Who are the next generation of spin bowlers?

[wpdavid]

With Warne gone, Murali & Kumble not far behind who, if anyone, will replace them as as the world's greatest spinners? Kaneria & Harbajan haven't lived up to expectations. Panesar has struggled in two succesive series now that he's faced by batsmen who can actually handle finger spin. Right now, it looks like being a lost art by about 2012. Shame, really.

 

[nightprowler10]

Abdur-Rehman.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Panesar has struggled in the last two series no less than Kumble has done outside the subcontinent for most of his career, very good bowler though he undoubtedly is.

I see the immediate future of spin as broadly the same as the 90s/first half of this decade, just without two outstanding spinners such as Warne and Murali.

 

[wpdavid]

I see the immediate future of spin as broadly the same as the 90s/first half of this decade, just without two outstanding spinners such as Warne and Murali.

And that's my point. Up to now, there's always been on or two outstanding spinners around, but post Murali & Kumble it looks like there won't be any. Possibly for the first time since the early-mid 1960's, and I can't think of any times before then, either.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And that's my point. Up to now, there's always been on or two outstanding spinners around, but post Murali & Kumble it looks like there won't be any. Possibly for the first time since the early-mid 1960's, and I can't think of any times before then, either.

There weren't any of Warne and Murali's quality for a number of years before Warne came on the scene IMO.

 

[wpdavid]

There weren't any of Warne and Murali's quality for a number of years before Warne came on the scene IMO.

Abdul Qadir was the obvious candidate in the 1980's. Not as great as Warne, but head & shoulders above his contemporaries and capable of bowling out the great WI side on more than one occasion IIRC.

 

[Richard]

Truth of the matter is, spin bowling has never been as impressive an art as seam-bowling, not since covered pitches. They said it had "been killed" in the late-1970s and most of the 1980s too. Truth is, bowlers like Warne are generally once-in-several-generations bowlers, Murali is perhaps a one-of-a-kind bowler who we'll never see the like of again; and as Halz pointed-out, fine and long-lasting bowler though Kumble has been, he's not been any greater than someone like post-covered-wickets Derek Underwood, Ashley Mallett or Iqbal Qasim, though he's played way, way more cricket. I see MSP's career taking a similar pattern, though obviously he's a rather different type of bowler to the four aforementioned.

Harbhajan Singh has been a bit disappointing of late, but I still think he has it in him to be a good spinner on a proper turning surface. The question is, how common is the turning surface going to be? We're seeing less and less of them in India of late, and though we have seen far more than you'd have expected 8 years ago in England in the last 4 years, I hope that doesn't last.

Kaneria's career looks like it's going to fizzle-out, has been a long time since he's done any serious damage to Test-class sides and even then nowhere near as much as his predecessor Mushtaq Ahmed used to do.

What I hope more than anything is that Sri Lanka end-up having a Kumble-like bowler whenever Murali finishes his career. If that doesn't happen, I see them struggling badly even at home, something I very much don't want to see.

Seriously, though, spin has been a secondary art ever since covered wickets. It's only going to be when the likes of a Warne (and it was remarkable that his career coincided with Muralitharan's) are around that it's going to come to light again. And as I said, I don't see another Warne any time soon, and nor I doubt do many other people.

 

[silentstriker]

Abdul Qadir was the obvious candidate in the 1980's. Not as great as Warne, but head & shoulders above his contemporaries and capable of bowling out the great WI side on more than one occasion IIRC.

Qadir was good, but I wouldn't necessarily say he was better than some of the non Murali/Warne types going around. His bowling average overseas is 47. Obviously, LBW's killed him and he should have a better average, but still. He was not near Warne/Murali.

From India, I like Murali Karthik, Ramesh Powar, etc. Ramesh Powar, especially, is such an awesome bowler to watch. He is totally old school - relying on flight and loop.

 

[wpdavid]

Seriously, though, spin has been a secondary art ever since covered wickets. It's only going to be when the likes of a Warne (and it was remarkable that his career coincided with Muralitharan's) are around that it's going to come to light again. And as I said, I don't see another Warne any time soon, and nor I doubt do many other people.

Nope, and that's not what we were led to believe when we used to read about Warne was supposedly initiating a resurgence of his art.

When did test wickets stop being uncovered btw?

 

[wpdavid]

Qadir was good, but I wouldn't necessarily say he was better than some of the non Murali/Warne types going around. His bowling average overseas is 47. Obviously, LBW's killed him and he should have a better average, but still. He was not near Warne/Murali.

From India, I like Murali Karthik, Ramesh Powar, etc. Ramesh Powar, especially, is such an awesome bowler to watch. He is totally old school - relying on flight and loop.

What do you think of Chawla?

 

[Richard]

Abdul Qadir was the obvious candidate in the 1980's. Not as great as Warne, but head & shoulders above his contemporaries and capable of bowling out the great WI side on more than one occasion IIRC.

Nah, no way - Qadir faced West Indies just twice before 1986\87, by which time the team were on the way down (in addition to Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Richards and Gomes - all of whom were soon to be gone and by the end of the period were on the way down - there was little). In those 2 Tests he took 4-131 and 4-93 - respectible enough, certainly, but not a case of bowling them out.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Abdul Qadir was the obvious candidate in the 1980's. Not as great as Warne, but head & shoulders above his contemporaries and capable of bowling out the great WI side on more than one occasion IIRC.

