The demise of the spinner...

[Top_Cat]

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.

Probably because there's no-one alive who can talk about players in the 20's with any authority! Who can possibly verify, for example, whether Charles Kortright was as quick as everyone said he was?

I myself have read the same as you about Mailey in that he was quite prepared to buy wickets but that he was as good as any leggie going around. Still, without having seen even footage of the man and taking into account different conditions, etc., it's impossible to compare to modern players. Cricket was so different back then, you may as well be comparing players from Mars and Venus.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I've never said either MacGill or Mailey couldn't bowl... MacGill has taken some large hauls before now, and bowled extremely well.

Yet you've said that they aren't "test class". Amazing that a bowler who is not good enough to play test cricket (which is what I assume you mean by not being test class) would take 10 wickets in a test match, eh? I guess they were "lucky".

 

[tooextracool]

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

no but hes decent, which is certainly not what i can say about edwards or best. if he got a bit more accurate and cut down on those no balls he could just become a very good bowler.

 

[badgerhair]

Yet you've said that [Mailey and MacGill] aren't "test class". Amazing that a bowler who is not good enough to play test cricket (which is what I assume you mean by not being test class) would take 10 wickets in a test match, eh? I guess they were "lucky".

I admit to rather siding with Richard on the subject of MacGill, although I wouldn't go as far as to say he wasn't Test class. But I wouldn't say he was any great shakes as a Test bowler, and would point out that he rarely takes top order wickets any more. (I discount his achievements against England in 1998-99 on the grounds that he was more the beneficiary of extreme English paranoia about legspin than any great terror in himself. Cf my comments about a possible decline for Tait once the novelty value wears off.) He may be a legend to his mum, but he'll be a footnote in cricket history rather than a major paragraph. You can argue till the cows come home about whether that is truly "Test class" if you want to, though it's a bit over-pedantic.

Obviously I was mainly talking about Mailey, of whom it seems very odd indeed to hear the opinion that he was "not Test class". Previously, I've only been party to debates about whether Mailey should be classed as one of the all-time great leg-spinners, which is an altogether higher standard to start from and admits of no doubt that he was a worthy Test bowler. I tend to come down on the merely very good rather than demigod side of the argument myself, for what it's worth.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[badgerhair]

Who can possibly verify, for example, whether Charles Kortright was as quick as everyone said he was?

There are ways, actually, by laboriously combing through accounts of people who saw both Kortright and Gregory/Macdonald, and then both G/M and Larwood, and so on. And I'd also point out that Kortright has nothing to do with the Twenties, since his heyday was around the turn of the century.

But it's a bit academic, on the grounds that Kortright was an obvious chucker, who retired from the game as soon as it became clear that the umpires were getting serious about bowling actions.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

Yet you've said that they aren't "test class". Amazing that a bowler who is not good enough to play test cricket (which is what I assume you mean by not being test class) would take 10 wickets in a test match, eh? I guess they were "lucky".

Not neccessarily.
Simple fact is you don't become Test-class by having 2 or 3 good games.

 

[Richard]

no but hes decent, which is certainly not what i can say about edwards or best. if he got a bit more accurate and cut down on those no balls he could just become a very good bowler.

He could, which is why I've never said "he's not got potential".
However I feel he's been a touch over-praised simply because Best, Edwards and (mostly) Collymore are so awful, rather as with Gough in SA.

 

[aussie]

He could, which is why I've never said "he's not got potential".
However I feel he's been a touch over-praised simply because Best, Edwards and (mostly) Collymore are so awful, rather as with Gough in SA.

Gough deserved his praise in SA, he wasn't over-praised at all

 

[Richard]

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.

I quite understand with regards the 1920s, it's something I've thought many times. Add to the Bradman\Hammond axis, the Bodyline series and lots of new countries the start of serious newsreel coverage of sport.
Nonetheless, fact is if you dig deep enough you can find stuff for the first 3 decades of the 20th-century, and I've heard Mailey's name fewer times than I've heard both Jack Gregory (whose Test record is almost equally modest as Mailey's) and Ted MacDonald (whose record is even more modest and who played just 11 times). Hell, I've even heard SE Gregory's name more.

 

[Richard]

Gough deserved his praise in SA, he wasn't over-praised at all

He certainly was, he bowled moderately well at the death, and because everyone else was so exceptionally poor everyone went on like he'd bowled as he used to.
Of course, he still usually bowled extremely well with the new-ball...

 

[Richard]

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.

And as such they're foretombed to languish far behind the like of Grimmett, O'Reilley, Benaud and Warne.
Inaccuracy is the bane of most wristspinners, and only those who overcome the near-inevitable tendency can be especially good.

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.'

And because he had no brain he was a moderate bowler.
How good he might have been is not of relevance, you can say that about so many players. A few for-instances: Alex Tudor, Dominic Cork, Craig White, Andrew Caddick.

