Pretty much dead and buried. Since pitches were covered the off spinner has pretty much become a peripheral figure in the game. Underwood was unplayble on a drying surface (I recently saw the farce that was the Pakistan test match in 1974 when rained seaped under the covers) but on a really good dry pitch (in Australia, v WI in 1976) he was pretty mediocre.

Only expect the off spinner to get rewards in Mumbai dustbowls and if they throw the ball.

I accept that finger-spinners of all descriptions have found life tougher on covered wickets... and that modern pitches now last so well that there is basically no such thing as the old 4th / 5th day pitch.... but what I don't see is just how this is different for an off-spinner and for an orthodox SLA merchant like Giles. If the difference is the footmarks created by right arm over seamers then I can see some sense in the argument.. but surely pitches are otherwise the same for ALL finger-spinners!


ps. I'm not sure SLA spinners have a much greater record than off spinners at most Australian grounds: as I understand it, England's selectors wondered about taking ANY finger spinner to Australia even back in the days when they had a few to choose from.

pps. I'd also contend that whilst finger-spinners rarely get the conditions to dominate Test batting... they are far from peripheral if they can bottle up one end and allow the captain to rotate strikers the other end (and get the side through to the new ball, and get through the overs quickly enough to allow seamers and captains to **** around all day long).

It is well documented that Giles only features when bowling over the wicket into the rough (as you've highlighted) and against left handers. He is really pretty mediocre at best at test cricket. For one, he should be bowling around the wicket - the footmarks are the reason he doesn't so the pitch is as much a problem for him as any RH off spinner. Now of course, there might be the odd exception who comes along once in every ten years (maybe Panesar, I don't know) just like a batsman comes along who can play the late cut.

And if, blocking up an end is the 'art of off-spinning' then it is well and truly dead. Ern is right.

Well... Vic Marks has finally had a bit to say on this matter:See http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport...940025,00.html

Well it goes to prove I am right.

The only two off spin bowlers mentioned there were Embury and Dusty Miller, I watched these bowlers and they are a class appart from off spinners at the moment - or are they, I still think the batsmen have worked them out, vunerable to the reverse sweep as Botham invented (I think) and played with ease, try doing that with a leggie or a SLA.

The article then gives us a greater list of SLA bowlers who took a few - Tuffers - Edmunds - and Underwood.

Australia don't produce SLA bowlers, Bright being the exception, they produce Leggies which England can't.

Oh and Giles has had a few in Austraia.

But more than that - it goes to prove that I am right on what I say on other threads - England don't have good enough spin bowlers to play two in the same match, Vic Marks must be saying that - because England have banked on SLA bowlers in Australia 2006.

Vic Mark's as I remember never broke no eggs in any case, Eddie Hemmings and I suppose Croft where at least passable, we have not got any offies of even their class, let alone Embury.

__________________
Ern

When one of the greatest weapons in your armoury is the straight ball at 90-100 kph, I think you are pretty well shot at higher grade level unless your big gun is a specialised grubber bowled half track on a bouncy pitch.