Spin bowlers December 14, 2009

Slim pickings

A pop star, a freak show, and one who couldn't take time off work. Spin bowlers have been an eccentric and endangered species in South Africa
  shares 49

Time was when a sentence containing the words "South African" and "spin bowler" didn't look as awkward as a pair of hungover one-night standers shocked awake by a bleak dawn. Trouble is, that time was long ago.

Ernie Vogler was, by the measure of many, the world's finest bowler in 1907. And there were three more where he came from on South Africa's tour to England that year - Reggie Schwarz, Aubrey Faulkner and Gordon White. All were legbreak and googly exponents.

Schwarz, a Londoner, learnt the googly from Bernard Bosanquet, the dastardly delivery's self-acknowledged "proud parent", and South Africa became the fulcrum around which spin bowling turned.

Briefly, that is. Schwarz and White were killed in World War I, while Vogler rapidly lost his mojo. His career dwindled to a damp demise in the leagues of England, Scotland and Ireland. Faulkner became a respected coach, but after his retirement he took himself off to London to establish the Faulkner School of Cricket, Ltd. What might have been had these four bowlers of the apocalypse for many batsmen been able to impart their knowledge and experience to succeeding generations?

Instead, South Africans can only imagine a way of cricket in which spinners are scheming wicket-takers feared for their slow poison. Around here, spin is a desperate measure taken only when the quicks lose the plot, or an afterthought before lunch, tea, or the close, or a way to squeeze in an extra over, or what happens to medium-pacers who discover they're really not much good at bowling medium pace.

Containment is the magic word in too much of the cricket played in South Africa. Consequently, most captains don't understand how to deploy spinners, or how to set fields for them.

Groundsmen couldn't give a damn about the blokes who are dealt an unfair hand if the surface does not deteriorate. The public's appetite is for runs hit hard and wickets taken emphatically. Subtlety? That's another way of saying boring, isn't it? Given all that, it is hardly surprising that South African spinners often regard themselves as the kid with the bursary.

So there should be no surprise that those of high quality are as few and far between as fence posts in the Kalahari. In fact, after Vogler and Co, the next big South African spin thing whizzed onto the scene in the 1930s, when Cyril Vincent fought a losing battle with his bosses to be allowed time off to play in the Currie Cup. Then, in the 1950s, came Hugh Tayfield. Another decade or so later, Alan Kourie and Denys Hobson arrived, and after them came Paul Adams. Tayfield and Kourie were orthodox and understated, while Hobson, who retired in the summer of 1984-85, was the last legspinner of genuine ability that South Africa have produced.

That Adams, a blinking neon advertisement for the lunatic fringe of what might constitute bowling, was able to survive his first formal coaching session, not to mention carve out an international career in a mentally laagered society like South Africa's deserves to be toasted at every opportunity. Still, there aren't many others to drink to. We present the contenders for our South African all-time XI.

Hugh Tayfield
His career marked the last time a South African spinner was considered as valuable to the cause as any fast bowler. An efficient reaper of wickets. Good-looking and debonair, a pop star before pop existed.

Paul Adams
Wild thing, he made South African hearts sing. Orthodoxy went out of the window when he twisted himself into his bizarre action. But the ball tended to pitch on target and turn sharply.

Cyril Vincent
Played just two Currie Cup matches, due to work commitments, in a first-class career that spanned 22 seasons. Was nonetheless selected for 25 Tests. An immaculate left-arm spinner who could bowl all day and knew how to hold a bat.

We'll be publishing an all-time South Africa XI based on readers' votes to go with our jury's XI. To pick your spin bowler click here

Telford Vice made his Test debut as a cricket writer in Barbados in 1992 - the match that marked the end of South Africa's isolation

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Ruan_Pieters on | December 16, 2009, 21:04 GMT

    This is easy to make in some areas. 1. Barry Richards 2. Bruce Mitchell 3. Jacques Kallis 4. Darryl Cullinan 5. Graeme Polluck 6. Mike Procter 7. Mark Boucher 8. Hugh Tayfield 9. Shaun Pollock 10. Peter Pollock 11. Allan Donald 12th Man J. Rhodes or H. Gibbs

  • POSTED BY rson on | December 16, 2009, 14:31 GMT

    Clearly Tayfield.Although his strike rate was only ordinary,his economy rate was excellent and the fact that he had so many five wicket hauls in a short career indicates he was something more than just a containing bowler.

