More use of spinbowlers necessary

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33455, 9 February 1974, Page 46

More use of spinbowlers necessary

/ D. ]. CAMEROXi AUCKLAND. rhe cry will soon arise in New Zealand cricket, reinforced by the experiences of the New Zealanders during their recent tour of Australia. that New Zealand must develop top-class . spin-bowlers if they are to compete on reasonably level terms i in international cricket.

There might also be a | similarly urgent—if | muted—plea (hat if spinners are selected for New Zealand they cannot develop if they are not used. As a corollary, there could also be rhe view that, spinIners should not be picked for Now Zealand teams if I they are not going to be [used consistently. I The arguments about the I development—and encourlagement—of spinners in ‘New Zealand cricket have Igone on and on over the last [generation. and there was [little evidence during the Australian tour that ihe argument was anv closer to solution. New Zealand took two first-line spinners— D R. O’Sullivan, the left-armor, and G. D. Alabaster, the offspinner— to Australia, and with the thought that M. J. F. Shrimpton’s leg-spinners could he a useful thirdstring. During the tour O'Sullivan bowled 161 overs in 10 firstclass innings, and 35 of those in the second innings of the last test. Alabaster bowled 79 overs in six inti i n g s and onl y once—against western Australia—bowled more than 20 overs in an innings.

LITTLE CHANCE [ On this basis O’Sullivan was used reasonably well, but Alabaster was hardly given the chance to either prove his ability or to just i f y his selection. O’Sullivan’s 14 wickets cost 41.7 and Alabaster’s nine icost 32.4. ! Statistics are not always [the most accurate guide, but. they do indicate that Alabaster could have been used more frequently and —as a personal viewpoint—he should never have been left out of the third test side when there was every promise that the Adelaide Oval pitch would help spin more than speed. It became obvious that the tour selectors were not convinced that Alabaster would be either economical, or effective, against hard-hit-ting Australian batsmen. There may be some grounds for this’ belief, because among the Sheffield Shield [sides A. A. Mallett, of South .'Australia, is the only offispinner who sucj ceeds—mostly on his home i pitch in Adelaide. ' But the vexing question is [how will New Zealand develop international-class spinners if they are not bowled against internationalclass batsmen? 1 feel that Alabaster’s powers were underestimated. He has played a lot of cricket, and over the years has built up the kind of experience that, can counter, or at least diminish, the effect of an all-out assault by r. batsman. Alabaster might have been overlooked had O’Sullivan been in commanding form. This, sadly, was not always the case, and there were times when O’Sullivan’s entry in to the attack had to| be timed judiciously. MAJOR PROBLEM But these arguments overlook the major problem: that until New Zealand can develop and encourage topclass finger or wrist-spinners they will continue to have an unbalanced attack which cannot finish off whatever breakthrough the seamers have achieved.

I The faster bowling fore-h cast is, happily enough,!; j rather more encouraging. D. ■ |R. Hadlee bowled splendidly!: throughout the tour; full of] aggression when circum-li [stances permitted, tight and! ! | accurate when conditions!; suited the batsmen. And'‘every now and then he could : .[let slip a ball as fast as any!; i his younger brother. R. J. j. [Hadlee, could produce. ■I R. J. Hadlee continued his!' i[promising progress. During[ >|the second test, for example.' :!he seemed to find out that! ;|the more effort he put into! ■ [his bowling the better the: result. Even when conditions! J were not so helpful he always [ [looked likely to get an early [ i i wicket. ! Yet he needed encourage-' iment, either from the pitch 1 ■'or the field, and R. J. Hadlee] [had the ill-luck to haver ■ rather too many catches! dropped from his bowling. [ ■ Given the spur of good L catching he was as fast and ' furious as anyone in Aus- i . tralia. , Sometimes, and with little; wonder, he. must have de-!< ’ spaired—as in the first test? when he had K. R. Stackpole!! ' dropped three times—that! • anything special he put into’ 1 a delivery would bring the) (appropriate reward. B. Andrews and B. L. . Cairns, the other seamers, ; , were less than predictable.! ■ Andrews had his big moment] • in the second test when he ■ removed A. P. Sheahan and]

IG. S. Chappell tn one overland these were to become his [only test victims in three inn lings. ! He bowled his mswmge.s lenthusiastically, if not al [ways with complete control, and perhaps it was this fail [ing—and the conceding <■' 'five runs an over—which 'allowed him only 70 overs [on the tour. | Cairns bowled twice as many overs and took 20 Iwickets, a very useful strik ling tate for a bowler learn ling the ropes. With his tin orthodox and high action ICaims was liable to get a [little more movement and lift [than the others. With his modest speed and 'windmill action Cairns did mot always look the most [dangerous of bowlers, and | sometimes he profited when some super-assertive Australian batsman charged too [recklessly into attack. TIGHT LENGTH 1 Yet Cairns kept on picking lup regular, if small, packets [of wickets, and if lie has the [wit to learn from his first big [experience — especially the [need to bowl a tight length—[he could take many mere iwickets in the future. So far New Zealand could [take some heart from the [efforts of their faster bowlers in Australia, but all the [medium-fast strength in the jworld will mean little if New Zealand cannot find, or encourage, spinners to suppoit [them.