.

Mastery over these will make a great bowler and a great contest when faced with a class batsman and averages be damned :D
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Yea, its hard to judge it purely on average, though you would expect great spin bowlers to average less than 25 in the subcontinent, and less than 35 outside of subcontinent. Warne, Murali and Kumble all fit that criteria, I believe.

I would love to see two bowlers like Kumble and Warne or Kumble and Bedi or Underwood and Warne in the same team. It would be such amazing contrast in bowling styles that it might actually make me enjoy watching spin bowling. :p And the batsmen would have to keep adjusting.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
Yea, its hard to judge it purely on average, though you would expect great spin bowlers to average less than 25 in the subcontinent, and less than 35 outside of subcontinent. Warne, Murali and Kumble all fit that criteria, I believe.

I would love to see two bowlers like Kumble and Warne or Kumble and Bedi or Underwood and Warne in the same team. It would be such amazing contrast in bowling styles that it might actually make me enjoy watching spin bowling. :p And the batsmen would have to keep adjusting.
Click to expand...
35? IMO 30- is not so unreasonable for a 'great' spinner.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
And its not a hard and fast rule either, since Warne averages almost 30 in the subcontinent, and Kumble averages almost 35 outside.
 
Matt79

Matt79

Global Moderator
Richard said:
Nearly 20 years in the end.
Remarkable career. Personally I'd prefer it if he hadn't played on as long as he had, because it made a great bowler look far, far, far less great than he actually was in his heyday.
Click to expand...
Not to anyone who bothers to do more than consult his career bowling average.
 
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Anything under 30 I consider pretty good, as a general rule. Those who are over 30, then some discretion needs to be applied in relation to what era they were playing in and the conditions.
 
NZTailender

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Captain Cricket said:
An excellent spinner should average below 24. A handy, useful one about 25-28.
Click to expand...
That means Shane Warne was a "handy" bowler. Seriously, when it comes to spinners it's more than just the average. Anil Kumble averages 28 and some would suggest he's not as good as Warne and Murali. But IMO the amount of matches Kumble has won puts him up there with the best, regardless of his stats.

Any spinner who averages under 30 is pretty damn good in my opinion. One who averages 30-35 would be classed as "handy".
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Matt79 said:
Not to anyone who bothers to do more than consult his career bowling average.
Click to expand...
There's little more to it than average (if not overall career average), though - Gibbs simply stopped taking wickets, and therefore stopped being a good Test-match bowler. There's simply no way anyone is ever going to tell me Gibbs was an effective bowler in these Tests - in fact he was dropped several times. Having said that, he then had a bit of an Indian summer, before becoming ineffective again in his last few games.

BTW, that post was made nearly 3 years ago, not that my attitude has changed. Just so as you know the age of the post you were responding to.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
NZTailender said:
Seriously, when it comes to spinners it's more than just the average. Anil Kumble averages 28 and some would suggest he's not as good as Warne and Murali. But IMO the amount of matches Kumble has won puts him up there with the best, regardless of his stats.

Any spinner who averages under 30 is pretty damn good in my opinion. One who averages 30-35 would be classed as "handy".
Click to expand...
Think Kumble's simply a matchwinner in India (and occasionally outside late in his career) and not outside, and that's fairly well expressed by his home-and-away averages.
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
less than 25 - A freak
25-27 - Legend
27-30 - Very good
30-35 - Handy
35-45 - Part time
>45 - utter crap.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
NZTailender said:
That means Shane Warne was a "handy" bowler. Seriously, when it comes to spinners it's more than just the average. Anil Kumble averages 28 and some would suggest he's not as good as Warne and Murali. But IMO the amount of matches Kumble has won puts him up there with the best, regardless of his stats.

Any spinner who averages under 30 is pretty damn good in my opinion. One who averages 30-35 would be classed as "handy".
Click to expand...
Exactly. A big example why plain average can't be trusted is Warne/Murali. If not for the statistically helpful advantages Murali has had, he'd be averaging round about the same as Warne.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top