One thing that I think has changed spin in the era of televised matches is the death of the “mystery” spinner. Back in the day, if you had an unreadable action you could clean up because batsmen would have to work you out in real time. They only chance they got to analyse your action was when you were bowling at them - which didn’t give them too much room for error. Nowadays, video analysts can dissect a bowler’s action after only a couple of televised matches, and prime the batsmen ahead of time so they know what the different clues to each ball are. Witness Mendis who was briefly touted as the next Murali but has since faded considerably as a threat once video took the mystery out of his mystery balls.
In other spin related news, Ajmal is now at 13-5-22-5, having accounted for Strauss, Pietersen, Bell, Morgan and Broad before tea on the first day. That’s his 7th 5-for in 19 matches, on a pitch which isn’t apparently turning very much.
South Africa’s Paul Adams (he whose action was once described as resembling a frog in a blender) could fall into this category as well, although I think he was rushed far too soon into the national side and was too immature as a result (but he was the right colour, so whaddaya gonna do?).
I think you make some good points, but I’d say the biggest difference between Warne and Kumble was the amount of spin they put on the ball. Players who faced both seem to put them in a different category. For example, Atherton talked about how he tried different appraoches to facing Warne, with little success. He was quite dismissive of Kumble, saying he “only ever turned it on a dust bowl”. (A bit harsh, but Kumble’s overseas performances improved in the latter half of his career).
Kumble was a great professional. Warne was simply a great player, with a much greater ability to affect matches in neutral conditions. For example, in the 2005 ashes he didn’t get much support from his team-mates, but he ended the 5 match series with 40 wickets. Kumble could not have done that.
Speaking of spinners, I see Ajmal is battering England on the first day at Dubai. Can’t blame the pitch either, according to the commentators the ball is hardly turning.
In relation to Stanislaus’s post I often used to wonder with Warne why more guys couldn’t read him, given access to video. I used to read him easily, of course from behind him on TV, but you could often work out how he was setting a guy up. He’d drop one short when the bait was set and instantly you’d know - flipper.
So I was surprised to read Bradman versus Warne by Ashley Mallet and discover this:
*The flipper too made little impact. Bradman was alert to the delivery, which Grimmett invented and Warne bowled so well to many, especially South Africa’s Daryll Cullinan, who once told me he always “picked” Warne’s flipper but, alas, kept getting bowled by it. *
In some respects, I actually think that it’s more than just the ability to turn the ball. it’s well documented that Warne, towards the end of his career, was less capable of turning the ball (due to shoulder knack) than earlier in his career - but he still got people out. Part of Warne’s extra edge, I would say is what I was talking about earlier, re: match position. Another large part of it was his ability to set his own fields and bowl to a plan. Another part was psychological edge as well - he might not be turning it loads but he was able to implant in the batsman’s mind the sense that he was “Warne” and thus knew something that the batsman didn’t.
Sorting these three new factors - I would say Kumble didn’t turn it as much - but got closer over the course of his career due to Warne’s injuries. India’s general fielding standard was pretty poor for much of Kumble’s time in the side - witness the improvement in fielding produced by Gary Kirsten when he came in as the coach. It’s a horrible argument to make because it’s not resting on any figures - but there is probably a large element of “intangible” about Warne. Put simply, batsmen were scared of Warne and weren’t of Kumble. Of course, there was a reason for this - greater natural ability to start with.
To be honest, I think this exercise has lead me to conclude that it’s a bit of cul de sac comparing spinners to Warne. We don’t - or we shouldn’t - be comparing batsmen to, for example, Viv Richards - because an awful lot of his ability was unique. I kind of think the same for Warne. Returning to the top of the thread, I would say the ranking goes Warne - gap - and probably still more gap - whoever you want to produce next.
Yes, England are getting their arse handed to them at the minute. Apparently, England have played some awful shots, combined with not reading the doosra. The pitch is meant to be not turning and has low bounce, i.e. somewhat of a road. They’ve put themselves behind the 8 ball. It’s somewhat comforting though - as a child of the 90s, I have never really been comfortable with England winning test matches with ease - I’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop for about 12 months.
Cumbrian, I agree with most of your points- probably apart from one.
Whilst Warne was and is probably the best spinner I’ll ever see I am not convinced that he is so far in front of other spinners. Certainly, the only other one not in his own team at the time that was about the same class was conceivably Murali. However Warne also had some factors in his favour, not the least being McGrath at the other end. He also had an extremely athletic fielding team, innovative captains, and a very talented batting line up if things did go pear shaped.
