The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

C'mon spinners? Any spinners out there?

Roar Rookie
12th October, 2010
Advertisement
Roar Rookie
12th October, 2010
10
1110 Reads
Shane Warne, Image: Jenny Evans, AAP

The claim that ‘spin is gold’ is a particularly apt one considering it’s a valuable commodity that’s not found in many parts of the world. The Shane Warne phenomenon changed cricket’s attitude from spin as a bonus to an expectation that each side has a quality spinner.

Unfortunately, a quick glance at any team sheet around the world indicates a dearth of quality spin. Graeme Swann is a notable exception.

Harbhajan ‘Bhajji’ Singh too, on his day, can lay claim to being world-class.

Yet, most sides have adopted the ‘tie up an end approach’, employing spinners to soak up runs from one end and attack from the other.

Daniel Vettori, Nathan Hauritz, Praygan Ojha, Saeed Ajmal, etc. are all exponents of this ‘art’.

Australia has hardly had a great history of quality spinners. There are of course the legends, Warne, Benaud, Grimmett and O’Reilly, but their eras have often been straddled by bleak returns for spin, though names such as Yardley, Mallett and Bright did admirably to fill the gaps.

Given a historical and current lack of wicket-taking spinners, is it worth panicking and constantly seeking to fill the void?

Advertisement

To panic generally been the approach of the Australian selectors, and whilst I am loathe to criticise those who never get credit where it is due, the appalling treatment of spinners over the past few years should never be repeated.

Australia has employed seven Test spinners in the past five years excluding Warne and MacGill: Cullen, Casson, McGain, White, Krejza, Hauritz and Smith. Nathan Hauritz has been deemed the most worthy of perseverance.

Of those, only four command a regular first-class position, and (excluding Hauritz) managed only 65 wickets between them last season. Krejza, Cullen and Casson all reserve the right to flip the bird to Cricket Australia.

Krejza and Casson both performed admirably when their chances came, only to be quickly discarded when the next flavour of the month came along, without a thought for their welfare. Casson’s slide into obscurity is particularly tragic.

Dan Cullen can thank the ‘Centre of Excellence’ for ruining his first-class career by getting him to focus on darting the ball in and being tight, instead of turning the ball big.

Hauritz himself must struggle to look his captain in the eye, knowing the part-time spin of Marcus North will be preferred when the game is tight.

Where then, is the next one coming from? 15 months ago, Jon Holland held his own in an Australia A side that boasted 5 Test cricketers, yet, upon returning from India, managed only 4 one-day matches (for 0 wickets) and 3 Sheffield Shield games (6 wickets at 70).

Advertisement

Xavier Doherty and one-time Test sensation Jason Krejza are integral to the limited over success of Tasmania, but neither got selected in the opening first-class game this year.

The disappearance of the Cullens from South Australia was not so much a surprise as inevitability, which leaves the promising Cameron Boyce (2 games) or the fiery Steven O’Keefe, whose rise to Australian colours from obscurity could only be matched by Krejza.

There is one other option. Steven Smith. An energetic, stocky blond leg-spinner will always evoke comparison to the greatest of them all. Warne has mentored the youngster. Yet, and perhaps rightly so, his ascension to Test cricket is being handled with caution.

It is not far-fetched to suggest that if it weren’t for his batting, Smith would not be considered in the Australian side. Similarly, his unconventional approach to wielding the willow would probably not be looked favourably upon by the conservative selectors.

There are two approaches that could work in this situation. Throw in the young kid, who averages 48.51 with the ball and manages only 1.75 wickets a first-class match, and make him learn in the toughest school. If he doesn’t pull it off, then we’ve probably lost nothing. Or, he can be eased in, allowed to develop his bowling at first-class level, and keep up the strong batting performance.

With Smith, there is enough promise in that curving leg-break to think that, at one point or another, he could be a match-winner for Australia with bat or ball. But no player can pull off being a number one spinner and then go out to bat in the middle order.

Those that say Smith should bat at 6 have ignored the serious deficiencies in his technique, and have failed to realise that he is yet to make a substantial contribution at any level under pressure. Yet the obvious talent does not deserve to be anchored amongst the tail.

Advertisement

Similarly, burdening him with the expectation of bowling his side to victory and then batting for hours at 6 is too much for a 21 year old or even a seasoned pro to manage.

However, it is hard to be negative about such a dynamic player, and whilst unproven at any level thus far, it is not beyond comprehension that the bullish batting and wizardry in his wrist might win matches in a manner not seen since the days of Botham.

Whatever the case, Smith should be regarded as an all-rounder and never Australia’s next spinning great.

close