Graeme Swann vs Jim Laker and the legacy of English spinners

[War]

Most know the best spin bowlers and arguably the best ever English spin bowler - Dereck Underwood has been left-arm spinners.

Underwood, Wilfred Rhodes, C Blythe, Tony Lock, Briggs, Wardle.

Off-spin hasn't been all that notable. Jim Laker given his feats in the 1956 Ashes - is regularly heralded as the best off-spinner in England's history and his action is often described as "perfect off-spinners action". Ray Illingworth, Fred Titmus, David Alllen were other serviceable offies to play for the three lions.

Leg spin - less so, only Tich Freeman and Doug Wright are worth serious mention. Although Eric Hollies for dismissing Bradman in his final test for nought and Bernard Bosanquet for his invention of the googly get regular mention.

After watching Graeme Swann's latest effort in Sri Lanka, the question i think has to be asked now is he England's greatest off-spinner or greatest ever spinner?

He currently sits on 182 wickets in 41 tests - 12 behind Laker's 193 victims in 46 tests. Thus he will likely past Laker record in less that 46 tests or slightly above it this summer.

Has he done enough to be rated above Laker?.

Swann has certainly had to bowl/test himself in more conditions (the sub-continent) than Laker, which is no fault of Laker given how the strength of teams were back in the 40s and 50s. However Laker had the advantage of uncovered pitches and without it, he was forced to be just accurate i.e 58/59 in Australia and 54/55 in the Caribbean.


Secondly vs Underwood. Unless Swann declines significantly, he will eclipse Underwood eventually become the first English spinner to take 300 test wicket, which will be significant.

So ATM where should Swanneh be rated in pantheon of English spinners?

 

[Sureshot]

Always difficult, if not impossible, to compare players across generations, it's a completely different game now to what it was 15 years ago, let alone 50-60 years ago.

He is an exceptional bowler, both technically and mentally. His rise still surprises me a bit, watching his rise through the county circuit and to his recall to the side, at various points throughout his career at county level, it wouldn't have been unfair to have labelled him as a decent county pro, but he's turned in to a world beater.

Where that puts him against the great England spinners, he's certainly up there, and eclipses any of the recent spin bowlers, Croft, Tuffers, Giles, etc.

Though I still feel he hasn't quite fulfilled his potential with the bat at Test level yet and slightly under-performs in that area. Difficult to criticise him beyond that.

 

[War]

Always difficult, if not impossible, to compare players across generations, it's a completely different game now to what it was 15 years ago, let alone 50-60 years ago.

Would disagree with this slightly.

In the last 15 years the only real change the game has had in that we had more flat tracks and weak bowling attacks, which resulted in the rise of flat track bullies.

Over the last 2 years or so with more teams getting better bowling attacks and pitches being less flat, the dynamics between bat and ball has been more even has it was in the mid to late 90s.

In general too over the 60 years (which would be the post WW2 era) i would say the trends and styles of how cricket has been played and what the same:

- Openers since WW2 still require good techniques to be successful. While cunning new-ball bowlers are always a threat.

- Except for back end of the late 1960s early 70s, we have had no more uncovered wickets.

- Helmets after its introduction in Barbados 1978, has been a normality.

- 6 ball overs are now standard, after AUS ceased using 8-ball overs in their home tests.

 

[Sureshot]

So you watched a lot of cricket in the 60s, did you?

 

[War]

So you watched a lot of cricket in the 60s, did you?

Watched a lot of highlights and read many books of games and players since the 1960s and spoke to many erudite cricket aficionados who have viewed many cricket matches in the last 50 years.

Based on that understanding I have gathered in my lifetime from the aforementioned, I formed that conclusion.

 

[sifter132]

Hmm, well I've never been Swann's greatest fan I have to say. Although I'm the first to admit, he did look dangerous vs SL and is obviously a pretty good spinner. I just resist calls to label him as a 'great' when I think he's got some problems.

My personal problems with Swann are as follows: 1) his lack of success vs Australia, not because they are the most important side, but I guess because it's the most I've seen him bowl. I don't consistently watch England's other Tests, just sessions here and there, and 2) his obvious bias to left handers.

For point 1), Nathan Hauritz outbowled Swann through the first 3 Tests in 2009 (Hauritz didn't play the others...), and somehow I can't ever think that Hauritz would have outbowled Jim Laker Even in 2010/11, Swann was obviously better than 2009, but he was merely useful rather than good or great, really only making a contribution in the wickets column once in Adelaide. Otherwise he was just your tidy spinner, which even Monty can manage to do.

As for the issues vs left handers, it's unfair to harp on it I guess, since he really is excellent vs left handers. But I guess it's like Sehwag (1st innings vs 2nd innings or Asia vs non-Asia take your pick ), once you see a gulf in the stats, it's easier to paint it as a weakness rather than a strength. (reference is this story: Swann vs lefties Swann averages 36.67 vs right, 21.05 vs left)

There are other issues too: I think he bowls more loose balls than Laker would have, and I think that is essentially the difference between the 2. Laker (I'm guessing) was much tidier, yet his strike rate isn't far off Swann's. Swann just seems to bowl a short one or a half volley reasonably regularly, certainly more often than a 'great' spinner should IMHO. Of course on the other hand, Swann's strike rate is very good so I guess you have to weigh up his strengths and weaknesses.