  • POSTED BY gitacarya on | December 16, 2009, 6:04 GMT

    After all reading about him, who else except Tayfield? Ta(ke)y and Field him in the eleven

    :-)

  • POSTED BY Engle on | December 15, 2009, 3:39 GMT

    Tayfield takes it. Cricinfo has it right. There must be variety as these AT XI's are to be competing in as much varied situations as possible. These are to be battles in our imagination against all teams, eras, wickets, conditions, hot weather, humid....you name it. Tayfield and Faulkner, a very decent spinning combo to give the pacers a breather and the captain some options.

  • POSTED BY trini_indian on | December 15, 2009, 0:34 GMT

    What about Robin Peterson??

  • POSTED BY waspsting on | December 14, 2009, 23:50 GMT

    @shwa - i agree with you about the role of the spinner as a stock bowler, but the point is (and Xolile was getting at this, too) - would you really need the extra bowling capacity to bowl, if your pace bowlers were all A-class? Murali and Warne are exceptional in that they were PENETRATIVE almost at any time. virtually every other spin bowler in history needed conditions to be just so before they moved from 'deserving respect' to 'lethal'. Tayfield's case is easier - as a bowler who didn't turn the ball much - I don't see how he could have been penetrative at all! - that he was (even given his high strike rate) makes me think I've missed something. I can't imagine a spinner who didn't turn much but was very accurate and pitched it up tempting the drive being too threatening. I'd have loved to have seen him and make up my mind about it - as I would Bedsar and Tate (medium paced strike bowlers), and Barnes and Lohman (their figures defy modern watachers analysis)

  • POSTED BY tests2stay on | December 14, 2009, 23:47 GMT

    Why would you even pick a spinner in an all time SA XI. It is almost criminal to leave out the quality of allrounder to make way for the spinner. If the numbers of positions were not limited would a spinner even get consideration Spin has not been SA's strength pace and quality allrounders has so i say go with your stength.

  • POSTED BY rickys on | December 14, 2009, 22:53 GMT

    Paul Admas was Ok, once batsmen got used to his unusual style he was not much of a problem. And the other 2 bowlers, I am not sure. I guess judges should have added pat symcox also. he was a very clever bowler and a good batsman too (played superbly against shoaib and waqar)

  • POSTED BY 2plus on | December 14, 2009, 16:57 GMT

    What about xen Balaskas. Short but not uninteresting career. Was the cause of our first victory in England (only victory of the series) and gave the ausies some strife too. 22 wickets in 9 tests before the wars.

  • POSTED BY WJStryder on | December 14, 2009, 16:38 GMT

    tayfield was definitely SA's best spinner, although Dennis Hobson may have been there if he had any international exposure.

  • POSTED BY Ruan_Pieters on | December 16, 2009, 21:04 GMT

    This is easy to make in some areas. 1. Barry Richards 2. Bruce Mitchell 3. Jacques Kallis 4. Darryl Cullinan 5. Graeme Polluck 6. Mike Procter 7. Mark Boucher 8. Hugh Tayfield 9. Shaun Pollock 10. Peter Pollock 11. Allan Donald 12th Man J. Rhodes or H. Gibbs

  • POSTED BY rson on | December 16, 2009, 14:31 GMT

    Clearly Tayfield.Although his strike rate was only ordinary,his economy rate was excellent and the fact that he had so many five wicket hauls in a short career indicates he was something more than just a containing bowler.

  • POSTED BY gitacarya on | December 16, 2009, 6:04 GMT

    After all reading about him, who else except Tayfield? Ta(ke)y and Field him in the eleven

    :-)

  • POSTED BY Engle on | December 15, 2009, 3:39 GMT

    Tayfield takes it. Cricinfo has it right. There must be variety as these AT XI's are to be competing in as much varied situations as possible. These are to be battles in our imagination against all teams, eras, wickets, conditions, hot weather, humid....you name it. Tayfield and Faulkner, a very decent spinning combo to give the pacers a breather and the captain some options.

  • POSTED BY trini_indian on | December 15, 2009, 0:34 GMT

    What about Robin Peterson??