For a variety of reasons I think he was a bit over-rated, fairly certain that debate has happened before though, and my reasons are the predictable "not very successful outside of the subcontinent" variety. Even as a raw average he averages 33 - that's hardly great. Certainly no better than Kumble IMO, and you could in fact mount a fair case for Kumble being better.

 

[Steulen]

From a natural equilibrium point of view: if there are no decent spinners, batsmen will become poorer against spin bowling because they're not challenged. That should open up opportunities for otherwise mediocre spinners to have an impact on the game.

Case in point: had there been no Warne, never in a million years would the English have come up with Merlyn the spin-bowling machine, and they would not have been as prepared for playing spin as they are now.

So even without great practitioners of the art, there will be a place for spin bowling in cricket. And one day a new Warne will come along.

 

[silentstriker]

What do you think of Chawla?

He has promise, but has a longer way to go than Murali Karthik and Ramesh Powar. Chawla is a leg spinner, and can bat, so you'd want to keep an eye out for him, but he needs to develop more. The other two are pretty much the finished product, and are in their primes, so I'd go for them right now.

 

[Richard]

Nope, and that's not what we were led to believe when we used to read about Warne was supposedly initiating a resurgence of his art.

Was always going to be idealistic nonsense I can't help thinking TBH, the only thing that will initiate a resurgence of spin as being an equal of seam was wickets being uncovered again. Of course, there are still those who hanker back to the days of uncovered wickets, and wish for a return to the practice. I'd be in favour myself, really, but for the fact that they seem to not only help spinners, but genuinely hamper seamers - once it rained, that basically took the seamer out of the game, seamers being unable to keep their footing because of the wet ground.

When did test wickets stop being uncovered btw?

Think the process was complete in about 1975 in this country; seem to remember it was either late-1940s or early-1950s in Australia (Sean E will know for certain, and I'm sure he'll read this thread before too long).

Haven't a clue in other countries and have always wanted to know.

 

[Richard]

From a natural equilibrium point of view: if there are no decent spinners, batsmen will become poorer against spin bowling because they're not challenged. That should open up opportunities for otherwise mediocre spinners to have an impact on the game.

Case in point: had there been no Warne, never in a million years would the English have come up with Merlyn the spin-bowling machine, and they would not have been as prepared for playing spin as they are now.

So even without great practitioners of the art, there will be a place for spin bowling in cricket. And one day a new Warne will come along.

And, as Ashley Mallett said, when he does, he will find - as Warne did in 1993 - "batsmen ripe for the picking". But equally, as I say for the third time, it's a while before that next Warne will come along.

As Mallett also said, the mediocre spinners will always have their odd moment in the sun, such as Allan Border at The SCG in 1988\89.

 

[wpdavid]

Nah, no way - Qadir faced West Indies just twice before 1986\87, by which time the team were on the way down (in addition to Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Richards and Gomes - all of whom were soon to be gone and by the end of the period were on the way down - there was little). In those 2 Tests he took 4-131 and 4-93 - respectible enough, certainly, but not a case of bowling them out.

A bit harsh about 1986/7 - apart from Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Gomes & Richards is one for the "what did the Romans do for us" pile. OK, so they were closer to the end of their careers than the beginning, but they weren't on their last legs.
That being said, it turns out there was only that one occasion when he bowled them out, eve though he turned in numerous very good performances. Including a few in an away series in the WI.

But I do accept people's comments that he's a bit over-rated because there was no-one else at the time.

 

[Goughy]

Abdul Qadir was the obvious candidate in the 1980's. Not as great as Warne, but head & shoulders above his contemporaries and capable of bowling out the great WI side on more than one occasion IIRC.

Spinners bowling out WI teams is no measure of greatness. Bowlers of varying standards from Border to Hirwani to Tufnell have done it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

A bit harsh about 1986/7 - apart from Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Gomes & Richards is one for the "what did the Romans do for us" pile. OK, so they were closer to the end of their careers than the beginning, but they weren't on their last legs.
That being said, it turns out there was only that one occasion when he bowled them out, eve though he turned in numerous very good performances. Including a few in an away series in the WI.

But I do accept people's comments that he's a bit over-rated because there was no-one else at the time.

Waaaaaaaaaaay off subject, but that is the nasally-gifted adonis that is Paul Mariner in your avavtar, isn't it?

 

[wpdavid]

Spinners bowling out WI teams is no measure of greatness. Bowlers of varying standards from Border to Hirwani to Tufnell have done it.

Fair point about Border. But Tufnell's performance at the Oval in 1991 mainly involved tail enders IIRC - it was certainly nothing like the 6 for 16 that AQ picked up at faislabad in 1986.

Mind you, Qadir also demolished England on a couple of occasions in the mid 1980's, so he must have been pretty special.

EDIT
Yay, I actually remembered something right for once. Tufnell's 1991 demolition of WI accounted for Clayton Lambert, Marshall, Richards (injured & batting at 8), Abrose, Walsh & Patterson. Not without merit, but not what it's sometimes cracked up to be.