The Also Ran India XI
muthukumara_mani
Duleep trophies but never made it to the tests!
Gopal Bose
TE Srinivasan
Rahul Mankad
P. Mukund
Hari Gidwani
Sudhakar Rao
Daljit Singh (WK)
Rakesh Shukla
Abdulla Ismail
Barun Burman
Kiran Mokashi
Any second thoughts?
Mani
Shirish Sane
* Here's an Indian XI whose players performed consistently in Ranji and
* Duleep trophies but never made it to the tests!
* Gopal Bose
* TE Srinivasan
I think TE Srinivasan did play a test against NZ in 1980-81 season.
* Rahul Mankad
* P. Mukund
* Hari Gidwani
* Sudhakar Rao
* Daljit Singh (WK)
* Rakesh Shukla
* Abdulla Ismail
* Barun Burman
* Kiran Mokashi
* Any second thoughts?
* Mani
I doubt whether Rahul Mankad, P. Mukund, Daljit Singh, Barun Burman and Kiran
Mokashi were ever in contention for a spot in cricket team. In my opinion few
notable exceptions are as follows:
Padmakar Shivalkar,
Rajindar Singh Hans,
Rajinder Goel,
Sarakar Talawar,
Pandurang Salgaonkar (he did play an unofficial test against SL),
Milind Gunjal,
Shrikant Kalyani,
Raju Bhalekar,
Riaz Poonawala (this guy was picked up in one day team, but never
actually had a game),
Kailash Gattani, (not sure)
Ranjit Khanvilkar,
Ashish Winston Zaidi,
and many more..
-Shirish
ralph barry
This fella made it to the one day team but never did play for India.
bulky1
>Here's an Indian XI whose players performed consistently in Ranji and
>
>TE Srinivasan
Srinivasan played a test in New Zealand and scored in the ten+
I think he didn't do well in theother innings?. But he made his
only test appearance in NZ.
But I would put V. Sivaramakrishnan of TN for his place.
Seran
Neeran M. Karnik
>Here's an Indian XI whose players performed consistently in Ranji and
>Duleep trophies but never made it to the tests!
I don't quite get it... are you trying to pick a team of players who did
_well_ in domestic Indian cricket (but never played Tests), or are you
picking a team of also-rans in domestic cricket? If it's the former,
then several other players _have_ to be picked ahead of those in your
team - e.g.
Shivalkar, Goel, Hans - among the best spinners never to play Tests
Sugwekar, Bhave and Gunjal of Maharashtra - all very good batsmen
Salgaonkar - very good quick bowler, who played in 'unofficial Tests'
V Siva - consistent opening bat for TN
Zulfikar Parkar - very good 'keeper, played for Bombay
>Mani
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Neeran M. Karnik | #1 fan of Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar on r.s.c. :-> |
| Dept. of CompSci.| ------------------------------------------------ |
| U of Minnesota |CI/UE-A++W++SI+++++P+N-L+Z#wi+++++pow+#pU-F+B++l++|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Badrinarayanan Seshadri
* Muthukumara Mani writes:
* >Here's an Indian XI whose players performed consistently in Ranji and
* >Duleep trophies but never made it to the tests!
* I don't quite get it... are you trying to pick a team of players who did
* _well_ in domestic Indian cricket (but never played Tests), or are you
* picking a team of also-rans in domestic cricket? If it's the former,
* then several other players _have_ to be picked ahead of those in your
* team - e.g.
* Shivalkar, Goel, Hans - among the best spinners never to play Tests
* Sugwekar, Bhave and Gunjal of Maharashtra - all very good batsmen
* Salgaonkar - very good quick bowler, who played in 'unofficial Tests'
* V Siva - consistent opening bat for TN
* Zulfikar Parkar - very good 'keeper, played for Bombay
Assuming that it is the former, many good cricketers come
to mind. I will name only one of them:
Prof.Deodhar.
--badri
--
--------------------------------------------------
S.Badrinarayanan
Graduate Student
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Cornell University
--------------------------------------------------
Gopal K Rao
: Rajindar Singh Hans,
: Rajinder Goel,
: Sarakar Talawar,
: Pandurang Salgaonkar (he did play an unofficial test against SL),
: Milind Gunjal,
: Shrikant Kalyani,
: Raju Bhalekar,
: Riaz Poonawala (this guy was picked up in one day team, but never
: actually had a game),
: Kailash Gattani, (not sure)
: Ranjit Khanvilkar,
: Ashish Winston Zaidi,
Add K Bhaskar Pillai to the list and you have the best of the also rans!!
Gopal
Vivek MITTAL - Vivek
I think he is the vice-captain of the UAE cricket team that will be playing
in the World Cup. Correct me if I am wrong.
Vivek
S.Jagadish
I suppose no Indian also ran XI will be complete without K.P.Bhaskar Pillai
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
/ \
S.Jagadish
Computer Engg Year 2 Nanyang Technological University Singapore
Undergrad student from India : E-Mail : SF91...@NTUVAX.NTU.AC.SG
Die hard Kamal Hassan visiri ... from Kalatthur Kannama to Shuba Sankalpam !!
On the WEB - Mayajaal : http://www2.ntu.ac.sg:8000/~sf918168/mayajaal.html
\_____________________________________________________________________________/
Dipak Basu
>Here's an Indian XI whose players performed consistently in Ranji and
>Duleep trophies but never made it to the tests!
>
The best Indian not to have played in a test match was Padmakar Shivalkar
of Bombay, a left arm spinner who had phenomenal figures over a long
period of time. His career coincided with Bedi's and so he never made it
into the test team. Can anyone post Paddy's first class figures?
Dipak.
Rama...@vos.stratus.com
> The best Indian not to have played in a test match was Padmakar Shivalkar
> of Bombay, a left arm spinner who had phenomenal figures over a long
> period of time. His career coincided with Bedi's and so he never made it
> into the test team. Can anyone post Paddy's first class figures?
From CricInfo, the 2 and a few others:
Name Team B M R W Avg. RPO SR
Padmakar Shivalkar Bbay 21015 1271 6472 361 17.78 1.85 58.21
Bishen Bedi Delhi 17496 983 6072 402 15.10 2.08 43.52
Rajinder Goel Hary 31950 1753 10973 640 17.14 2.06 49.92
Erapalli Prasanna Karn 16560 780 6414 373 17.19 2.32 44.40
S. Venkataraghavan TN 26760 1273 9664 530 18.23 2.17 50.49
B. S. Chandrasekhar Karn 17418 600 8345 436 19.13 2.87 39.95
-- Ramaswamy
Aslam Siddiqui
>Subject: Re: The Also Ran India XI
>From: ss...@emerald.tufts.edu (Shirish Sane)
>Date: 17 Jul 1995 19:40:24 -0400
>MuthukumaraMani wrote:
>* Here's an Indian XI whose players performed consistently in Ranji and
>* Duleep trophies but never made it to the tests!
>* Gopal Bose
>* TE Srinivasan
>I think TE Srinivasan did play a test against NZ in 1980-81 season.
>* Rahul Mankad
>* P. Mukund
>* Hari Gidwani
>* Sudhakar Rao
>* Daljit Singh (WK)
>* Rakesh Shukla
>* Abdulla Ismail
>* Barun Burman
>* Kiran Mokashi
>* Any second thoughts?
>* Mani
>I doubt whether Rahul Mankad, P. Mukund, Daljit Singh, Barun Burman and Kiran
>Mokashi were ever in contention for a spot in cricket team. In my opinion few
>notable exceptions are as follows:
>Padmakar Shivalkar,
>Rajindar Singh Hans,
>Rajinder Goel,
>Sarakar Talawar,
>Pandurang Salgaonkar (he did play an unofficial test against SL),
>Milind Gunjal,
>Shrikant Kalyani,
>Raju Bhalekar,
>Riaz Poonawala (this guy was picked up in one day team, but never
>actually had a game),
>Kailash Gattani, (not sure)
>Ranjit Khanvilkar,
>Ashish Winston Zaidi,
>and many more..
Here are the 'mosts' by non-Test playing Indians (caveat - the records are
not updated to include the 1994-95 season):
Most runs - 6,032 by V.Sivaramakrishnan (Tamil Nadu)
Most wickets - 750 by Rajinder Goel (Haryana)
(there is some dispute about this figure)
Most WK victims - 233 by Surinder Khanna
Most catches - 124 by Sivaramakrishnan. I believe Abdul Jabbar of Tamil Nadu
also has more than 100 catches to his name.
BTW, Srinivasan did play in one Test against New Zealand (Auckland, 1980-81).
aslam
>-Shirish
Dipak Basu
>Rajinder Goel Hary 31950 1753 10973 640 17.14 2.06 49.92
I remember once reading that Goel played for Haryana until he was pretty
old. Anyone know how old? His 640 Ranji wickets is the highest by far.
What is the record career haul in first class cricket? I couldn't get
this from cricinfo.
Dipak.
Sanjay Khan [466]
: * >Here's an Indian XI whose players performed consistently in Ranji and
: * >Duleep trophies but never made it to the tests!
: * I don't quite get it... are you trying to pick a team of players who did
: * _well_ in domestic Indian cricket (but never played Tests), or are you
: * picking a team of also-rans in domestic cricket? If it's the former,
: * then several other players _have_ to be picked ahead of those in your
: * team - e.g.