  • POSTED BY waspsting on | December 14, 2009, 23:50 GMT

    @shwa - i agree with you about the role of the spinner as a stock bowler, but the point is (and Xolile was getting at this, too) - would you really need the extra bowling capacity to bowl, if your pace bowlers were all A-class? Murali and Warne are exceptional in that they were PENETRATIVE almost at any time. virtually every other spin bowler in history needed conditions to be just so before they moved from 'deserving respect' to 'lethal'. Tayfield's case is easier - as a bowler who didn't turn the ball much - I don't see how he could have been penetrative at all! - that he was (even given his high strike rate) makes me think I've missed something. I can't imagine a spinner who didn't turn much but was very accurate and pitched it up tempting the drive being too threatening. I'd have loved to have seen him and make up my mind about it - as I would Bedsar and Tate (medium paced strike bowlers), and Barnes and Lohman (their figures defy modern watachers analysis)

  • POSTED BY tests2stay on | December 14, 2009, 23:47 GMT

    Why would you even pick a spinner in an all time SA XI. It is almost criminal to leave out the quality of allrounder to make way for the spinner. If the numbers of positions were not limited would a spinner even get consideration Spin has not been SA's strength pace and quality allrounders has so i say go with your stength.

  • POSTED BY rickys on | December 14, 2009, 22:53 GMT

    Paul Admas was Ok, once batsmen got used to his unusual style he was not much of a problem. And the other 2 bowlers, I am not sure. I guess judges should have added pat symcox also. he was a very clever bowler and a good batsman too (played superbly against shoaib and waqar)

  • POSTED BY 2plus on | December 14, 2009, 16:57 GMT

    What about xen Balaskas. Short but not uninteresting career. Was the cause of our first victory in England (only victory of the series) and gave the ausies some strife too. 22 wickets in 9 tests before the wars.

  • POSTED BY WJStryder on | December 14, 2009, 16:38 GMT

    tayfield was definitely SA's best spinner, although Dennis Hobson may have been there if he had any international exposure.

  • POSTED BY frankly on | December 14, 2009, 16:37 GMT

    The Best SA XI becomes almost an impossible challenge as one could pick a "Second Best XI" which would be just as good ! My Best SA 11 would be 1. B Richards 2. E Barlow 3. A Bacher (c) 4. RG Pollock 5. J Kallis 6. AB de Villiers (wk) 7. M Procter 8. C Rice 9. S Pollock 10. A Donald 11. H Tayfield 12th Man J Rhodes. In my opinion and unbeatable dream team!

  • POSTED BY historyman40 on | December 14, 2009, 16:18 GMT

    What about Tufty Mann ? When I saw him in 1951 he was the model of control and consistency. Beautiful to watch. Sadly died shortly afterwards at age 30.

  • POSTED BY shwa on | December 14, 2009, 15:18 GMT

    Now obviously out of this list Tayfield is the best. However although I understand the thought in having an all out pace attack with faulkner as the spinner, especially considering how good a spinner faulkner was. If this was my team tayfield would still be there, Why? because a spinner unlike a fast bowler plays a different role in a team, their job is to be able to bowl twice, maybe three times as many overs as other bowlers while still taking wickets, this is shown in them being the leading wicket takers of all time. It can then be expected that there averages are a little higher than that of pace bowlers. Now if you exclude Murili from the mix, no other great spinner lasted their whole careers with an average below 25. Now to show you just how good Tayfield was, his average was 25.91, and although I know he played far more tests, the man considered the greatest bowler of all time, Shane Warne had an average of 25.41, so think about that before leaving Hugh Tayfield out of you team.

  • POSTED BY NALINWIJ on | December 14, 2009, 15:11 GMT

    with the plethora of allrounders one has to be flexible and cover all the bases. I feel this team can do it. 1.Barry Richards 2.Eddie Barlowe 3.Graeme Pollock 4.Jacques Kallis 5.Aubrey Faulkener 6.Mike Proctor 7.Mark Boucher 8.Shaun Pollock 9.Dale Steyn 10. Hugh Tayfield 11.Allan Donald 12.Trevor Goddard. This team has pace bowling , seamers, offspin and leg spin and batting depth.