Swann also has a poor record vs the better teams ie. his average vs the 'big 3' (aus, ind, SA) is 37.57 vs 21.83 for the rest. SL might be the anomaly there - a little harsh to put them in the lower tier, but they don't have the batting depth the other 3 i mentioned have.

Laker averaged 30 vs WI, but 18 vs Aus, and they were the 2 main rivals England had back then. Laker got to play on uncovered pitches, but I think Swann has probably got to play against weaker batsmen - hard to judge, but I'll claim it anyway

Anyway, you can compare until the cows come home, but I just think until Swann has a really strong series against one of the best teams, then he shouldn't be considered. At the moment his best series would be vs SL and Pak (and Bangladesh), and neither of those teams are challenging for world #1. Other than that his best series would be vs SA 2009, 21 wickets @ 31. Merely a good series, not a great one. Not close to Laker's 46 vs Australia I'm afraid.

 

[Owzat]

Sorry but to compare Swann to Laker has to either be tongue in cheek or laughed at. We've struggled to produce quality spinners for as long as I've followed cricket, Swann is a decent performer but not even remotely in the class of our greats of the past. Of course in the old days you didn't get to play Bangladesh (from 2001?, Zimbabwe (92-05?) and a weak West Indies (post 2000-ish).

England is not the easiest place to learn to bowl or play spin, many many many spinners have done well in county cricket then been found out in Tests. How many years have we sought a quality spinner? To suggest there's no difference between now and even as recently as the 80s and 90s is a joke, sorry but pitches generally are a lot better for batting as s*y and cricket boards want five day Tests and as few 3-4 day finishes as possible - avoids refunds, lost revenue etc

Sorry to throw in offies, lefties etc altogether, pluck just offies if you want, my point isn't to compare offies but spin now and of the past

Laker (48-59) : 193 wkts @ 21.25 (SR 62.32)
R.Illingworth (58-73) : 122 wkts @ 31.20 (SR 96.59)
Gifford (64-73) : 33 wkts @ 31.09 (SR 93.45)
Underwood (66-82) : 297 wkts @ 25.84 (SR 73.61)

Edmonds (75-87) : 125 wkts @ 34.18 (SR 96.22)
Miller (76-84) : 60 wkts @ 30.98 (SR 85.82)
Emburey (78-95) : 147 wkts @ 38.41 (SR 104.70)

Marks (82-84) : 11 wkts @ 44.00 (SR 98.36)
Hemmings (82-91) : 43 wkts @ 42.44 (SR 103.19)
Cook (83-89) : 52 wkts @ 32.48 (SR 80.27)
Childs (1988) : 3 wkts @ 61.00 (SR 172.00)

Tufnell (90-01) : 121 wkts @ 37.69 (SR 93.24)
R.K.Illingworth (91-95) : 19 wkts @ 32.37 (SR 78.16)
Salisbury (92-00) : 20 wkts @ 76.95 (SR 124.60)
M.Patel (96) : 1 wkt @ 180.00 (SR 276.00)
Croft (96-01) : 49 wkts @ 37.24 (SR 94.27)
Watkinson (95-96) : 10 wkts @ 34.80 (SR 67.20)
Such (93-99) : 37 wkts @ 33.57 (SR 84.43)
Dawson (01-03) : 11 wkts @ 61.55 (SR 101.45)
Giles (98-06) : 143 wkts @ 40.60 (SR 85.17)

Schofield (2000) : 0 wkts @ n/a (18-2-73-0)
Batty (03-05) : 11 wkts @ 66.64 (SR 126.73)
Udal (05-06) : 8 wkts @ 43.00 (SR 74.50)
Blackwell (2006) : 0 wkts @ n/a (7-0-28-0 & 12-2-43-0)
Panesar (2006- ) : 142 wkts @ 33.34 (SR 71.62)
Swann (2008- ) : 182 wkts @ 27.97 (SR 56.70)
Tredwell (2010- ) : 6 wkts @ 30.17 (SR 65.00)
S.Patel (2012- ) : 3 wkts @ 40.67 (SR 118.00)

Udal played all four of his Tests in Pakistan and India, didn't fare too well (silly selection at his age) Tredwell played his only Test (to date) in Bangladesh.

BBC SPORT | Cricket | England | Laker's triumph 50 years on

I'd like to paste in the article, but I've been told the BBC and other sites get their knickers in a knot - only forum I've ever been told this, but hey ho.