: * Shivalkar, Goel, Hans - among the best spinners never to play Tests
: * Sugwekar, Bhave and Gunjal of Maharashtra - all very good batsmen
: * Salgaonkar - very good quick bowler, who played in 'unofficial Tests'
Since you guys are naming so many Maharashtra players, I nominate Ramesh Borde.
He ALWAYS succeeded playing for West Zone against just about every team
touring India.
: * V Siva - consistent opening bat for TN
: * Zulfikar Parkar - very good 'keeper, played for Bombay
: Assuming that it is the former, many good cricketers come
: to mind. I will name only one of them:
: Prof.Deodhar.
: --badri
: --
: --------------------------------------------------
: S.Badrinarayanan
: Graduate Student
: Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
: Cornell University
: --------------------------------------------------
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
* Sanjay A. Khan Member of Technical Staff *
* Email : sk...@mhcnet.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories *
* Phone : (908) 582-5788 Room 3B-412, 600 Mountain Avenue *
* FAX : (908) 582-3440 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636, USA *
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Ganesh Murugesan
>Rajindar Singh Hans,
>Rajinder Goel,
>Sarakar Talawar,
>Pandurang Salgaonkar (he did play an unofficial test against SL),
>
Other include
1. Bhaskar Pillai (Delhi)
2. V. Sivaramakrishnan (Tamil Nadu)
3. A.V. Jayaprakash (Karnataka)
4. Padam Shastri (Gujarat/Maharashtra ?)
ganesh
arun srinivasan
Arun
gk...@icaen.uiowa.edu
--
Gopal K. Rao Phone: Off: 319-356-0065
The University of Iowa Res: 319-358-6870
Dept. Of Industrial Engg e-mail: gk...@icaen.uiowa.edu
Rama...@vos.stratus.com
Sorry Dipak,
I erred in quoting figures for the 6 bowlers (including Goel) if you were
asking for First Class figures, since all those were Ranji Trophy only.
I believe Goel took 60 more wickets in Duleep trophy matches @22.62.
No idea about other FC fixtures in India; his total has been mentioned by
Aslam as 750. (Hint, hint!) I believe he was playing well into his 40s.
(born Sep 29, 1942).
The record haul in FC cricket belongs to one Wilfred Rhodes, 4187 @ 16.71,
over a 32-year period. Bedi is the top Indian on the list, with 1560 @ 21.69
in a 20-year span, just behind Intikab Alam's haul of 1571 @ 27.67 (25 years).
Source: Wisden.
I am not sure what it means, but only 2 players who bowled in the 80s
make the top 25 (Titmus and Underwood) in career totals. 26th is one
Ray Illingworth.
-- Ramaswamy
Neeran M. Karnik
>* >Here's an Indian XI whose players performed consistently in Ranji and
>* >Duleep trophies but never made it to the tests!
>Assuming that it is the former, many good cricketers come
>to mind. I will name only one of them:
>Prof.Deodhar.
In Prof. Deodhar's case, he played his best cricket before India gained
Test status (he was already ~38 yrs old in 1932, and was sadly considered
'too old' for Tests). If India was playing Tests in the 1920s, I think
he would have easily made the team. However, you're right - he performed
very well for years and years after 1932. In fact, in 1940-41, at age 46
or so, he scored 500+ runs in Ranji trophy in just 6 innings (a score of
246 vs Bombay among them). Even later, in 1944-45 (aged 50!) he scored
a 100 in each innings of a Ranji game vs Nawanagar!
>--badri
Sadiq Yusuf
Dipak Basu <dipak...@taligent.com> wrote:
>In article <3ueg2i$r...@minerva.worldbank.org>, Muthukumara Mani wrote:
>
>>
>
>of Bombay, a left arm spinner who had phenomenal figures over a long
>period of time. His career coincided with Bedi's and so he never made it
>into the test team. Can anyone post Paddy's first class figures?
>
Cant quite post his *first-class* figures, but here are his
figures for the Ranjis, and partial figures of his Duleeps.
Ranjis:
21,015 balls, 1271 maidens, 6472 runs, 361 wickets, average 17.78
v/s Mysore in 1971 (a knock-out game), he had figures of
17.5 overs, 10 maidens, 16 runs, 8 wickets (!!)
Duleeps:
15 matches, 1328 runs, 71 wickets, average 18.70
The 2nd best bowling average in the Duleeps in history. (Bedi,
by comparison, in 17 matches, had 52 wickets at an average of 26.56).
Sadiq [ Paddy groupie ] Yusuf
>Dipak.
--
Sadiq Yusuf
si...@iastate.edu
K. Shrinivasan (Jinny)
>Here's an Indian XI whose players performed consistently in Ranji and
>Duleep trophies but never made it to the tests!
>
>Sudhakar Rao
><deleted>
>Any second thoughts?
>
>Mani
>
No! Just dumbfounded! Never thought I would read about Sudhakar Rao
in r.s.c. There was a whole generation of Indian batsmen in the mid-
seventies who performed well in Ranji games, but whose technique was
suited to playing spinners given the embarrasment of riches India had
in that department. Pick them against quality fast bowling however,
and all the old jokes about seeing the backward short-leg between leg
stump and the fleeing batsman became applicable. Sudhakar Rao, Vishwa-
nath and Brijesh Rao formed probably one of the best batting trios in
Ranji Trophy at that time. Brijesh was another enigma. Absolutely
murderous in domestic cricket and in Tests on the odd occasion. But
confront him with anything above medium pace in tests, and he seemed
to be hopelessly out of his depth.
Sadiq Yusuf
new ways to waste my time - creative inertia, they call it), thought I'd
put together some stats on some of these players. And, maybe, taking my
inspiration from the Magnificent Team of the Decades idea, select a
touring 16 of The Also Rans :-)
Some players were already mentioned.
From: kar...@cs.umn.edu (Neeran M. Karnik)
Shivalkar, Goel, Hans - among the best spinners never to play Tests
P.Shivalkar : 21,015 balls, 361 wickets, average 17.78
R.Goel : 31,940 balls, 640 wickets, average 17.14
R.S.Hans : 15,284 balls, 281 wickets, average 18.83
(fascinating name right above Hans in the standings - Maninder Singh
with 13,820 balls, 282 wickets, average 16.24 !!)
Sugwekar, Bhave and Gunjal of Maharashtra - all very good batsmen
Good batsmen indeed !!
S.Sugwekar : 44 innings, 9 not outs, 2614 runs, average 74.68
S.S.Bhave : 51 innings, 12 not outs, 3009 runs, average 77.15
(Both these are incomplete - stats 2 yrs old, and careers still active.
They'll probably end up lower at the end of their careers, tho hopefully
not significantly lower :-)
M.D.Gunjal : 109 innings, 15 not outs, 4804 runs, average 51.10
Salgaonkar - very good quick bowler, who played in 'unofficial Tests'
P.Salgaonkar : 7763 balls, 154 wickets, average 28.32
(very very good strike rate, but expensive. As fast bowlers are, on
Indian tracks :-)
V Siva - consistent opening bat for TN
V.Sivaramakrishnan : 126 innings, 9 not outs, 5039 runs, average 43.06
Zulfikar Parkar - very good 'keeper, played for Bombay
125 career Ranji victims, and former holder of the all-time
record for victims in a single season with 30 (the record is currently
held by Sameer Dighe)
From: gan...@tis.com (Ganesh Murugesan)
Other include
1. Bhaskar Pillai (Delhi)
K.P.Bhaskar : 87 innings, 17 not outs, 4055 runs, average 57.92
2. V. Sivaramakrishnan (Tamil Nadu)
same as aforementioned V Siva :-) 43.06 average.
3. A.V. Jayaprakash (Karnataka)
112 innings, 18 not outs, 3479 runs, average 37.01
4. Padam Shastri (Gujarat/Maharashtra ?)
71 innings, 5 not outs, 2318 runs, average 35.12
ganesh
-------------------------------
Those are the names Ive gotten so far. And a few additions, a
couple people who ought to be certainties for that tour, IMHO :-)
Abdul Ismail, fast bowler, IMHO the unluckiest cricketer in India. Was a
fast bowler at a time when India opened the bowling with Gavaskar,
consistently turned out amazing performances, and wasnt picked anyway,
as the selectors believed all fast bowlers ought to be good bats too
(hey, they *still* seem to believe that :-)
Abdul Ismail, 7968 balls, 198 wickets, average 15.47
(at a glance, that appears *the* best strike rate of any of these
bowlers - and even among the test bowlers, it looks like only Chandra
had a better strike rate).
And anyone know what Bimal Bose bowled ? Was he a paceman too ?
Played for Bihar, 205 wickets at 16.59.
So, summing up, a tentative bowling attack for the touring team,
IMHO. Abdul Ismail, Bimal Bose (after confirmation :-), Pandurang
Salgaonkar - the 3 fast men. Rajinder Singh Hans, Rajinder Goel, Paddy
Shivalkar the 3 confirmed spinners (Ive never bought into this "3
spinners of a different kind" stuff :-) I think we'll possibly take a
4th spinner, and that can be of a different kind . Sarkar Talwar, maybe?
(he was an offie).
2 keepers. I'd say Zulfiqar Parkar as one, for sure. And I'd
personally suggest Saba Karim as the other - though his career is not
over, and he did go on a tour with an Indian side, he has never played a
test or ODI. If he qualifies, the man has scored 2820 Ranji runs, at an
average of 62.66 !!! And he's a darn fine keeper too, by all accounts.