 

[aussie]

He certainly was, he bowled moderately well at the death, and because everyone else was so exceptionally poor everyone went on like he'd bowled as he used to.
Of course, he still usually bowled extremely well with the new-ball...

well since everyone else bowled poorly he deserved the praise for bowling so well under the circumstances

 

[Richard]

Why?
How is being better than extremely poor worthy of such high praise?

 

[aussie]

Why?
How is being better than extremely poor worthy of such high praise?

i understand what you are saying, but he deserves some praise for stepping up and bowling so well

 

[Steulen]

well since everyone else bowled poorly he deserved the praise for bowling so well under the circumstances

Not to open the whole wickettaking vs. economy debate again, but having watched all ODI's i was disappointed with Gough. He was even that miserly, but especially his lack of top order wickets meant the Saffers happily destroyed all other bowlers on show. For me, the task of an opening bowler in ODI's is more to take a few early wickets than to check the runrate. In 6 ODI's, he got the de Villiers twice and Smith once, but those were his only top order wickets.

 

[archie mac]

And as such they're foretombed to languish far behind the like of Grimmett, O'Reilley, Benaud and Warne.
Inaccuracy is the bane of most wristspinners, and only those who overcome the near-inevitable tendency can be especially good.

No, just because the method of dismissing batsman was different in Mailey's day, does not mean he should be ranked below other bowlers. It was his intention to try for max. spin and not accuracy.

Just because the batsman of the golden age, went for their shots does not mean they were less batsman then those of the 30s, who played a more percentage game.
I would rather watch Mark Waugh or David Gower score 20 than Dravid score 120.
And I would rather watch MaGill ripping the ball and the batsman playing their shots, than Emburey darting them in at leg stump.

 

[Richard]

i understand what you are saying, but he deserves some praise for stepping up and bowling so well

No, he deserves praise for bowling well with the new-ball and reasonably well at the death.
Nonetheless I maintain that when he bowls alongside Flintoff again that we'll return to the "he's past it" rubbish.
And incidentally, he hardly stepped-up, he just bowled a bit better than he did for most of the summer.

 

[Richard]

Not to open the whole wickettaking vs. economy debate again, but having watched all ODI's i was disappointed with Gough. He was even that miserly, but especially his lack of top order wickets meant the Saffers happily destroyed all other bowlers on show. For me, the task of an opening bowler in ODI's is more to take a few early wickets than to check the runrate. In 6 ODI's, he got the de Villiers twice and Smith once, but those were his only top order wickets.

Yet the fact is however many wickets he might take the rest were utterly rubbish, and would probably have got the treatment regardless of if Gough had knocked-over at least 1 opener in every game.
Yes, wickets with the new-ball are important but it's nowhere near as easy to get them when you've got a liability at the other end, as demonstrated by how often Harmison got wickets in summer 2004.

 

[Richard]

No, just because the method of dismissing batsman was different in Mailey's day, does not mean he should be ranked below other bowlers. It was his intention to try for max. spin and not accuracy.

Just because the batsman of the golden age, went for their shots does not mean they were less batsman then those of the 30s, who played a more percentage game.
I would rather watch Mark Waugh or David Gower score 20 than Dravid score 120.
And I would rather watch MaGill ripping the ball and the batsman playing their shots, than Emburey darting them in at leg stump.

And the fact is that being good-looking does not make someone effective. Anyone in their right mind would rather watch MEW or Gower score 20 than... sorry, did you say Dravid? Rahul Dravid of India? One of the most wonderfully graceful batsmen of the current era? Maybe you meant Gary Kirsten or Andrew Flintoff? But what people would rather watch and would rather have in their side are different things.
And batsmen of the Golden Age no more went for their shots than do batsmen of the current era, or several in between. Fact is, even positive batsmen can be contained, if the bowling's accurate enough. And few wristspinners have ever been accurate enough - except Warne, Benaud, O'Reilley and Grimmett. And a couple of other non-Australians.

 

[archie mac]

And the fact is that being good-looking does not make someone effective. Anyone in their right mind would rather watch MEW or Gower score 20 than... sorry, did you say Dravid? Rahul Dravid of India? One of the most wonderfully graceful batsmen of the current era? Maybe you meant Gary Kirsten or Andrew Flintoff? But what people would rather watch and would rather have in their side are different things.
And batsmen of the Golden Age no more went for their shots than do batsmen of the current era, or several in between. Fact is, even positive batsmen can be contained, if the bowling's accurate enough. And few wristspinners have ever been accurate enough - except Warne, Benaud, O'Reilley and Grimmett. And a couple of other non-Australians.

Yes I did say Dravid, (one of my favourites) Brain explosion I was thinking of Kallis,
containing a batsman in the 1920s on flat pitches when games are 'timeless' (some) seems a waste of effort, containing batsman does not take wickets (sometimes through frustration) What I am saying is how do you know that Mailey could not have reduced his spin and been more accurate if he wanted do? I would love to see what the golden age batsman would do on these flat tracks they play Test Cricket on now.