The demise of the spinner...

[badgerhair]

Out of those only Grimmett, O'Reilley, Benaud and Warne are Test-class bowlers.
Arthur Mailey was hardly a brilliant Test bowler, averaging 33 in the 1920s; .

I think you would do well to consult the opinions of the batsmen who actually played him rather than consulting the overall averages which you have elsewhere realised are mostly worthless. Most who played both found Mailey a more challenging prospect than Grimmett: the big difference was that Mailey was happy to buy his wickets whereas Grimmett regarded scoring runs off him as an insult.

It's probably fair to say that Mailey could bowl as he did because there were relatively few batsmen in his period who thought it honourable to play defensively against spinners unless the pitch really was spiteful, and that it's unlikely he could have bowled the same way and enjoyed the same success ten years later when batsmen had grown dourer. But in his period, he was a highly dangerous Test bowler, no matter what the averages tell you.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[aussie]

You honestly think that? Poo on you. Mohammed and to an extent Hinds haven`t been near tried at international level.

i dont just think that its a fact and what do mean by Mohammed & Hinds haven't been near tried at international level

 

[aussie]

Guess who's just taken a 10-for (probably become more later today...)
Not like he's not done it before... until he starts taking more 10-fors he's still a poor bowler.

gosh richard the lad isn't that horrible, its his 2nd 7 for in test so he has some ability, but he is still better than those 2 jokers Mohammed & Banks

 

[steds]

what do mean by Mohammed & Hinds haven't been near tried at international level

Mohammed: 2 tests. 426 balls in test cricket.
Hinds: 9 tests. 998 balls in test cricket.

 

[archie mac]

Out of those only Grimmett, O'Reilley, Benaud and Warne are Test-class bowlers.
Ranji Hordern, as with so many of his day, played too little to prove much; Arthur Mailey was hardly a brilliant Test bowler, averaging 33 in the 1920s; Fleetwood-Smith... wow, wonderful; Colin McCool was decent, certainly, but not in the top bracket; Jim Higgs, who I'd never even heard of, seems to be in the O'Keefe school; Bob Holland was extremely poor; and MacGill, well, I've said enough about him elsewhere.

I agree with Badgerhair poster regards Arthur Mailey, he had a Test best of 9-121 and all so claimed 10-66 in a 1st class game. He also played in one of the Best Australian sides in history, so must have been decent to play in that side on a regular basis.

Fleetwood-Smith could bowl the unplayable ball, his record in SSC speaks for itself. He also won a Test for Aust. in 1936-37 by bowling Hammond with one of the great balls of Test Cricket.
Holland also won a Test against the Windies when they were at their best. And one against England in 1985.

 

[aussie]

Nagamootoo should never, ever have been picked for Tests, doesn't spin it anywhere near enough.
As for Dhanraj... never seen him, and perhaps it's a measure of how low esteem his selection was held that I've never heard him mentioned, by anyone - even Liam.

just becuase Nagamootoo doesn't spin it that much, to you he shouldn't have been picked for WI , has you just said even though the WI FC competition isn't all that special he took wickets and was rightfully selected in the WI side, his type of bowling surely wasn't effective at test level simply because the standard of batsmen he bowled at in the caribbean weren't great either, which in turn influenced the way he bowled in test cricket.

What i can tell you about Dhanraj from what i have heard is that he was the leading wicket-taker in the WI FC competition with 46 victims in 6 games before Nagamootoo broke that record in 2002 with 50 odd scalps in 10 games. He played 4 test in 4 different series 94 & 95 but he had a very successful FC career

 

[aussie]

Mohammed: 2 tests. 426 balls in test cricket.
Hinds: 9 tests. 998 balls in test cricket.

what???? that Hinds has bowled more balls than Mohammed in test cricket

 

[steds]

wha???? t that Hinds has bowled more balls than hinds in test cricket

You what?

 

[aussie]

You what?

my mistake i edited the post

 

[Richard]

whatever happened pre 2003/04 is irrelevant, because he was of bracken's quality back then.

No, it's not irrelevant, it's just not relevant to post-2003\04.

please explain how an average of 30 odd since 03/04 on largely dead flat wickets is as poor as edwards averaging 44 and best averaging 52?
are you high again?

No.
Fine - Collins is better than Edwards, Best et al.
Even then he's hardly exceptional.

 

[Richard]

I think you would do well to consult the opinions of the batsmen who actually played him rather than consulting the overall averages which you have elsewhere realised are mostly worthless. Most who played both found Mailey a more challenging prospect than Grimmett: the big difference was that Mailey was happy to buy his wickets whereas Grimmett regarded scoring runs off him as an insult.

It's probably fair to say that Mailey could bowl as he did because there were relatively few batsmen in his period who thought it honourable to play defensively against spinners unless the pitch really was spiteful, and that it's unlikely he could have bowled the same way and enjoyed the same success ten years later when batsmen had grown dourer. But in his period, he was a highly dangerous Test bowler, no matter what the averages tell you.

Hmm...
I don't think it's a coincidence that I've heard Grimmett's name mentioned many times and Mailey very rarely.
I'm not simply referring to averages.

 

[Richard]

gosh richard the lad isn't that horrible, its his 2nd 7 for in test so he has some ability, but he is still better than those 2 jokers Mohammed & Banks

Yes, he is (whether he will remain better than Mohammed is something we'll only see in time)... but being so isn't much of an achievement, when you look at his Test-match career excluding those 2 matches.
Overall he's a bowler who's often extremely poor and occasionally exceptional... and the two extremes don't say anything about each other.

 

[Richard]

I agree with Badgerhair poster regards Arthur Mailey, he had a Test best of 9-121 and all so claimed 10-66 in a 1st class game. He also played in one of the Best Australian sides in history, so must have been decent to play in that side on a regular basis.