That leaves only the batting - 7 to be picked. On performance,
it appears to me that Bhave, Sugwekar, Gunjal and Bhaskar are 4
definates, of those mentioned (and Bhave is an opener). 3 more bats to
be picked, at least 1 opener among them, perhaps 2. A name often
overlooked is Amarjeet Kaypee, 88 innings, 4614 runs, average of 60.71.
I think he probably should be in there too.
Thusly, our touring squad is :
Bhave, Sugwekar, Gunjal, Bhaskar, Kaypee, Karim, Z.Parkar, Abdul
Ismail, Salgaonkar, Bose, Shivalkar, Hans, Goel, Talwar (? suggestions
welcome), and 2 bats.
So. 2 spots to fill, at least one opener. Suggestions, anyone ?
:-) Other than V.Siva (already mentioned, 43.06), there is Abdul Azeem
(Hyderabad), 4043 runs at 50.53. Hari GIdwani, 5451 runs at 46.99.
Shishir Hattangadi (!!), 3567 runs at 43.50. Another forgotten name at
opener, Yusuf Ali Khan (him of the wonderful first name :-), 3353 runs
at 54.08. Srikant Kalyani, 2954 runs at 51.82. Kedar Chavan, 2374 runs
at 47.48.
There are a whole bunch. Toss a few more names at me, and I'll
look em up :-) I think I might go with Yusuf Ali Khan at opener (though
Ive always liked Azeem too). And maybe Srikant Kalyani as another middle
order bat.
Selections arent quite as easy as I thought they'd be, though
they are a heck of a lot of fun :-)
Sadiq [ donning the selectorial hat ] Yusuf
P.S. Ooh. Another unfashionable name :-) Mukund Parmar of Gujarat
apparently has 2238 runs in 35 innings, at 72.19 !!
--
Sadiq Yusuf
si...@iastate.edu
J. Sreedhar
It should be Brijesh Patel, not Brijesh Rao...
One major reason for his "failure" in tests, apart from the
aforementioned lack of pacemen in India at that time, is that
helmets weren't commonplace.
Steve Glaznieks
Steve G.
K. Shrinivasan
><deleted>
>It should be Brijesh Patel, not Brijesh Rao...
>
Ouch! That is embarassing for a Banglorean, no! Of course it was
Patel. As for the helmets, you have a point. He did top averages
in that ill-fated "declaration" tour of WI in 1975-76. I remember
a 80-odd against same opposition in Bombay when Lloyd brought his
team over in 1974-75. In those days, though, Roberts was the only
WI bowler in the "frighteningly fast" category. Boyce, Julien et
al were on a downswing and Holding, Garner, Croft and Daniel had
not yet established themselves.
Uday Rajan
In article <dipak_basu-18...@dipak-basu.taligent.com>,
Sadiq Yusuf <si...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>Dipak Basu <dipak...@taligent.com> wrote:
>>The best Indian not to have played in a test match was Padmakar Shivalkar
>>of Bombay, a left arm spinner who had phenomenal figures over a long
>>period of time. His career coincided with Bedi's and so he never made it
>>into the test team. Can anyone post Paddy's first class figures?
>Ranjis:
> 21,015 balls, 1271 maidens, 6472 runs, 361 wickets, average 17.78
>Duleeps:
> 15 matches, 1328 runs, 71 wickets, average 18.70
A bit more on the Paddy file: he made his first class debut at the age
of 30, in the 1970-71 season. Apparently, for several years before that,
he was left out of the Bombay team because Bapu Nadkarni was the
resident left-arm spinner. Remarkable.
At the end of his career (Ramaswamy mentioned this to me over e-mail),
he was recalled to the Bombay side at the age of 47, in the 1987-88
season, for a quarter-final game against Karnataka.
Sadiq Yusuf
Uday Rajan <ura...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>In article <dipak_basu-18...@dipak-basu.taligent.com>,
>Sadiq Yusuf <si...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>>Dipak Basu <dipak...@taligent.com> wrote:
>>>The best Indian not to have played in a test match was Padmakar Shivalkar
>>>of Bombay, a left arm spinner who had phenomenal figures over a long
>>>period of time. His career coincided with Bedi's and so he never made it
>>>into the test team. Can anyone post Paddy's first class figures?
>
>>Ranjis:
>> 21,015 balls, 1271 maidens, 6472 runs, 361 wickets, average 17.78
>
>>Duleeps:
>> 15 matches, 1328 runs, 71 wickets, average 18.70
>
>A bit more on the Paddy file: he made his first class debut at the age
>of 30, in the 1970-71 season. Apparently, for several years before that,
>he was left out of the Bombay team because Bapu Nadkarni was the
>resident left-arm spinner. Remarkable.
>
Absolutely ! Does anyone have a sample XI of, say, the 1969
season ? Why not have 2 left-arm spinners ? The old Indian bias of
absolutely having to have 3 spinners of different kinds in a side
rearing its ugly head once again ? :-)
>At the end of his career (Ramaswamy mentioned this to me over e-mail),
>he was recalled to the Bombay side at the age of 47, in the 1987-88
>season, for a quarter-final game against Karnataka.
Yep, he was - though he was still, I think, playing Kanga
leagues at that stage. As I recall, he was brought in for a couple of
games, and did fairly well too ( I seem to recall his figures being
better than the other las in that side, RJS, who was then in the Indian
side as a fair spinner ie, before his decline :-) And he was still in
terrific shape ( I particularly recall a Times of India quote saying
something like "he might be 48, but his waistline is still a trim 28
(inches)" - at which I burn with envy :-)
Sadiq [ Paddy for President ] Yusuf
--
Sadiq Yusuf
si...@iastate.edu
Dipak Basu
>Does anyone have a sample XI of, say, the 1969
>season ? Why not have 2 left-arm spinners ? The old Indian bias of
>absolutely having to have 3 spinners of different kinds in a side
>rearing its ugly head once again ? :-)
>
Well, with Nadkarni and Durrani, two left-arm spinners whose careers
overlapped with Solkar and Surti, who could also bowl slow-left arm stuff,
the Indian era of left arm spinner-allrounders gave way, in 67-68, to the
best left armer ever, Bishen Bedi. In 1969 and onward, Bedi was in full
flow, averaging 6 to 8 wickets per test against the visiting Australians
and New Zealanders. Prasanna and Venkat (both off-spinners) were doing
the rest, Chandrasekhar was sidelined for a bit in 69 and then came
roaring back in the early 70s.
Shivalkar would have had to displace either Pras, Venkat or Chandra to get
in since Bedi was entrenched. If he had made it he probably would have
held his place and guess what, we'd have had 10 years of a spin quintet!!!
Dipak.
Dipak Basu
h_l...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au (Hamish Laws) wrote:
>
>BS BEDI 67 matches 266 wickets @28.71
>
>H Ironmonger 14 matches 74 wickets @ 17.97
>
>JH Wardle 28 matches 102 wickets @ 20.39
>
>draw your own conclusions as to who was the best left armer.
I should have said best left-armer from India. Arguably still, Bedi was
the best ever, even if you add Underwood to the competition. Bedi used
flight to buy his wickets at the expense of runs. I remember an over to
Greg Chappell (I'm pretty sure it was Greg Chappell) where he gave Greg
two really loose balls which Greg pulled to the square leg boundary. Then
(it was pre-planned and Bedi didn't overtly move the fielder) but a
fielder moved across to deep square, Bedi bowled the same ball, Greg
played the same shot and was easily caught. Under Bedi's captaincy,
Prasanna successfully tried this same trick too.
Dipak.
Stephen Devaux
I don't much care if Bedi used flight, florins or flamethrowers to buy
his wickets, comparing spinners averages pre-covered wickets and
post-covered wickets is absurd! Doesn't anybody get it yet? The ONLY
spinner of the post-covered wicket era to average under 25 runs per
wicket is Warne. Not Bedi, Kumble, Prassana, Gibbs, Lock, Titmus,
Illingworth, Ramadhin, Benaud, or ANY of the others.
Covering wickets changed things. The stats of Ironmonger, Wardle,
O'Reilly, Laker, etc. were accomplished on UNCOVERED wickets. Today,
if a spinner can come CLOSE to 25 runs per wicket, like Kumble or
Underwood, he is a phenomenon. Most "great" spinners today (Qadir,
Bedi, etc.) average 150 to 200 runs more per 20 Test wickets (a match's
worth) than comparable ("great") fast bowlers. Lloyd figured this out
and put it into action, which is why WI dominated for so long.
Let's bring back uncovered wickets and great spinners! (Except it's
kinda scary to think what Warne might do!)
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
Mike Holmans
>Let's bring back uncovered wickets and great spinners! (Except it's
>kinda scary to think what Warne might do!)
>
>Fraternally in cricket,
>
>Steve the Bajan
>
In cricket,
Mike
John Hall
<sde...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>I don't much care if Bedi used flight, florins or flamethrowers to buy
>his wickets, comparing spinners averages pre-covered wickets and
>post-covered wickets is absurd! Doesn't anybody get it yet? The ONLY
>spinner of the post-covered wicket era to average under 25 runs per
>wicket is Warne. Not Bedi, Kumble, Prassana, Gibbs, Lock, Titmus,
>Illingworth, Ramadhin, Benaud, or ANY of the others.