I think also could be factored in the fading of the West Indies and teams which hadn’t seen a lot of his style of bowling at a decent level. His record against India was not outstanding.
However, he was Warne. I won’t see his likes again.
(On a different note, I remember the hidings Australi got in RSA and against England after WSC and against the great Windies sides of the 80’s. After that i never got tired of them winning).
Yep - all out for 192. Prior demonstrating how it should have been done on 70*. Ajmal 7/55 - career best.
England, lacking Bresnan, felt they couldn’t risk Panesar so are playing only 1 spinner. It will be really interesting to see what Swann can do here, but the three quicks can hardly be relishing this opportunity.
Ak84, I missed your question about rating Danish Kaneria. To be honest, I have never thought much about him (as opposed to much of him). If he was in a side against Australia it would be - “Yes, expected” but hardly a player to make me think he would take a side apart.
Yet he has very good statistics.
Don’t Ask - I read a statement from Mallett many many years ago now about how he met Grimmett and hoped he would pass on some good advice. In the statement he said he was very disappointed in what he was given. I don’t think he was a fan. (He also gave awry a serve for saying to him “Well bowled bird brain”).
Fair enough - though i think I sort of agree with you from my first post - there’s a lot of match position involved in his figures - particularly when you get into positions where you can attack at will.
It’s not that I have got tired of England winning - in fact very much the opposite. But I’ve been waiting for us to revert to the type of my childhood and today looks like classic late 90s England. Agree with Stanislaus that Bresnan would have made a big difference today in terms of the balance of the side - if not with the bat at all - in that we might well have played two spinners (with Anderson or Broad but definitely Tremlett missing out for Panesar and Bresnan).
I’m just trying to convince myself that I will make it to Lords for the first Test of the Ashes next year. Well, it was on the cards before the hot water system died tonight.
And if I was going I would want to be assured Australia was going to belt England
Oh, I’m certainly not saying that’s the entire story of Warne’s success, but spin and accuracy were the foundations. His ability to turn the ball helped create doubt in the mind of the batsmen, making his variations more effective.
Interesting point on TMS yesterday, that the advent of DRS has helped spinners win more LBW decisions. IIRC, about 30% of Swann and Ajmal’s dismissals have been LBW, compared to 15% for Lance Gibbs. That’s another point to consider when comparing bowlers from different eras.
Is that a reflection on the umpires also being bamboozled by the spinners into thinking a ball was turning much more than it was? Or conversely are the DRS systems underestimating how much a ball is turning? Personally I’m mildly sceptical of DRS accuracy and would love to see a proper test of it conducted openly.
Armspeed. A fast bowler’s stock ball (seam up with a backspin on the ball) will be at least 80 mph. This is closest to a pitcher’s fastball, which is around 90 mph. An average curveball is at least 75 mph. Plenty of fast bowlers have spinning balls with a similar loss of speed (which are normally called cutters). These balls will get movement off the ground, but nowhere as much as a spin bowler can. Meanwhile a spin bowler is bowling at 50-60 mph, slower than a knuckleballer. There are bowlers who do bowl at a speed between spinners and “fast” bowlers, called medium pace (this can be confusing, since 80-85 is often called “fast medium” and commentators might call this medium pace as well). Most bowlers at this pace bowl seam up though some do use a lot of cutters at a similar pace as well , being in a sense a “fast” and spin bowler at the same time. Medium pace is generally not as dangerous as fast or spin bowlers, slow enough for swing and seam movement to be manageable, and not accurate enough nor getting enough movement from spin to be dangerous either. Medium pacers are generally part time bowlers (i.e. batsmen with some ability and experience bowling, but not good enough to be considered a proper bowler or allrounder), used in Tests mainly because to give your bowlers a rest or break a big partnership (the change in pace and the fact that it isn’t a proper bowler can cause an error in shot selection), and used in limited overs matches because the pace can make it harder to hit the ball far (not fast enough for fast bowling shots to be fully effective, and too quick for spin bowling shots).
Unfortunately we aren’t getting this series on television in Australia.
For me though, it is refreshing that pitches are being provided that provide something for the bowlers. We have seen bloated averages from batsmen on pitches that do little more than provide driving practice.
Maybe some of these batsmen will not be recognised as that good- and some of the bowlers will be recognised as better than thought.