  • POSTED BY waspsting on | December 14, 2009, 15:03 GMT

    Also, something to be said for just skipping the spinner and taking another fast bowler - especially if Faulkner (and Richards and Procter) are in the side. the big advantage of the spinner is when the pitch is turning, they're more penetrative than the fast bowlers. but Tayfield - much the obvious candidate of this lot - wasn't particularly more effective in such conditions (he didn't turn the ball much) - unlike say Gibbs, Chandrasheker, Laker etc. Gibbs was a fine bowler, but I certainly wouldn't include him in an all time west indies 11 ahead of a fourth fast bowler. Tayfield... might suffer the same fate if we were choosing freely. He held the South African bowling together for a long time... but I don't think he would have been needed to do so had they had a battery of class fast bowlers, as the all time team undoubtedly will. all thats moot for this piece though, since we have to choose a spinner - its definately Tayfield.

  • POSTED BY waspsting on | December 14, 2009, 14:58 GMT

    of course, its Tayfield. I don't really understand his success, and would love to have seen him bowl. accounts say he had great accuracy, flighted the ball and pitched it up tempting the drive, bowled from very close to the stumps (!), and hardly turned the ball at all. I don't see how that could have made him anything other than a containment bowler - but he took lots of wickets (though his strike rate was high). Neil Harvey rated him very highly - and Harvey's one of the best players of spin ever. Tom Graveney did NOT - said Athol Rowan - big spinner, but not as accurate - was much more dangerous. Rowan should have gotten a mention - he was expensive and had a high average, but had a lot of success against players like Len Hutton and Compton. still, on figures, Tayfield has to be considered the better bowler.

  • POSTED BY Curlybrownitem on | December 14, 2009, 14:20 GMT

    From these three, easy - Tayfield. Given free choice, my XI would be: Richards; Barlow (capt); Bland; G Pollock; Nourse; Procter (vice-captain); Faulkner; Lindsay (Lindsay at eight? - Ouch!); S Pollock; Van der Bijl, Donald. Of these, Richards, G Pollock and Procter have, in my view, no serious rival. Hardest to omit - undoubtedly Kallis, followed by Cook, Mitchell, Goddard, Rice and Tayfield. Why no Kallis? In this side, whose four quicks would rival any the WI ever put out, and with Barlow already there as a fifth seamer, he'd rarely need to bowl, so he's competing with Bland as a batsman. As I find it so hard to split them as batsmen, Bland's fielding shades it.

  • POSTED BY Alan James Sanders on | December 14, 2009, 14:04 GMT

    @ Xolile, yes, true, his overall strike rate isn't as good as it could be, but all stats can be looked at differently. Take away his final year and his strike rate is in the mid sixties, and because they didn't play as much then as they do now a bad year or season can have an exaggerated impact on any career figures. Which suggests to me that Tayfield had many good years and one especially bad one, and should that one bad one outweight years of consistent performances?

  • POSTED BY shak01 on | December 14, 2009, 13:59 GMT

    adams all the way just purely for his action...I can't stop laughing everytime I see it!

  • POSTED BY fatttmann on | December 14, 2009, 12:47 GMT

    Guys this survey misses the mark by a bit. Many players would make it in 2 or 3 catagories Best SA team cannot be made up from that list the way it is set up In my opinion the team should read 01 Richards 02 McGlew/Kirsten 03 Bunter 04 Kallis 05 Pollock G 06 Proctor 07 Lindsay 08 Pollock S 09 Faulkner 10 Tayfield 11 Donald 12 Goddard

    Captain can be either McGlew or Proctor This side would take a lot of beating

  • POSTED BY BellCurve on | December 14, 2009, 11:00 GMT

    @ Sanders - The downside is strike rate. Tayfield used to bowl around 400 balls per match. That's why he picked up 4.7 wickets per Test. His strike rate was abysmal. Including him ahead of Pollock or Ntini would be criminal.

  • POSTED BY Alan James Sanders on | December 14, 2009, 10:21 GMT

    I wonder how many people are aware of how good Tayfield really was? He's described in his Cricinfo profile as "one of the most successful bowlers ever produced by South Africa and one of the greatest off-spinners the game has seen." That certainly fits in with what I know of him (even though he was well before my time). Look at his record. 170 wickets from 37. That's 4.6 a Test, which is about the same as Allan Donald. An average of 25 is excellent for any bowler, especially an offspinner. And he has the best innings figures by any South Afircan- 9-113. If this is South Africa's Greatest XI, then he should get in as its greatest spinner. And while some may advocate going in with all pace- well, shouldn't this team be one that could dominate in all conditions, including those that could assist the spin bowlers? And if you can pick a team which has a second spinner in Faulkener, and a fourth seamer in Kallis, which misses nothing in the batting, where's the downside?