I agree with the sentiments, but would just like to point out that in
fact some of these bowlers played most of their Tests pre-covering,
notably Ramadhin, Benaud and Lock (Lock was especially deadly on a rain-
affected wicket before he reformed his action, as the 1958 New Zealand
torists in particular would tell you).
>
>Covering wickets changed things. The stats of Ironmonger, Wardle,
>O'Reilly, Laker, etc. were accomplished on UNCOVERED wickets. Today,
>if a spinner can come CLOSE to 25 runs per wicket, like Kumble or
>Underwood, he is a phenomenon. Most "great" spinners today (Qadir,
>Bedi, etc.) average 150 to 200 runs more per 20 Test wickets (a match's
>worth) than comparable ("great") fast bowlers. Lloyd figured this out
>and put it into action, which is why WI dominated for so long.
>
>Let's bring back uncovered wickets and great spinners! (Except it's
>kinda scary to think what Warne might do!)
>
>Fraternally in cricket,
>
>Steve the Bajan
>
--
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
Spaceman Spiff
Govindarajan) says:
>
>I am enclosing the most successful bowlers of each country (courtesy:
>cricinfo). You will observe that the spinners, were quite up to the
>pacers in their economy.
>
> [.... etc ....]
>
>Nobody of the listed Indians had an average of < 25 [....]
>
unfortunately, govindraj, you have neglected to give the figures for
indian bowlers, leaving your readers just a tiny bit in the dark.
Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of poor man got the Cumberland Blues
He can't win for losin'
Lot of poor man got to walk that line
Just to pay their union dues.
Amitabha Lahiri
(sde...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> The ONLY
> spinner of the post-covered wicket era to average under 25 runs per
> wicket is Warne.
Which _will_ change. Let Warne play for another ten years, on a few more
dead pitches, what the heck, let's wait until Warne gets to 50 Tests.
If Bedi had uncovered pitches, that probably would not have helped him all
that much -- Indian spinners are used to dead pitches and their bowling
styles reflect that. But if Bedi had a leg trap, or even a proper pair of
opening bowlers to go before him, rather than shine removers ...
Amitabha
--
Amitabha Lahiri MAPS University of Sussex A.La...@central.susx.ac.uk
No one else is responsible for what I say and vice versa.
Today it's the Bengalis, tomorrow it will be you.
John Hall
Laws <h_l...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au> writes
>In article <3vo05h$s...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> sde...@ix.netcom.com (Stephen
>>I don't much care if Bedi used flight, florins or flamethrowers to buy
>>his wickets, comparing spinners averages pre-covered wickets and
>>spinner of the post-covered wicket era to average under 25 runs per
>>Illingworth, Ramadhin, Benaud, or ANY of the others.
>
>is Pollock so obviously it was easier to bat on uncovered wickets. Seriously
>it depends on whether the bowlers bowled on wet wickets, ignoring Bradman's
>comment that often in england wet wickets were easier to bat on.
I know Bradman said there was no wicket so easy to bat on as a good
English wicket, but I doubt that he ever expressed a preference for wet
wickets. Indeed, the received wisdom (though I remember this being
disputed on rsc a little while ago) is that he did not bat well on wet
wickets.
>I've had a look through my sources and Ironmonger really only seems to have
>had three wet wicket perforances, admittedly he took over 20 wickets in those
>three matches but even so.
>How many fast bowlers have played, say more than 30 tests and what percentage
>average under 25? How does that compare with the percentage of spinners who
>play. Exactly when were wickets covered?
>
>
>>Covering wickets changed things. The stats of Ironmonger, Wardle,
>>O'Reilly, Laker, etc. were accomplished on UNCOVERED wickets. Today,
>>if a spinner can come CLOSE to 25 runs per wicket, like Kumble or
>>Underwood, he is a phenomenon. Most "great" spinners today (Qadir,
>>Bedi, etc.) average 150 to 200 runs more per 20 Test wickets (a match's
>>worth) than comparable ("great") fast bowlers. Lloyd figured this out
>>and put it into action, which is why WI dominated for so long.
>
>And Wall in the 30's was probably australia's best quick with an average in
>the mid 30s. Hence fast bowlers were useless. If you go by indian bowlers
>almost noone above medium pace will average under 30, and Kapil only just
>scrapes it in.
>
>>Let's bring back uncovered wickets and great spinners! (Except it's
>>kinda scary to think what Warne might do!)
>
>Maybe on a sticky someone would try and use their feet against him?
>Another point to consider comes from a book called "Clarrie Grimmett The
>Bradman Of Spin" by Ashley Mallett.
>Basically Mallett apparenlty took his first 100 wickets in 23 tests when used
>to get wickets while Lillee got his in 22. Lillee took 100 in his next 15
>matches while Mallett got 32 becaause he was then used to stop people scoring
>runs while Lillee (and I think he played with Thommo as well) raced in and
>took wickets. Basically spinners are now looked at to bowl long spells of
>tight bowling with defensive fields.
S Govindarajan
>I don't much care if Bedi used flight, florins or flamethrowers to buy
>his wickets, comparing spinners averages pre-covered wickets and
>post-covered wickets is absurd! Doesn't anybody get it yet? The ONLY
>spinner of the post-covered wicket era to average under 25 runs per
>wicket is Warne. Not Bedi, Kumble, Prassana, Gibbs, Lock, Titmus,
>Illingworth, Ramadhin, Benaud, or ANY of the others.
>Covering wickets changed things. The stats of Ironmonger, Wardle,
>O'Reilly, Laker, etc. were accomplished on UNCOVERED wickets. Today,
>if a spinner can come CLOSE to 25 runs per wicket, like Kumble or
>Underwood, he is a phenomenon. Most "great" spinners today (Qadir,
>Bedi, etc.) average 150 to 200 runs more per 20 Test wickets (a match's
>worth) than comparable ("great") fast bowlers. Lloyd figured this out
>and put it into action, which is why WI dominated for so long.
If the pace bowlers were so successful, why do countries still select
spinners in their teams? Spinners in the 80s were not successful
because of the number of one day matches they had to play. Spinners,
in general, find it more difficult to switch between the two styles.
A spinner buys his wickets in general and in general, bowls more for
his bag than the pace bowler (and in general, is capable of bowling
more than the pace bowler). The over restriction in one day matches
has made it impossible for a spinner to attack in such games, which
means that he gives up his attacking style for a more restrictive
style. It is ideally suited for the pace bowler, who bowls much less
than what he has to in a test match. Countries, in general, find it
cumbursome to select separate teams for test match and one dayers.
First, it increases the number of players to deal with (difficult for
touring teams) and it unsettles the team itself, if there are lots of
changes. Hence one saw a proliferation of spinners, whose only virtue
was economy. With the current rate of matches, it is almost impossible
to let a spinner learn for say two to three years. Only now, spinners
have evolved a method to retain their efficacy in both versions. Thus
the current success enjoyed by the spinners.
Your argument, that pace bowlers were a recipe for success, does not
hold true. During the mid 80s, Australia and England - two teams that
have generally depended on pace bowlers for success, were among the
bottom teams. Australia, in general, with McDermott, Hughes, Reid,
Lawson and Alderman in their ranks had probably, the worst record of
that time. So too did England, though not with such notables. The
number of result bearing tests also dropped considerably during this
time.
And, the current WIian team, with Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop, three of
the best pace bowlers in the world, are not exactly on the top either.
They scraped with 2-1 victory over Australia in '92, a draw against
India and recently a loss against Australia in West Indies against a
not so pace-filled attack. Certainly, not the advertisement for your
statements. WI and Australia were able to dominate during the early
and mid 80s not due to pace, but due to the quality of their bowlers.
I doubt whether they can come up with four bowlers of their calibre at
the same time again.
I am enclosing the most successful bowlers of each country (courtesy:
cricinfo). You will observe that the spinners, were quite up to the
pacers in their economy.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Date-stamped : 25 Apr95 - 06:34
Australia: Most Wickets in Tests
Based on all Tests up to and including
West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown 31/03/1995
Bowler M Balls M R W Avge 5 10 Best
DK Lillee 70 18467 652 8493 355 23.92 23 7 7/83
CJ McDermott 65 15385 537 7697 270 28.51 13 2 8/97
R Benaud 63 19108 805 6704 248 27.03 16 1 7/72 *
GD McKenzie 61 17684 547 7328 246 29.79 16 3 8/71
RR Lindwall 61 13650 419 5251 228 23.03 12 - 7/38
CV Grimmett 37 14513 736 5231 216 24.22 21 7 7/40 *
MG Hughes 53 12285 499 6017 212 28.38 7 1 8/87
JR Thomson 51 10535 300 5602 200 28.01 8 - 6/46
AK Davidson 44 11587 431 3819 186 20.53 14 2 7/93
GF Lawson 46 11118 386 5501 180 30.56 11 2 8/112
<END> Contributed by Ross.Dundas (dun...@ozemail.com.au)
.
