• 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.

CW's Ranking of Spinners (Tests)

cnerd123

likes this
I'm mostly voting for him because of longevity, seems harsh that a bowler with 400 wickets is being left out entirely.

Had Harbhajan retired after his ten wicket haul vs SL in 2005 he would have had 219 wickets in 50 Tests at 27.87 and a SR of 60.9. Decent career numbers with some incredible performances in that time.

The fact that he played on past that that and was crap is as much the selector's fault as it is his. I don't think poor performances late in a player's career should detract from what they could do at their best. You force any good bowler to play on after they've lost whatever spark made them special and their figures would get ruined too.

Harbhajan had a brief career as a world beater and a somewhat longer career as a mediocre international spinner. Personally I think this beats just having a brief career as a world beater.
 

Line and Length

International Captain
I'm mostly voting for him because of longevity, seems harsh that a bowler with 400 wickets is being left out entirely.

Had Harbhajan retired after his ten wicket haul vs SL in 2005 he would have had 219 wickets in 50 Tests at 27.87 and a SR of 60.9. Decent career numbers with some incredible performances in that time.

The fact that he played on past that that and was crap is as much the selector's fault as it is his. I don't think poor performances late in a player's career should detract from what they could do at their best. You force any good bowler to play on after they've lost whatever spark made them special and their figures would get ruined too.

Harbhajan had a brief career as a world beater and a somewhat longer career as a mediocre international spinner. Personally I think this beats just having a brief career as a world beater.
You raise some valid points but I generally look at a player's entire career. You mention what his figures would have been had he retired at his peak but, IMO, Tony Lock's entire Test career betters that peak. 174 wickets at 25.58 is more impressive and, while his SR (75.5) may not have been as high, his economy rate (2.03) is vastly superior.
 

trundler

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You raise some valid points but I generally look at a player's entire career. You mention what his figures would have been had he retired at his peak but, IMO, Tony Lock's entire Test career betters that peak. 174 wickets at 25.58 is more impressive and, while his SR (75.5) may not have been as high, his economy rate (2.03) is vastly superior.
Lock would've gotten in around the mid teens if he hadn't been a chucker.
 

_00_deathscar

State Captain
I'm mostly voting for him because of longevity, seems harsh that a bowler with 400 wickets is being left out entirely.

Had Harbhajan retired after his ten wicket haul vs SL in 2005 he would have had 219 wickets in 50 Tests at 27.87 and a SR of 60.9. Decent career numbers with some incredible performances in that time.

The fact that he played on past that that and was crap is as much the selector's fault as it is his. I don't think poor performances late in a player's career should detract from what they could do at their best. You force any good bowler to play on after they've lost whatever spark made them special and their figures would get ruined too.

Harbhajan had a brief career as a world beater and a somewhat longer career as a mediocre international spinner. Personally I think this beats just having a brief career as a world beater.
This isn’t “late in a player’s career” though in his case it’s like 50-60% of his (long enough) career he was actual trash.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Lock would've gotten in around the mid teens if he hadn't been a chucker.
Yup same reason I've abstained from voting in Ajmal.

This isn’t “late in a player’s career” though in his case it’s like 50-60% of his (long enough) career he was actual trash.
Yea but basically those were matches he wouldn't have played if the Indian selectors had the balls to drop him or had better options to pick from (Murali Kartik should have played more but idk what other right arm finger spin options we had at the time).

You shouldn't penalize a cricketer for playing more cricket. Players don't pick when they play, and so all the matches they play when they are beyond their best (even if that's at 28 years old) shouldn't be used to detract from their past accomplishments.

While Bhajji was 'good' he had a career worthy of making the list, playing on for another 200 wickets after make that shouldn't make him worse overall. Maybe they don't 'add' to his early career achievements but they certainly shouldn't take away from them.
 
Last edited:

Line and Length

International Captain
Lock would've gotten in around the mid teens if he hadn't been a chucker.
Unlike a bowler already voted onto this list, Lock was never called for throwing in a Test match. By today's standards his action might have been acceptable. In 1961 he remodeled his action and successfully continued his Test and first class career.
 

Top