Fleetwood-Smith could bowl the unplayable ball, his record in SSC speaks for itself. He also won a Test for Aust. in 1936-37 by bowling Hammond with one of the great balls of Test Cricket.
Holland also won a Test against the Windies when they were at their best. And one against England in 1985.

And winning a single Test, or two, isn't much to shout about - MacGill has influenced the result of a game or two, too. Certainly bowling the odd incredible delivery means nothing - even I've done that.
Mailey might have played in one of the best Australian sides in history - so have MacGill and Brett Lee.

 

[Richard]

just becuase Nagamootoo doesn't spin it that much, to you he shouldn't have been picked for WI , has you just said even though the WI FC competition isn't all that special he took wickets and was rightfully selected in the WI side, his type of bowling surely wasn't effective at test level simply because the standard of batsmen he bowled at in the caribbean weren't great either, which in turn influenced the way he bowled in test cricket.

It didn't influence the way he bowled in Test-cricket, it influenced his success in domestic cricket.
And while domestic success is worth noting, a decent selector can always watch someone play, especially a bowler, and take a look at them. And anyone watching Nagamootoo bowl - unless he somehow bowled completely differently in domestic-First-Class and Test-cricket - could tell that he'd never make anything in Tests, because he simply doesn't turn the ball, no matter what the surface.
Ramnarine, on the other hand, turned it on anything and got an exceptionally harsh deal. Mohammad likewise, so far. But there's still time for him.

 

[archie mac]

And winning a single Test, or two, isn't much to shout about - MacGill has influenced the result of a game or two, too. Certainly bowling the odd incredible delivery means nothing - even I've done that.
Mailey might have played in one of the best Australian sides in history - so have MacGill and Brett Lee.

Some very good points Richard
Hard to believe that some one who cannot bowl would be able to take 9 for. also in 1924/25 when a game was in the balance the Aust. captain threw the ball to Mailey, who came through and won the Test Adelaide I think?

I don't think you take ten Wickets in a Test Match by bowling the odd good ball such as Holland and McGill have done. (I don't agree with you on MacGill)

In the 30s some of the best batting conditions the game has ever known were the rule and in this time Fleetwood-Smith achieved some great performances. He had a good Test tour of SA and was unlucky to bowl on a pitch in England, which the groundsman said 'would last until xmas' It might also be of interest that Compton when picking his all time Team chose 'Chuck'.

 

[Richard]

I've never said either MacGill or Mailey couldn't bowl... MacGill has taken some large hauls before now, and bowled extremely well.
But overall MacGill isn't much of a bowler. And from the very little impression I've got Mailey sounds like he was in the same sort of mould.
As for Fleetwood-Smith, no-one ever seems to talk about him except for the fact that he went for the most runs ever conceded in a Test-match.

 

[archie mac]

I've never said either MacGill or Mailey couldn't bowl... MacGill has taken some large hauls before now, and bowled extremely well.
But overall MacGill isn't much of a bowler. And from the very little impression I've got Mailey sounds like he was in the same sort of mould.
As for Fleetwood-Smith, no-one ever seems to talk about him except for the fact that he went for the most runs ever conceded in a Test-match.

I never had the pleasure to watch them bowl but from what I have read, the max.amount of spin was their goal and not to much worry about accuracy. Though the pitches they bowled on may explain this, do not think either would have been considered for OD Cricket.

A poor record to have that 1-298 if you ever have a chance I can highly recommend 'A Wayward Genius' by Growden. A sad end to a great personality. O'Reilly said 'God had given him everything but a brain box' 'if you'd put my head on Chucks shoulders he would have been the greatest bowler of all time.'

 

[badgerhair]

Hmm...
I don't think it's a coincidence that I've heard Grimmett's name mentioned many times and Mailey very rarely.
I'm not simply referring to averages.

There's a sense in which your statement is similar to pooh-poohing Robert Johnson on the grounds that you've heard a lot more people talk about BB King and Muddy Waters. For one thing, there are a lot more people left alive who saw Grimmett and O'Reilly than saw Mailey. (Obviously Robert Johnson died so long ago I couldn't have seen him, but I have seen both BB and Muddy and would be much more likely to talk about them. But people who know the blues recognise Johnson as father to both of them.)

Mailey's Test career was relatively short because of WW1. He was not the spearhead of the team - the main strike force was the previously unheard-of idea of two fast bowlers, Gregory and Macdonald.

Grimmett, on the other hand, played for thousands of years and formed the other half of the team's main strike force with O'Reilly.

Overall, the Twenties are a pretty neglected decade. You don't get many people raving on and on about Maurice Tate or Fred Root, though they'll happily talk about Bills Bowes and Voce who weren't as good but played in the following decade. What with Hammond and Bradman and Bodyline and lots of new countries and so on, the Thirties offers a great deal more to talk about.

I agree that the volume of talk about various players is a far better guide than averages, but it doesn't work on Twenties players because nobody talks about them any more.

One thing, though, is certain: Mailey was an infinitely better writer than Grimmett. Read any of Mailey's writing you come across: it's sharp, perceptive and witty.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[archie mac]

One thing, though, is certain: Mailey was an infinitely better writer than Grimmett. Read any of Mailey's writing you come across: it's sharp, perceptive and witty.

Cheers,

Mike

Yes his description of the first time he bowled to Trumper is one of the best pieces of writing I have come across; it finishes (after Mailey had claimed his Wicket) 'I felt like a boy who had killed a dove' (didn't look it up, so may not be an exact quote)

 

[Nate]

You gotta fight, for your right... to parrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrty!

Aussie man... I stuggle to understand what you`re saying. Haha and TEC throws in the random Bracken-bashing. Gottaloveit.