Date-stamped : 25 Apr95 - 06:34
England: Most Wickets in Tests
Based on all Tests up to and including
Australia v England at Perth 03/02/1995
Bowler M Balls Mdns Runs Wkts Avrge 5 10 Best
IT Botham 102 21815 788 10878 383 28.40 27 4 8/34
RGD Willis 90 17357 552 8190 325 25.20 16 - 8/43
FS Trueman 67 15178 522 6625 307 21.58 17 3 8/31
DL Underwood 87 21862 1239 7674 297 25.84 17 6 8/51 *
JB Statham 70 16056 595 6261 252 24.85 9 1 7/39
AV Bedser 51 15918 574 5876 236 24.90 15 5 7/44
JA Snow 50 12021 415 5387 202 26.67 8 1 7/40
JC Laker 46 12027 674 4101 193 21.24 9 3 10/53 *
SF Barnes 27 7873 356 3106 189 16.43 24 7 9/103**
GAR Lock 49 13147 819 4451 174 25.58 9 3 7/35 *
<END> Contributed by Ross.Dundas (dun...@ozemail.com.au)
.
Date-stamped : 25 Apr95 - 06:36
West Indies: Most Wickets in Tests
Based on all Tests up to and including
West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown 31/03/1995
Bowler M Balls Mdns Runs Wkts Avrge 5 10 Best
MD Marshall 81 17584 612 7876 376 20.95 22 4 7/22
LR Gibbs 79 27115 1313 8989 309 29.09 18 2 8/38 *
J Garner 58 13169 572 5433 259 20.98 7 - 6/56
CA Walsh 71 14623 516 6414 257 24.96 9 2 7/37
MA Holding 60 12680 459 5898 249 23.69 13 2 8/92
GS Sobers 93 21599 974 7999 235 34.04 6 - 6/73
CEL Ambrose 51 12260 530 4771 226 21.11 11 3 8/45
AME Roberts 47 11136 379 5174 202 25.61 11 2 7/54
WW Hall 48 10421 312 5066 192 26.38 9 1 7/69 *
S Ramadhin 43 13939 813 4579 158 28.98 10 1 7/49 *
<END> Contributed by Ross.Dundas (dun...@ozemail.com.au)
.
Date-stamped : 25 Apr95 - 06:35
New Zealand: Most Wickets in Tests
Based on all Tests up to and including
New Zealand v Sri Lanka at Dunedin 18/03/1995
Bowler M Balls Mdns Runs Wkts Avrge 5 10 Best
RJ Hadlee 86 21918 806 9612 431 22.30 36 9 9/52
DK Morrison 41 8893 283 4798 143 33.55 9 - 7/89
BL Cairns 43 10628 436 4279 130 32.91 6 1 7/74
EJ Chatfield 43 10360 489 3958 123 32.17 3 1 6/73
RO Collinge 35 7689 228 3393 116 29.25 3 - 6/63 *
BR Taylor 30 6334 206 2953 111 26.60 4 - 7/74 *
JG Bracewell 41 8403 358 3653 102 35.81 4 1 6/32 *
RC Motz 32 7034 279 3148 100 31.48 5 - 6/63
HJ Howarth 30 8833 393 3178 86 36.95 2 - 5/34
JR Reid 58 7725 444 2835 85 33.35 1 - 6/60
<END> Contributed by Ross.Dundas (dun...@ozemail.com.au)
.
Date-stamped : 25 Apr95 - 06:35
Pakistan: Most Wickets in Tests
Based on all Tests up to and including
Zimbabwe v Pakistan at Harare 15/02/1995
Bowler M Balls Mdns Runs Wkts Avrge 5 10 Best
Imran Khan 88 19458 726 8258 362 22.81 23 6 8/58 2.55
Wasim Akram 61 14039 530 6058 261 23.21 18 3 7/119 2.60
Abdul Qadir 67 17125 607 7742 236 32.81 15 5 9/56 * 2.71
Waqar Younis 33 6858 219 3640 190 19.16 19 4 7/76 3.19
Sarfraz Nawaz 55 13926 480 5798 177 32.75 4 1 9/86
Iqbal Qasim 50 13019 649 4807 171 28.11 8 2 7/49 * 2.22
Fazal Mohmood 34 9834 563 3434 139 24.70 13 4 7/42 *
Intikhab Alam 47 10474 383 4494 125 35.92 5 2 7/52 * 2.28
Tauseef Ahmed 34 7778 359 2950 93 31.72 3 - 6/45 *
Mahmood Hussain 27 5910 228 2628 68 38.64 2 - 6/67
<END> Contributed by Ross.Dundas (dun...@ozemail.com.au)
.
Nobody of the listed Indians had an average of < 25. You will observe
that most of the spinners listed here were from the mid 70s - except
for Pakistan, who have Qadir, Qasim and Tauseef. These spinners have a
significantly superior economy rate than the pace bowlers, especially
Qasim and Tauseef. And the spinners have similar economy rate to their
contemperory pace bowlers - uncovered or covered wickets until the
80s.
>Let's bring back uncovered wickets and great spinners! (Except it's
>kinda scary to think what Warne might do!)
>Fraternally in cricket,
>Steve the Bajan
Govind.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"And the moral of that is -`Be what you seem to be' - or if you'd like it put
more simply - `Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might
appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than
what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'" - The Duchess
in Alice In Wonderland.
S.Govindarajan email: govi...@maya.rutgers.edu
Ph: (908) 445 5769 URL: http://www-caip.rutgers.edu/~govindra/
Hamish Laws
>I don't much care if Bedi used flight, florins or flamethrowers to buy
>his wickets, comparing spinners averages pre-covered wickets and
>post-covered wickets is absurd! Doesn't anybody get it yet? The ONLY
>spinner of the post-covered wicket era to average under 25 runs per
>wicket is Warne. Not Bedi, Kumble, Prassana, Gibbs, Lock, Titmus,
>Illingworth, Ramadhin, Benaud, or ANY of the others.
Following similar logic the only batsman to average over 60 since, say 1960,
is Pollock so obviously it was easier to bat on uncovered wickets. Seriously
it depends on whether the bowlers bowled on wet wickets, ignoring Bradman's
comment that often in england wet wickets were easier to bat on.
I've had a look through my sources and Ironmonger really only seems to have
had three wet wicket perforances, admittedly he took over 20 wickets in those
three matches but even so.
How many fast bowlers have played, say more than 30 tests and what percentage
average under 25? How does that compare with the percentage of spinners who
play. Exactly when were wickets covered?
>Covering wickets changed things. The stats of Ironmonger, Wardle,
>O'Reilly, Laker, etc. were accomplished on UNCOVERED wickets. Today,
>if a spinner can come CLOSE to 25 runs per wicket, like Kumble or
>Underwood, he is a phenomenon. Most "great" spinners today (Qadir,
>Bedi, etc.) average 150 to 200 runs more per 20 Test wickets (a match's
>worth) than comparable ("great") fast bowlers. Lloyd figured this out
>and put it into action, which is why WI dominated for so long.
And Wall in the 30's was probably australia's best quick with an average in
the mid 30s. Hence fast bowlers were useless. If you go by indian bowlers
almost noone above medium pace will average under 30, and Kapil only just
scrapes it in.
>Let's bring back uncovered wickets and great spinners! (Except it's
>kinda scary to think what Warne might do!)
Maybe on a sticky someone would try and use their feet against him?
Another point to consider comes from a book called "Clarrie Grimmett The
Bradman Of Spin" by Ashley Mallett.
Basically Mallett apparenlty took his first 100 wickets in 23 tests when used
to get wickets while Lillee got his in 22. Lillee took 100 in his next 15
matches while Mallett got 32 becaause he was then used to stop people scoring
runs while Lillee (and I think he played with Thommo as well) raced in and
took wickets. Basically spinners are now looked at to bowl long spells of
tight bowling with defensive fields.
>Fraternally in cricket,
>Steve the Bajan
S Govindarajan
>In article <3vplpf$s...@caip.rutgers.edu>, govi...@caip.rutgers.edu (S
>Govindarajan) says:
>>
>>Nobody of the listed Indians had an average of < 25 [....]
>>
>unfortunately, govindraj, you have neglected to give the figures for
>indian bowlers, leaving your readers just a tiny bit in the dark.
>Stay cool,
>Spaceman Spiff
Ok, on popular demand :)
Date-stamped : 25 Apr95 - 06:35
India: Most Wickets in Tests
Based on all Tests up to and including
India v West Indies at Mohali 10/12/1995
Bowler M Balls Mdns Runs Wkts Avrge 5 10 Best
Kapil Dev 131 27741 1060 12867 434 29.65 23 2 9/83 2.78
BS Bedi 67 21364 1096 7637 266 28.71 14 1 7/98 2.15 *
BS Chandrasekhar 58 15963 584 7199 242 29.75 16 2 8/79 **
ES Prasanna 49 14353 602 5491 189 30.38 10 2 8/76 2.30 *
MH Mankad 44 14686 777 5236 162 32.32 8 2 8/52 *
S Venkataraghava 57 14877 696 5634 156 36.11 3 1 8/72 2.27 *
RJ Shastri 80 15751 658 6186 151 40.97 2 - 5/75 *
SP Gupte 36 11284 598 4403 149 29.55 12 1 9/102 2.34 *
DR Doshi 33 9322 455 3502 114 30.71 6 - 6/102 2.25 *
KD Ghavri 39 7042 358 3656 109 33.54 4 - 5/33
<END> Contributed by Ross.Dundas (dun...@ozemail.com.au)
.
