Contrary to expectations, none of the spinners have looked a serious threat in any of the World Cup matches so far. In fact, most of the decisive bowling has been by the fast men and medium pacers; in yesterday's encounter between New Zealand & England, Bond and Flintoff were the respective best bowlers while none of the 4 spinners, Vettori & Panesar included, looked particularly threatening. In fact, they all went for a few runs in the low-scoring match.

This makes me wonder whether these "low and slow" Caribbean wickets are really going to support spinners like some people imagine that they would. Somehow I doubt it; sure, there are going to be a few spun-out dismissals but by and large I feel that it will be the swingers and seamers that are going to make the difference in this tournament. Which then puts into perspective the supposition that South Africa are at a disadvantage because they lack a quality spinner.

Most wickets in the series so far:

G B Hogg 8 wickets, average of 13, strike rate 16.5
S LMalinga, 7 wickets, average of 10.8, strike rate of 16.3
A.Razzak, 7 wickets, average of 20, strike rate of 20
M Muralitharan, 6 wickets, average of 14, strike rate of 25.67
McGrath, 6 wickets, avg of 18.17, strike rate of 23
M Mortaza, 6 wickets, average of 18.7, strike rate of 23
E Chigumbura, 6 wickets, average of 19.33, strike rate of 22.67
Hall, 6 wickets, average of 20.5, strike rate of 26

3 of the top 4 bowlers in the World Cup are spinners .

I believe the difference between Australia and South Africa was the Bowling of Hogg - South Africa did not have a quality spinner to turn to while Australia could throw the ball to Hogg.

Corrected to show correct player

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Pitches that are slightly "up and down" will normally tend to favour seamers, boundaries so short my two year old could clear them don't exactly help either.........

I must admit the effect of Panesar in the West Indies has been average at best. The odd wicket in a match. Hasn't exactly ripped teams apart.

__________________
Frank Skinner: "You know when Glenn McGrath trod on that cricket ball? Don't you wish it would've been a landmine?"

As were Kumble, Harbhajan Singh and even Vettori have not been very effective. Gayle has hardly bowled. Hogg did come into his own against South Africa, but that's about it.

Murali is a class on his own and will probably trouble batsmen on a glass pitch. He cannot be included in the equation.

I would very much like to see Muralitharan bowl on a glass pitch "Oh the wicket keeper's slipped over"...

But the spinners haven't played a big part as much as a lot of people have said. The wickets have been odd in my opinion.

__________________
Frank Skinner: "You know when Glenn McGrath trod on that cricket ball? Don't you wish it would've been a landmine?"

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Kumble only bowled 9.1 overs in the entire competition, and he took 3 for 38, which is an average of 12.7.

South Africa wasn't the only game Hogg did well in. He has taken the most wickets in the competition (with 8) and is consistently picking up 2-3 wicket hauls. He turns the ball a long way and nobody can pick his wrongin. He's having a party.

Harbhajan Singh is VERY overrated, but they persisted with him over Kumble (who is a brilliant spinner). Vettori isn't exactly an attacking spinner, he's more of a run-container. Gayle has bowled plenty but averages badly.

I believe you're seeing (in this World Cup) just which spinners are World Class attcking spinners and which spinners aren't. It's no coincedence that Kumble, Murali and Hogg are LOVING the conditions, and Vettori, Panesar, Gayle and Singh are doing mediocre. The conditions may suit spinners, but you've got to have class to really take advantage of it.