Sunny Ramadhin’s demise has brought the focus back on cricket’s mystery spinner. Some batsmen think that since all spinners are a mystery, this adjective is unnecessary. Ramadhin could turn the ball in any direction without any apparent change in action, often fooling wicketkeeper Clyde Walcott who was almost a foot tall.
In the 1950s, England stumbled upon two mystery spinners in consecutive series and lost both. Ramadhin claimed 26 wickets as the West Indies recorded their first ever 3–1 victory in England. The confused batsman then clashed with Jack Iverson in Australia and lost that series 4–1, with Iverson taking 21 wickets.
Iverson, in the words of his biographer Gideon Haigh, “was not a wrist spinner, as the wrist provided no leverage. He was not a finger spinner, as the middle finger provided propulsion, not rotation. spinner, as it was his undersung thumb that was actually the basis of the delivery…” Iverson perfected his craft using a ping pong ball held between the thumb and middle finger.
The experiment was done by Bosanquet, the inventor of the googly. twisty twisty’, A pastime where you try to swing a tennis ball at your opponent sitting at the other end of the table. The ball was spinning in the wrong direction because of his action.
… until the secret is revealed
Every bowler is a mystery till the batsmen discover his secret. Even the man credited with inventing the off-break – an 18th-century farmer named Lambourn in the days of under-arm bowling, where it was natural to turn from leg to off – initially Must have been a mystery bowler.
Ramadhin’s career (he claimed 158 wickets in 43 Tests) threw his pads at everything Colin Cowdrey and Peter May combined to save a Test 411 and he bowled plenty of 98 overs.
The leg before law was then changed to include deliveries outside the off stump in which no stroke was awarded. But Ramadhin was through, and though he played on for three years, the secret was out, or at least a counter was worked out.
Iverson’s discovery was accelerated by his own countrymen in a Shield match when Arthur Morris and Keith Miller discovered that a high pitched ball was a top spinner while a ball with a low trajectory was a false ‘un’. Morris scored 182 in quick time, Miller scored 83 and showed Iverson how to play. Ignore his hand, fling it in the air.
closest to iverson
The bowler who came closest to being an Iverson clone was Australia’s John Gleeson, who used the same thumb and middle-finger technique but spun less. He was said to be bowling ‘Version’. This word never caught on, as ‘bosi’ (from bosanquet) was for googly or ‘saki’ (from Saqlain Mushtaq) for second may still be.
Gleeson’s fingers were strengthened by milking cows in his hometown in New South Wales. David Frith brings him to life in this description: “… this diminutive postal technician with ears like cabbage leaves, his green hat stacked on his head like a pancake …”
When Saqlain Mushtaq introduced the second, it upset the coach as it could not be thrown without changing the angle of the arm. Muttiah Muralitharan’s second spell causes a rule change, with the allowable angle of turn relaxed, but deliveries still discouraged. Graeme Swann took 255 Test wickets without resorting to second.
Bosanquet had said of his googly, “It’s not unfair, just unethical.” The second is seen as both unfair and immoral.
short term sensation
The mystery bowler often becomes a one-trick pony, and consequently the wonder of a season because once one of his codes is deciphered, he lacks the range or confidence to move forward.
South Africa’s Paul Adams, whose action was compared to “frogs in a blender”, was quickly settled, as was Sri Lanka’s Ajantha Mendis, who started well but faltered when So they lacked consistency.
Also, as revered as poets, spinners come across as fragile creatures who sometimes cannot tolerate punishment, but rather as poets who cannot withstand criticism.
The success of bowlers like Saqlain, Muralitharan and Bhagwat Chandrasekhar lay in the fact that these bowlers had a lot to offer, and were mostly orthodox.
However, it will become difficult for the budding mystery spinner. For example, Sunil Narine has had to contend with something that neither Iverson nor Ramadhin did: slow motion television and extreme analysis. There may be no secrets or mysteries in cricket – or if there are, the cameras quickly help to debunk them.
But, as Haigh Iverson writes in his biography, mystery spinner, “It is entirely possible that cricket has yet to fathom the full potential of the turned ball.” And that’s a comforting thought.