The least average belongs to legspinner Gupte, followed by Bedi, then
Kapil. Bedi gave the least RPO, while Kapil is somewhere high up. The
only post WC'83 spinner to make the list is Shastri (:-0) Many of his
80 tests were played as batsman and part-time bowler, rather than as a
bowler and part-time bat.
I did not give the figures for SAf, since I could not fnd out who the
spinners were.
Anyway, this and the older list puts paid to the Bajan's theory.
Hamish Laws
>I know Bradman said there was no wicket so easy to bat on as a good
>English wicket, but I doubt that he ever expressed a preference for wet
>wickets. Indeed, the received wisdom (though I remember this being
>disputed on rsc a little while ago) is that he did not bat well on wet
>wickets.
I can't remember or find the exact quote but it is something along the lines
of
what many people do not realise is the difference between wet wickets in
australia and england. In england a ball may move further on a dry wicket and
batting may actually be easier whereas in australia quite often the batsman
has no chance of surviving the balls necessary to see what the wicket it doing.
I repeat that is not an exact quote.
from Bedser writing on Bradman
"Bad pitches in Australia are so bad that it is usually futile to try and
devise a successful counter technique."
Hamish Laws
>I did not give the figures for SAf, since I could not fnd out who the
>spinners were.
Tayfield 37 matches 170 wickets @ 25.91
Faulkner 25 matches 82 wickets @ 26.58 (and a batting average in the 40s)
Vogler 15 matches 64 wickets @ 22.73 (also bowled quick with the new ball,
was rated by at least one english batsman as the best bowler in the world at
the time)
Schwarz 20 matches 55 wickets @ 25.76
these would probably be the main ones, along with one other pre WWI player
whose name I can't remember but played with Faulknwer, vogler and Schwarz.
Stephen Devaux
<jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <3vo05h$s...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Devaux
><sde...@ix.netcom.com> writes
The ONLY
>>spinner of the post-covered wicket era to average under 25 runs per
>>wicket is Warne. Not Bedi, Kumble, Prassana, Gibbs, Lock, Titmus,
>>Illingworth, Ramadhin, Benaud, or ANY of the others.
>
>I agree with the sentiments, but would just like to point out that in
>fact some of these bowlers played most of their Tests pre-covering,
>notably Ramadhin, Benaud and Lock (Lock was especially deadly on a
rain-
>affected wicket before he reformed his action, as the 1958 New Zealand
>torists in particular would tell you).
John, is this true? As you may recall, I've been trying for some time
to get a precise date for covered wickets. It seemed to me that we
came up with "circa 1954." If so, I think most of Benaud's and Lock's
wickets would have been post-covered, and Ramadhin's about 50-50.
John Hall
>In <r5I9gSAv...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall
><jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>In article <3vo05h$s...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Devaux
>><sde...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>The ONLY
>>>spinner of the post-covered wicket era to average under 25 runs per
>>>wicket is Warne. Not Bedi, Kumble, Prassana, Gibbs, Lock, Titmus,
>>>Illingworth, Ramadhin, Benaud, or ANY of the others.
>>
>>I agree with the sentiments, but would just like to point out that in
>>fact some of these bowlers played most of their Tests pre-covering,
>>notably Ramadhin, Benaud and Lock (Lock was especially deadly on a
>rain-
>>affected wicket before he reformed his action, as the 1958 New Zealand
>
>>torists in particular would tell you).
>
>John, is this true? As you may recall, I've been trying for some time
>to get a precise date for covered wickets. It seemed to me that we
>came up with "circa 1954." If so, I think most of Benaud's and Lock's
>wickets would have been post-covered, and Ramadhin's about 50-50.
Well, it's a bit more complicated than I made it sound, as I think
different countries adopted covering at different dates. Also, in
England at least, for several years pitches were covered overnight or if
play was abandoned for the day, but were left uncovered during the hours
of play if play was suspended for rain up until it was called off for
the day.
In England, full covering was certainly not in force in 1968 (Underwood
bowling out Australia at The Oval after a thunderstorm at lunch on the
last day) or even as late as 1975 (Lillee and Walker bowling England out
for 101 in their first innings at Edgbaston following another
thunderstorm - which indicates that uncovered wickets don't necessarily
always only benefit the spinners).
I couldn't be precise about the dates when covering was brought in in
different countries without a lot of research. I suspect it may have
happened in most other countries earlier than in England, if only
because the hotter the sun the more impossible sticky wickets tend to
be. I've read that in England a rain-affected wicket will be difficult,
but in Australia it will be impossible (and the scores of some of the
Tests played on rain-affected wickets tend to bear this out).
Stephen Devaux
<jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <406e88$5...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Devaux
><sde...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>In <r5I9gSAv...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall
>><jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>In article <3vo05h$s...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Devaux
>>><sde...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>
>I couldn't be precise about the dates when covering was brought in in
>different countries without a lot of research. I suspect it may have
>happened in most other countries earlier than in England, if only
>because the hotter the sun the more impossible sticky wickets tend to
>be. I've read that in England a rain-affected wicket will be
difficult,
>but in Australia it will be impossible (and the scores of some of the
>Tests played on rain-affected wickets tend to bear this out).
More and more interesting. Boy, it would be good to get the specific
dates for each country, because bowling stats are really warped
otherwise. I remember watching the covers being brought out between
showers at Kensington Oval vs. Pakistan in 1958.
I'm really surprised that English pitches were uncovered that late!
Sadiq Yusuf
Stephen Devaux <sde...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I don't much care if Bedi used flight, florins or flamethrowers to buy
>his wickets, comparing spinners averages pre-covered wickets and
>post-covered wickets is absurd! Doesn't anybody get it yet? The ONLY
>spinner of the post-covered wicket era to average under 25 runs per
>wicket is Warne. Not Bedi, Kumble, Prassana, Gibbs, Lock, Titmus,
>Illingworth, Ramadhin, Benaud, or ANY of the others.
>
>Covering wickets changed things. The stats of Ironmonger, Wardle,
>O'Reilly, Laker, etc. were accomplished on UNCOVERED wickets. Today,
>if a spinner can come CLOSE to 25 runs per wicket, like Kumble or
>Underwood, he is a phenomenon. Most "great" spinners today (Qadir,
>Bedi, etc.) average 150 to 200 runs more per 20 Test wickets (a match's
>worth) than comparable ("great") fast bowlers. Lloyd figured this out
>and put it into action, which is why WI dominated for so long.
>
While I agree with the pre-v/s-post uncovered wickets point, I
also dont know if we ought to just compare *career* figures for the
averages. To compare efficiency, its far more accurate IMHO to perhaps
use stretches of a career - in those stretches,for example, the great
spinners might well be comparable to the great fast bowlers. For
example, for a 17 test match stretch of Prasanna's career, he captured
something like 101 wickets at an average of about 23 - thats good
enough, surely ?
The theory espoused by a friend (you really should type it up,
Azzie :-) , is that one reason a spinners career averages are possibly
lower than many pacemens is the latter part of their careers. For
example, Ambrose might have a terrific average now. And a year from now,
say, he's in decline. It'll often be due to a loss of pace due to age -
a fact that is easily discernable to the naked eye. And he'll be dropped
fairly soon.
But this isnt true with spinners - they dont lose pace :-) Maybe
they lose some control, some subtle variation in pace and flight. And
thats harder to catch. Thus, it gets noticed later, after the great
spinner has played, perhaps, a stretch of 10 tests with very few wickets
- you look back and think "hey, he's gotten old, he's not very
penetrative anymore". But in the meantime, his stats have deteriorated,
his average has gone thru the roof - at least to a greater extent than
the great paceman's have.
>Let's bring back uncovered wickets and great spinners! (Except it's
>kinda scary to think what Warne might do!)
>
Or maybe just go back to having a few spinning pitches, for
better balance ? Or at least retain spinning pitches that already exist
(like Trinidad, perhaps ? :-) Or, maybe pick spinners if they really are
deserving of a place in the team, even if they happen to be leggies ,
even if they labour under the misfortune of being the leading
wickettaker on a tour in which the opposition is (to great consternation
back home) holding even with a touring team ? :-) Lots of things one can
do to help spin, really :-)
Also, BTW, Iam a big fan of Warne. However, lets remember that
his (amazing) stats so far reflect only a *stretch*, not his entire
career. And he's played an amazing 30 odd tests at his peak (in only a
couple of years) - the great spinners of the 70's, for example, (the
Bedi's, Underwood's, Pras's, Chandra's) played 30 tests over a period of
perhaps 7 years, and maybe only about 10 tests at their peak. It'll be
interesting to see Warne's average at the end of his career (who knows,
it might even improve ! :-)
Sadiq [ who loves watching leggies ] Yusuf
>Fraternally in cricket,
>
>Steve the Bajan
>
--
Sadiq Yusuf
si...@iastate.edu
Venkatesh Sridharan
: While I agree with the pre-v/s-post uncovered wickets point, I
: also dont know if we ought to just compare *career* figures for the
: averages. To compare efficiency, its far more accurate IMHO to perhaps
: use stretches of a career - in those stretches,for example, the great
: spinners might well be comparable to the great fast bowlers. For
: example, for a 17 test match stretch of Prasanna's career, he captured
: something like 101 wickets at an average of about 23 - thats good
: enough, surely ?
-------
True. Also, we have to remember that these are, all said and done, mere
human beings. Some of them have the drive and the enthusiasm to keep
doing their best all (or most of) the time, and others slack off somewhat.