  • POSTED BY sbbioman74 on | December 14, 2009, 10:09 GMT

    the jury is missing the sense. SA''s strengths are allrounders and pacers. so, why the hell you do not include faulkner as a spinner all rounder? i will pick this team: 1.Barry Richards 2.Graeme Smith 3.J Kallis 4.Graeme Pollock 5.Dudley Nourse 6.Mike Procter 7.Trevor Goddard 8.Aubrey Faulkner 9.Mark Boucher10.Shaun Polock 11.Allan Donald. look at the balance in the team!! two right arm fast bowlers-donald,proctor-two right arm medium pacers-shaun, kallis-one left arm seamer-goddard-one quality spinner-faulkner. no 10 in this line up is a genuine all rounder. just put up a team with given options better balanced in bowling than this!!! i challenge. the batsmen list might vary. the short of options jury has given to choose players is hilarious!to get to all time XI,people should get an extra option too: the number in of players chosen for each slot (other than openers) should have at least 2 options in each category!! e.g., 2 allrounders or 3? then the public opinion will matter more!!

  • POSTED BY Philip_Gnana on | December 14, 2009, 9:36 GMT

    Paul Adams' introduction to test cricket, was viewed with "wonderment". It made cricket a bit more interesting at that time. I wonder how his strange action would have been interpreted if Adams had been taking a haul of wickets...I have a gut feeling he would have been called as pressure would have been put on officials from a certain part of the world. It is a shame that Adams did not prosperwith his spin bowling. SA could have done with a good regular spinner. Philip Gnana, New Malden, Surrey

  • POSTED BY bestbuddy on | December 14, 2009, 9:21 GMT

    Well, if we have to pick one then Tayfield hands down - but then why would we want to? Our best teams haven't had good spinners - Harris/Symcox/Boje are medicre at best when compared to Muri, Harbajan and Warne, and these are just the guys to have played in the last decade! This is supposed to be our greatest XI, and our greatest XI would need have (or indeed need) a spinner...

  • POSTED BY Jeremiser on | December 14, 2009, 9:16 GMT

    Tayfield is my pick. I think guys pushing for Boje, Symcox or even Adams are a bit delusional (no offense). It's laughable really. South Africa has been weak when it comes to spinners since reintroduction and I dont think that we should reward mediocrity.

  • POSTED BY D.V.C. on | December 14, 2009, 8:57 GMT

    Why the hell is Vogler not on the list!? You've just told us he was considered the best bowler in the world at one time. He played 15 Tests and took 64 wickets. You've only thrown up 3 other choices. So, what gives? Was it too long ago? I thought this was an ALL TIME XI.

  • POSTED BY AHappyMind on | December 14, 2009, 8:48 GMT

    Why are people surprised that Symcox wasnt chosen? Do you people know him test bowling average? 37 wickets at 43.32!!!!

    I mean hes a great guy and a good cricketer cos he could bat well but as a spinner, he was average! Adams was far far ahead as a bolwer!

  • POSTED BY Vikram_Maingi on | December 14, 2009, 8:45 GMT

    Amongst the three, the choice is not difficult at all. Hugh Tayfield is certainly better than Adams and Vincent.

  • POSTED BY BellCurve on | December 14, 2009, 8:25 GMT

    Right arm fast. The best attack of all-time relied entirely on right arm fast bowlers. That proves that both spin and variety are overrated. Would you pick Kumble if you could have Holding or Ambrose? Would you pick Tayfield if you could have Pollock or Ntini? There is no such thing as too much right arm fast. SA doesn't have a spinner. Why weaken the side for the sake of conformity? That's just plain stupid. I fear that Shaun Pollock is not going to make the side. He should be added to the list of spinners on the basis of his excellent off cutters.