 

[Owzat]

Laker vs Swann :

Swann (41 Tests) : 182 wkts @ 27.97 (SR 56.70, 13x 5wi, 2x 10wm)
Laker (46 Tests) : 193 wkts @ 21.25 (SR 62.32, 9x 5wi, 3x 10wm)

Five of Swann's 13 five wicket hauls came against Bangladesh and West Indies, as did one of his 10 wicket matches (Bangladesh) Interestingly NINE of Swann's five wicket hauls have come on tour while Laker's figures take a (minor) hit outside England. 48 of Swann's wickets have come against Bangladesh and West Indies.

Laker took quite a hit against West Indies, played 13 of his 46 Tests against them returning 51 wkts @ 30.41 (SR 80.61) Swann on the other hand has played Australia 10 times in his 41 Tests taking 29 wkts @ 40.14 (SR 80.59), and doesn't fare so well against India either with 21 wkts @ 40.24 (SR 69.29)

Swann has however benefitted from playing Pakistan and Sri Lanka at a low ebb, you can tell a Pakistan side is weak if an England spinner takes 22 wkts @ 12.23 in a series.

Two final observations/stats, Swann has taken a five wicket haul against seven of the theoretically possible nine Test opponents, he only needs to play New Zealand and Zimbabwe and surely he will complete the set. Laker on the other hand never took a five wicket haul against India or Pakistan, although he only bowled 32.2 overs against the latter.

Swann has bowled an average of 252 balls per Test played to Laker's 250, or around 42 overs each if you prefer

 

[angryangy]

I'm not sure of the value of any stats if you can contexualise Swann's wickets, but not Laker's.

 

[sifter132]

^On the flip side it's equally hard to compare based on 'peer review' if you like. I mean Laker is painted as a true legend, but is it only because he had that glorious 1956 series which the old timers remember? Then again, in 30 years when we look back at Swann, won't he fall in the cracks behind Murali and Warne's large shadows?

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

^
that basically, Laker's a legend because of a feat achieved in a single match, not to say he didn't put other great performances in from time to time but not with a regularity that puts him well above your average good cricketer, we would not remember him had it not been for that 19 wicket haul, and it's worth noting that it came at 34 at the end of a pretty patchy career where he was in and out the side.

swann's a very good player, his personality is what impresses me most, totally unflappable, and he's certainly one of the best spinners in the world right now, but right now the competition for that mantle isn't as tough as it has been, in the wake of murali and warne this is a bit of a tin age of spin bowling.

I think it's an interesting question though, I don't think it is a ridiculous comparison at all, but perhaps his career is still too much in the balance to really feel comfortable placing him somewhere in an all-time list, if he retired today then no, I'd still have laker above him, but if you want to judge how good he is and assume he'll do quite well against india and south africa this summer, as well as the aussies in a bit then it's pretty likely he'll surpass laker.

 

[angryangy]

Contemporary opponents appreciated Laker's skill and accuracy, but it was readily noted that the MCC would gladly order a pitch to suit he and Tony Lock. It's not that he needed it specifically, but the powers that be would decide if a home series needed it, to the extent that after the 1st Test in 1956, Peter May told Frank Tyson his services would no longer be required. It's well known that Tyson had a short career, but it's amazing how many matches Laker did not play in. In those days it was possible to be very specialised, whereas Swann today could consider it the end of his career when he gets left out of an England side.

That's something that makes them very hard to compare. Another thing is the way the game was played. The 50s was the rock'n'roll era, not the rock'n'roll-form-of-the-game era. It was the antithesis of our current age. It was a good time to be a spinner if you could bowl ball after ball on the spot and find one with the batsman's name on it maybe once in a session. How would a 50s bowler deal with modern batsmen? It's as hard a question to answer as any other sort of comparison.

 

[War]

^
that basically, Laker's a legend because of a feat achieved in a single match, not to say he didn't put other great performances in from time to time but not with a regularity that puts him well above your average good cricketer, we would not remember him had it not been for that 19 wicket haul, and it's worth noting that it came at 34 at the end of a pretty patchy career where he was in and out the side.

swann's a very good player, his personality is what impresses me most, totally unflappable, and he's certainly one of the best spinners in the world right now, but right now the competition for that mantle isn't as tough as it has been, in the wake of murali and warne this is a bit of a tin age of spin bowling.

I think it's an interesting question though, I don't think it is a ridiculous comparison at all, but perhaps his career is still too much in the balance to really feel comfortable placing him somewhere in an all-time list, if he retired today then no, I'd still have laker above him, but if you want to judge how good he is and assume he'll do quite well against india and south africa this summer, as well as the aussies in a bit then it's pretty likely he'll surpass laker.

Ye that would be fair. Doing well vs S Africa, in India this winter and two solid Ashes series performances - then his status as an all-time great England spinner would be secured.

Right now he is probably in the balance @ 70 %.

 

[War]

Just noting in case no-one realized. Swann having played the same amount of tests as Laker now (at the end this current lord's tests) has one wicket less than him at this stage:

Laker: 193 wickets in 46 tests @ 21.24
Swann: 192 wickets in 46 tests @ 29.58

 

[Sureshot]

Swann's strike rate is lower, interestingly.

My opinion still hasn't changed that you can't compare players from different generations with any sort of reasonable outcome.