In terms of "ability" (don't ask me to define the term), two players who
are equivalent could well have very different stats because of this...
For example, in terms of consistency and the ability to put their head(s)
down, Lloyd, Greenidge and Haynes were all well ahead of Richards. And they
were certainly strokeplayers too... yet, Richards ended up with a higher
average (and aggregate) than all of them because his peaks (or "stretches")
were much better than theirs. Another example -- I think Holding, as a pace
bowler, was probably the most talented of his time -- yet his stats cannot
be compared to either Lillee's or Marshall's (neither of whom were mean
pacemen, either). I would think that the mix of ability and application
was a little more 'optimal' in the case of Lillee and Marshall... but
greatness, more often than not, is gauged more by ability than by application
(though, obviously, one without the other is useless).
As for the spin trio -- in the 1970s, they were certainly comparable to any
other attack in the world, though comparing an attack with three pacemen
to an attack with three spinners is not as straightforward as it would sound
here. Also, one has to see where the teams are 'coming from', so to speak,
the teams with great pace-based attacks in the (late) 1970s were Australia
and the West Indies, both of whom were rather used to dominating opponents,
and, as such, would try to win matches more than just try to avoid defeat.
Several of their victories in that era should be attributed as much to their
bowling attacks as to their overall attitude to the game (which, of course,
reflected in the batting, and the captaincy). India, on the other hand, was
a team that was just then making a mark, having defeated England and WI
at home for the first time etc., and taking the initiative in a close
situation, or forcing a finish was not something that came all that naturally
to them. Given a situation like the one at the Oval in 1979, or at Delhi (?)
against Pakistan in 1979-80 (India ended up 26 runs short of victory with
wickets in hand, and with Vengsarkar on 157*), IMO, teams like the WI or
Australia would probably have pushed harder for victory... Why, given a
test like the one in which England were bowled out for 46, chasing 192,
how many teams would have tried that hard to bowl the opponents out in the
first place? IMO, it takes years of doing it for a team that adopt that
approach naturally... otherwise, the temptation would be to keep things
quiet at the beginning, and see if the batsmen do something rash...
-------
: The theory espoused by a friend (you really should type it up,
: Azzie :-) , is that one reason a spinners career averages are possibly
: lower than many pacemens is the latter part of their careers. For
: example, Ambrose might have a terrific average now. And a year from now,
: say, he's in decline. It'll often be due to a loss of pace due to age -
: a fact that is easily discernable to the naked eye. And he'll be dropped
: fairly soon.
: But this isnt true with spinners - they dont lose pace :-) Maybe
: they lose some control, some subtle variation in pace and flight. And
: thats harder to catch. Thus, it gets noticed later, after the great
: spinner has played, perhaps, a stretch of 10 tests with very few wickets
: - you look back and think "hey, he's gotten old, he's not very
: penetrative anymore". But in the meantime, his stats have deteriorated,
: his average has gone thru the roof - at least to a greater extent than
: the great paceman's have.
-------
True, most pacemen either fade out quickly when they lose pace, or continue
as very shrewd bowlers, who can still get batsmen out while only occasionally
bowling the very quick delivery. One more thing -- it's a great temptation,
for a captain who has both spinners and pacemen at his command, to use the
spinner(s) to either stem the run-rate, or to speed up the over rate, on
the other hand, regardless of what critics of the West Indies (and it's
over rate) say, pacemen are generally deployed when the team is going for
the kill. Consider a team with say, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Dhanraj and
Hooper playing (say) the sixth test on a flat wicket, you can bet that D
and H will do much more of the bowling than they would on pretty much any
other type of pitch, unless it were a square turner...
-------
: >Let's bring back uncovered wickets and great spinners! (Except it's
: >kinda scary to think what Warne might do!)
: >
: Or maybe just go back to having a few spinning pitches, for
: better balance ? Or at least retain spinning pitches that already exist
: (like Trinidad, perhaps ? :-) Or, maybe pick spinners if they really are
: deserving of a place in the team, even if they happen to be leggies ,
: even if they labour under the misfortune of being the leading
: wickettaker on a tour in which the opposition is (to great consternation
: back home) holding even with a touring team ? :-) Lots of things one can
: do to help spin, really :-)
-------
One thing that would help cricket itself immensely (and not just spin)
would be the introduction of pitches with more bounce in them. Once the
wicket has some bounce, then good spinners have a lot in it for them (for
obvious reasons), as do pacemen and attacking batsmen. And yes, Dhanraj
will probably get a look-in before the series is over... seeing a leggie
operate in tandem with somebody like Ambrose or Bishop should be fascinating!
-------
: Also, BTW, Iam a big fan of Warne. However, lets remember that
: his (amazing) stats so far reflect only a *stretch*, not his entire
: career. And he's played an amazing 30 odd tests at his peak (in only a
: couple of years) - the great spinners of the 70's, for example, (the
: Bedi's, Underwood's, Pras's, Chandra's) played 30 tests over a period of
: perhaps 7 years, and maybe only about 10 tests at their peak. It'll be
: interesting to see Warne's average at the end of his career (who knows,
: it might even improve ! :-)
-------
Could somebody split up Warne's stats into those against
a. England, New Zealand and South Africa, and
b. the others
and post them here? Should be interesting, at the very least...
:Sadiq Yusuf
Win or lose, forever Windies.
Venky (Venkatesh Sridharan).
Amitabha Lahiri
Laws (h_l...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au) wrote:
> BS BEDI 67 matches 266 wickets @28.71
> H Ironmonger 14 matches 74 wickets @ 17.97
> JH Wardle 28 matches 102 wickets @ 20.39
Neither Ironmonger nor Wardle was an orthodox left-arm spinner. I guess you
also compare Lillee with Warne as right-armers?
Amitabha Lahiri
wrote:
> But this isnt true with spinners - they dont lose pace :-) Maybe
> they lose some control, some subtle variation in pace and flight. And
> thats harder to catch. Thus, it gets noticed later, after the great
> spinner has played, perhaps, a stretch of 10 tests with very few wickets
In addition the spinner can still be very economical even when not taking
wickets, and thus keeps his place in the team (unless there's someone
better on the sidelines).
Joshua Saunders
: <jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
: >
: >In article <406e88$5...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Devaux
: ><sde...@ix.netcom.com> writes
: >>In <r5I9gSAv...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall
: >><jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
: >>>In article <3vo05h$s...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Devaux
: >>><sde...@ix.netcom.com> writes
: >>
: >I couldn't be precise about the dates when covering was brought in in
: >different countries without a lot of research. I suspect it may have
: >happened in most other countries earlier than in England, if only
: >because the hotter the sun the more impossible sticky wickets tend to
: >be. I've read that in England a rain-affected wicket will be
: difficult,
: >but in Australia it will be impossible (and the scores of some of the
: >Tests played on rain-affected wickets tend to bear this out).
Umm John are you sure that is the reason? I know you hate me doing this
:-) but I really think that the real reason for the maintenance of
uncovered wickets in England was conservatism on the part of the MCC.
I mean as recently as 1986 an article appeared in Wisden, which bemoaned
covering in County games, argued for the return of uncovered wickets, and
generally carried on about the decline of English cricket since covers
were brought in (bit like Hadrian Vile's grandmother carrying on about
corsets?:-)). And this after one of the wettest seasons of the century...
I think uncovered wickets lasted longer in England, not because English
pitches are less bad when wet, rather that these things simply take
longer in England. :-)
One day England will host 3 and 4 nation ODI competitions. With white
balls and coloured clothing. Just like everyone else. You just have to
wait until they are reaady. :-)
Josh.
--
Joshua Saunders. jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au
The Bachelor's Guide to the Internet #1. There is no point getting off the
modem to ring your gf. She just wants to harangue you for spending so
much time on the 'Net.
IRCnick: rogan
John Hall
<jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au> writes
>: >different countries without a lot of research. I suspect it may have
>: >happened in most other countries earlier than in England, if only
>: >because the hotter the sun the more impossible sticky wickets tend to
>: >be. I've read that in England a rain-affected wicket will be
>: difficult,
>: >but in Australia it will be impossible (and the scores of some of the
>: >Tests played on rain-affected wickets tend to bear this out).
>
>Umm John are you sure that is the reason? I know you hate me doing this
>:-) but I really think that the real reason for the maintenance of
>uncovered wickets in England was conservatism on the part of the MCC.
You could well be right. I have the sort of mind that always looks for a
rational explanation for everything, forgetting that people aren't
always rational.
>
>I mean as recently as 1986 an article appeared in Wisden, which bemoaned
>covering in County games, argued for the return of uncovered wickets, and
>generally carried on about the decline of English cricket since covers
>were brought in (bit like Hadrian Vile's grandmother carrying on about
>corsets?:-)). And this after one of the wettest seasons of the century...
There is still a substantial, though I think minority, body of opinion
in England that argues for uncovered wickets. They claim that covering
has led to easy pitches, which means our batsmen are less accomplished.
(They don't explain why the same argument doesn't apply in equal
measures to other countries.) They say (correctly) that uncovered
pitches would not greatly increase the time lost after rain, since
delays are mostly caused by wet bowlers run-ups which *could* be
covered.