  • POSTED BY wicked_soul on | December 14, 2009, 8:19 GMT

    wow...no Ernie Vogler?...seriously? They mention hes one of the best yet they don't pick him. And why isn't Faulkner there?This seriously makes no sense

  • POSTED BY BoundryWarrior on | December 14, 2009, 7:50 GMT

    if these are the only choices. (and perhaps there are some fine bowlers who have been excluded, Symcox being one) then I am in favour of a side without a spinner.Go with all out pace, I say. If you are going to lump any of these bowlers in with the greats that we have seen in the rest of the side, let's go without one...

  • POSTED BY MaraudingJ on | December 14, 2009, 7:50 GMT

    Regarding Nicky Boje, I'd just like to remind everyone -- again -- that this is an all-time TEST XI. ODI performances are completely irrelevant.

  • POSTED BY Shreyas_Sinkar on | December 14, 2009, 7:26 GMT

    I think Nicky Boje should have been included in the list.He had a pretty descent record in both forms of the game and was a useful lower order batsman with couple of centuries in ODIs

  • POSTED BY klempie on | December 14, 2009, 7:26 GMT

    Tayfield without a doubt but how come Harro isn't there? He's played half the number of Tests as Adams with marginally superior economy and average and marginally inferior strike rate. Symmo should also be getting a look in.

  • POSTED BY MaraudingJ on | December 14, 2009, 7:07 GMT

    Symcox? Really? Sometimes I wonder if people have any clue whatsoever... Although I think Faulkner should suffice as spinner if he gets picked, there is absolutely no competition in South African Test history for the most outstanding specialist spinner. It's Tayfield by a mile and then some.

  • POSTED BY Nipuna001 on | December 14, 2009, 6:50 GMT

    How about Paul harris? I think he iss as good as any Soth African Spinner, defineatly i;d rate him higher than Adams or Symcox! (In the world stage he may be not excepational, but then agian SA never had a Warnie or a murlai)

  • POSTED BY rjb910 on | December 14, 2009, 6:11 GMT

    Pat Symcox is far better a choice compared to Paul Adams.

  • POSTED BY Clan_McLachlan on | December 14, 2009, 5:58 GMT

    Gotta be Adams, you can't not pick Test crickets best ever left arm wrist spinner. His strike rate is better than the other two, despite bowling on modern pitches instead of uncovered ones. In a team as packed with all-rounders as this one is going to be, you can afford the luxury of an all-out attacking wicket-taking spinner.

  • POSTED BY liton10 on | December 14, 2009, 5:51 GMT

    Are they lunatics? If Pollack can be picked for both all rounders and bowlers category what about Faulkner? And what about kallis not listed in All rounders category? I am surprised not to see Simcox in the list and feel Paul Harris is also a strong contender for the post. If you want to keep a spinner in the team, my choice us Faulkner. No more spinner needed from this list. If Faulkner is selected in all rounders category, I cant imagine All time South Africa team playing with 2 specialist spinners where the world is really jealous about their fast and furious pace batteries.

  • POSTED BY JogeshPanda on | December 14, 2009, 5:49 GMT

    Really proteas all time XI need a spinner, if needed then it should be Tayfield. Surprised to see Paul Adams name ahead of pat symcox. I think he was still a spinner of a decent class in an era of warnie and kumble.

  • POSTED BY CricFan78 on | December 14, 2009, 5:13 GMT

    Doesnt even require a vote. Tayfield off course

  • POSTED BY Alan James Sanders on | December 14, 2009, 5:07 GMT

    Tayfield's the only one who could be called "great" on this list, and presumably Faulkener got picked as an allrounder.

  • POSTED BY fakhy on | December 14, 2009, 4:05 GMT

    pretty thin selection indeed. i was surprised that nicky boje and pat symcox wasnt in the list (i thought that they were better than paul adams) , and then a peek at their records showed that they played less tests adn took less wkts than paul adams!(yes i was a bit surprised). just goes to show how much spinners mean to SA - i think they should prolly do without a spinner in the all time SA-11, cos they wld prolly rather have an extra fast bowler than a spinner

  • POSTED BY ashishkumar36 on | December 14, 2009, 3:57 GMT

    Hugh Taffield, for sure....He was spin legend in South Africa.

  • POSTED BY sbbioman74 on | December 14, 2009, 3:50 GMT

    i think Faulkner should have been there too. he was there in the all rounders list. he was a fantastic spinner. he, as an all rounder, would have added much more value. paul adams was very very talented. but, he required more endurance. by the way, why isn't symcox listed? might not be picked, but worth mentioning. the choices provided, i have to go with Hugh Tayfield. easy.

