We will occasionally feature on Round The Wicket counterblasts to the views we express. Yesterday I rather curtly dismissed Moeen Ali’s achievement of 200 Test wickets by declaring him the worst bowler evet to reach the landmark. A regular reader, Giles Phillips, took exception to this verdict and maybe that was the emphatic and unforgiving judgment of the political columnist applied to the gentler world of cricket. Anyway, here is Giles’s response. One thing we do agree on is that neither of us have much time for John Emburey.
I found the piece Just A Matter of Time by Philip Collins on Moeen Ali reaching the considerable landmark of 200 Test wickets rather unfair. As for his conclusion, I'll come to that at the end.
His first point is based on statistics. While these are a fascinating and important part of cricket's appeal (my schoolboy ambition as First X1 scorer was to succeed Bill Frindall) and are a useful resource for the armchair selector like him and me, they do not always tell the whole story. Michael Vaughan and Marcus Trescothick to name but two would not have been selected on statistics alone.
Interestingly he mentions John Emburey as the only spinner to have taken a substantial number of wickets at a higher average. What he omits to mention is that Emburey took those 53 fewer wickets in only 3 fewer Tests. What's more is that Ali has a strike rate of around 60 and Emburey 100. So that somewhat disproves the theory of if you play long enough you'll get there.
Full disclosure. John Emburey has long been my least favourite England player. He played batsmen in rather than got them out as a largely defensive bowler who somehow kept the more attacking Phil Edmonds out of the side. And he went on two rebel tours to South Africa. If he hadn't he would have played even more Tests!
The comparisons with seam bowlers averages are pretty pointless.
Moeen's average is inflated by his lack of success, failure if you like, in Australia. The pitches there are more suitable to wrist spinners and even Sydney is no longer the dustbowl spinners’ paradise it used to be. Graeme Swann, in my view England's best spinner since Laker, was successful on his first tour, less so on his second. Nathan Lyon has often failed to deliver on home pitches. Moeen has expressed disappointment with his performances there.
'It is often said that Moeen Ali has been poorly treated by England ' This is always a reference to him as a batsman and the fact that he has been shunted up and down the order filling every position from 1 to 9. This has certainly not happened to any other player in the modern era and I think is justified. He has recently said that it unsettled him especially at 8 or 9 where he was unsure of his role. He does concede his batting record is not as good as it should have been.
Yes he was initially selected as a batman but the selectors were aware that he had started regularly taking wickets for Worcestershire. He bowled well, worked hard and improved but was surprised to find himself as the first choice spinner. I think he made a pretty good job of it with some match-winning performances, a hat-trick and dismissing Virat Kohli 6 times. I believe he was one of the fastest to 150 wickets. It wasn't just the lack of an alternative and he certainly wasn't indulged.
As for the conclusion that he was 'by a distance the worst bowler ever to reach the landmark ' with its implication that he was an average even poor bowler and didn’t deserve to, well I think his team mates will take a very dim view of that. Personally I find it offensive to a fine and admirable cricketer whose has done his country proud.
PS. I wouldn't have recalled him for this series but he hasn't let the side down.
I'm with you, Giles !