>
>I think uncovered wickets lasted longer in England, not because English
>pitches are less bad when wet, rather that these things simply take
>longer in England. :-)
>
>One day England will host 3 and 4 nation ODI competitions. With white
>balls and coloured clothing. Just like everyone else. You just have to
>wait until they are reaady. :-)
Well, we have that in the Sunday League now, so it may come. I have no
objection to white balls, but must admit I dislike coloured clothing -
it doesn't look like cricket any mkore.
Joshua Saunders
: -------
: Could somebody split up Warne's stats into those against
: a. England, New Zealand and South Africa, and
: b. the others
In order.
1. Sydney v India 91-2 Drawn
1/150
2. Perth v India 91-2 Aus won.
0/78
3. Moratuwa v Sri Lanka Aus won
0/107 (average of 335 at this point - has there been one higher in the
history of tests?)
3/11
4. Kandy (?) v Sri Lanka Drawn
0/40
5. Melbourne v WI Aus won
1/65 & 7/52
6. Sydney v WI Drawn
1/116
7. Adelaide v WI Aus lost
0/11 & 1/18
8. Perth v WI Aus lost
0/51
9. ??? v NZ Aus won
3/23 & 4/63
10. ??? v NZ drawn
2/49 & 0/59
11 ??? v NZ Aus lost
4/8 & 2/58
12. Headlingley v England Aus won
4/51 & 4/86
13. Lords v England Aus won
4/57 & 4/102
14 Edgbaston v England Drawn
3/74 & 3/108
15. Old Trafford v England Aus won
1/43 & 1/63
16. Trent Bridge v England Aus won
0/63 & 5/82
17. The Oval v England Eng won
2/70 & 3/78
18 Perth v NZ Drawn
1/90 & 0/23
19. Brisbane(?) v NZ Aus won
3/36 & 6/31
20. Hobart(?) v NZ Aus won
4/66 & 4/59
21. Melbourne v RSA Drawn
1/63
22. Sydney RSA won
7/56 & 5/72
23. Adelaide Aus won
1/85 & 4/31
24 Jo'burg RSA won
1/42 & 4/86
25 Cape Town Aus won
3/78 & 3/38
26. Durban Drawn
4/92
27. Karachi Pak won
3/61 & 5/89
28 Rawalpindi Drawn
1/58 & 0/56
29 Lahore Drawn
6/136 & 3/104
30 Brisbane v Eng Aus won
3/39 & 8/71
31 Melbourne v Eng Aus won
6/64 & 3/16(hat trick)
32 Sydney v Eng Drawn
1/89 & 0/48
33 Adelaide v Eng Eng won
2/72 & 2/82
34 Perth v Eng Aus won
2/58 & 0/11
35 Barbados Aus won
2/57 & 3/64
36 St Johns Drawn
3/83 & 0/18
37 Trinidad WI won
1/16 & 0/26
38 Jamaica Aus won
2/72 & 4/70
Country by country...
India 1 wicket @ 228.
Drawn games - 1 @ 150.
"Result" games 0 for 78
Sri Lanka 3/157 @ 52.3
Drawn games 0 for 40
"result" games 3/118 @ ~39
Windies 25/719 @ ~ 29
Drawn games 4/217 @ ~54
Result games 21/502 @ 23.9
NZ 33/565 @ ~17
Drawn games 3/221 @ ~ 74
Result games 30/344 @ 11.5
Eng 67/1427 @ 21.3
Drawn games 7/319 @ 45.6
Result games 60/1108 @ ~18.5
RSA 33/643 @ ~ 19.5
Drawn games 5/155 @ 31
Result games 28/488 @ ~17.4
Pakistan 18/504 @ 28
Drawn games 10/354 @ ~35.4
Result games 8/150 @ ~19
Very interesting. Be careful what you draw from them. That's all the
warning you get. :-)
Josh
John Hall
Laws <h_l...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au> writes
>In article <P8DuTIAx...@jhall.demon.co.uk> John Hall
>>measures to other countries.) They say (correctly) that uncovered
>>pitches would not greatly increase the time lost after rain, since
>>delays are mostly caused by wet bowlers run-ups which *could* be
>>covered.
>people. If I recall correctly this was tried in the 50's (????) according to
>one of the cricket books I have before covered pitches and was not a success.
>A spinner gives you some time to react if the ball pops, a ball at 100 mph and
>lifting off a length unpredictably gives none.
This is a good point. If you want to help the spinners, you may have to
go for uncovered pitches *and* uncovered run-ups. Another possibility,
would be to allow spinners to rub the ball on the ground to remove the
shine, as they used to be allowed to. Trouble is, now that reverse swing
has been discovered, this might help the pacemen even more.
Mohan Gopalakrishnan
extent venkat should not be judged by any kind of statistics. Please
dont jump at me now. Primarily the problem tends to be that we ignore
the circumstances under which they played and what their roles were. I
list them below
1. They had typically to bowl out the opponent for less than 250 runs
if India had to win any test match in the 60's and early 70's.
2. Indian fileding with the exception of Abid, Solkar, venkat(when he
played) and wadekar was at best mediocre. They even had fielders like
sardesai, bedi, chandra, prasanna and this list runs long who escorted
balls to the boundary and did little else.
3. The Indian Batting lineup depended on 2 batsmen Gavaskar and
VIshwanath on a typical day, with an occasional good innings from one
of the other batsmen.
4. Indian Pacemen were Shine removers, who if they took an occasional
wicket, would become a source of irritation to the captain because he
would have to keep them on longer.
Desite all these odds the famed quartet bowled pretty well and won
matches for India and ocasionally a series too like the triple they did
(WI in WI 1971, Eng in Eng 1971 and Eng in Ind 1972-73). Just think of
3 bowlers playing for a team with an open outfield, having about 250
runs to bowl the opponent with. ABsolutely no rest(since the second new
ball was a bane rather than a boon). They had to virtually buy their
wickets by guile and flight, forcing the batsman into errors of
judgement on many tracks that were totally unhelpful to them. There are
very few spinners who have played under such adversity and yet done so
well. That is what makes them one of the greatest spinners ever to
play.
Thanx MohanG
In <40fa25$c...@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> mp...@central.susx.ac.uk
Hamish Laws
Hamish Laws
>From: mp...@central.susx.ac.uk (Amitabha Lahiri)
>Subject: Re: Shivalkar (Was: The Also Ran India XI)
>Date: 10 Aug 1995 15:43:07 GMT
>In article <h_laws.43...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au> Hamish
>Laws (h_l...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au) wrote:
>> BS BEDI 67 matches 266 wickets @28.71
>> H Ironmonger 14 matches 74 wickets @ 17.97
>> JH Wardle 28 matches 102 wickets @ 20.39
>Neither Ironmonger nor Wardle was an orthodox left-arm spinner. I guess you
>also compare Lillee with Warne as right-armers?
From Farewell to Cricket, by Sir Donald Bradman
"Of the left hand googly bowlers Fleetwood-Smith was outstanding......
Of a very different type were Rhodes, Verity, Jack White and Bert Ironmonger.
They depended almost entirely on accuracy. There is very little spin to be
obtained from the index finger when the wicket is firm, so this type of bowler
must pit his wits against the batsman...."
good enough testimony for you? btw I included the bit about Fleetwood-Smith a)
to put the rest in context and b) because you were probably thinking about him.
Johhny Wardle bowled mostly left hand orthodox but did also bowl left hand
wrist spin for a while anyway. In england he almost always bowled left arm
orthodox and made his early mark that way.
Bradman compares Wardle with Verity and Rhodes and Trueman says he was
primarily a finger spinner.
Amitabha Lahiri
Laws (h_l...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au) wrote:
> In article <40d9eb$k...@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> mp...@central.susx.ac.uk
(Amitabha Lahiri) writes:
> >Neither Ironmonger nor Wardle was an orthodox left-arm spinner. I guess you
> >also compare Lillee with Warne as right-armers?
> From Farewell to Cricket, by Sir Donald Bradman
> "Of the left hand googly bowlers Fleetwood-Smith was outstanding......
> Of a very different type were Rhodes, Verity, Jack White and Bert Ironmonger.
> They depended almost entirely on accuracy. There is very little spin to be
> obtained from the index finger when the wicket is firm, so this type of
bowler
> must pit his wits against the batsman...."
> good enough testimony for you? btw I included the bit about
Fleetwood-Smith a)
> to put the rest in context and b) because you were probably thinking
about him.
Yes, good enough. No I wasn't thinking of Fleetwood-Smith but Inverarity
(who had a most peculiar three-fingered grip with the middle finger under
the ball -- he may have been right-handed though).
> Johhny Wardle bowled mostly left hand orthodox but did also bowl left hand
> wrist spin for a while anyway. In england he almost always bowled left arm
> orthodox and made his early mark that way.
That's incorrect. According to Ray Illingworth as quoted by Phil Edmonds
(what do they know of spin anyway?) Wardle got about a quarter of his
wickets bowling wrist-spin. In South Africa, about half.
In any case, you may want to compare the figures of Lillee and Hadlee with
those of Jack Cowie and Neil Adcock.
Amitabha Lahiri
(mp...@central.susx.ac.uk) wrote:
> Yes, good enough. No I wasn't thinking of Fleetwood-Smith but Inverarity
^^^^^^^^^^
&$%*#%!
Iverson.
&**%$%%!
Excuse me while I play imaginary Russian Roulette.
Krrrrr ... blam!!!