  • POSTED BY manasvi_lingam on | December 14, 2009, 3:24 GMT

    I am quite disappointed with the choices available. Even though Vogler faded out quickly, when he was good, he was very, very good. And Faulkner had a better record than Cyril Vincent and Paul Adams both in terms of average and S.R. They ought to have been in this list along with Kourie. Amongst these three, the choice is too easy. It'll have to be Tayfield.

  • POSTED BY peeeeet on | December 14, 2009, 3:22 GMT

    This is really a no brainer - Tayfield hands down. His record speaks for himself. Vincent seems like he was handy,and well for the pure fact of humour it would be great to pick the frog in a blender, but really, those guys average over 30 and in an all-time team, you can't have a bowling attack with guys that hav that sort of average. Would have liked to have heard guys like Symcox and Boje get a mention in the article somewhere though

  • POSTED BY redneck on | December 14, 2009, 3:20 GMT

    come on tip snooke's got better stats than the fron in the blender or cyril vincent! not sure if matting was more help or hinder for spinners though?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY redneck on | December 14, 2009, 3:20 GMT

    come on tip snooke's got better stats than the fron in the blender or cyril vincent! not sure if matting was more help or hinder for spinners though?

  • POSTED BY peeeeet on | December 14, 2009, 3:22 GMT

    This is really a no brainer - Tayfield hands down. His record speaks for himself. Vincent seems like he was handy,and well for the pure fact of humour it would be great to pick the frog in a blender, but really, those guys average over 30 and in an all-time team, you can't have a bowling attack with guys that hav that sort of average. Would have liked to have heard guys like Symcox and Boje get a mention in the article somewhere though

  • POSTED BY manasvi_lingam on | December 14, 2009, 3:24 GMT

    I am quite disappointed with the choices available. Even though Vogler faded out quickly, when he was good, he was very, very good. And Faulkner had a better record than Cyril Vincent and Paul Adams both in terms of average and S.R. They ought to have been in this list along with Kourie. Amongst these three, the choice is too easy. It'll have to be Tayfield.

  • POSTED BY sbbioman74 on | December 14, 2009, 3:50 GMT

    i think Faulkner should have been there too. he was there in the all rounders list. he was a fantastic spinner. he, as an all rounder, would have added much more value. paul adams was very very talented. but, he required more endurance. by the way, why isn't symcox listed? might not be picked, but worth mentioning. the choices provided, i have to go with Hugh Tayfield. easy.

  • POSTED BY ashishkumar36 on | December 14, 2009, 3:57 GMT

    Hugh Taffield, for sure....He was spin legend in South Africa.

  • POSTED BY fakhy on | December 14, 2009, 4:05 GMT

    pretty thin selection indeed. i was surprised that nicky boje and pat symcox wasnt in the list (i thought that they were better than paul adams) , and then a peek at their records showed that they played less tests adn took less wkts than paul adams!(yes i was a bit surprised). just goes to show how much spinners mean to SA - i think they should prolly do without a spinner in the all time SA-11, cos they wld prolly rather have an extra fast bowler than a spinner

  • POSTED BY Alan James Sanders on | December 14, 2009, 5:07 GMT

    Tayfield's the only one who could be called "great" on this list, and presumably Faulkener got picked as an allrounder.

  • POSTED BY CricFan78 on | December 14, 2009, 5:13 GMT

    Doesnt even require a vote. Tayfield off course

  • POSTED BY JogeshPanda on | December 14, 2009, 5:49 GMT

    Really proteas all time XI need a spinner, if needed then it should be Tayfield. Surprised to see Paul Adams name ahead of pat symcox. I think he was still a spinner of a decent class in an era of warnie and kumble.

  • POSTED BY liton10 on | December 14, 2009, 5:51 GMT

    Are they lunatics? If Pollack can be picked for both all rounders and bowlers category what about Faulkner? And what about kallis not listed in All rounders category? I am surprised not to see Simcox in the list and feel Paul Harris is also a strong contender for the post. If you want to keep a spinner in the team, my choice us Faulkner. No more spinner needed from this list. If Faulkner is selected in all rounders category, I cant imagine All time South Africa team playing with 2 specialist spinners where the world is really jealous about their fast and furious pace batteries.