Come in spinner: why is finding one for the Australian team so hard?

It has long been the lament of fans, pundits and journalists alike that in the “post Warne” age we (Australian cricket) have not had a consistently selectable or, indeed, match winning spin bowler. This problem has become so “acute” in the prelude to the coming battle for the Ashes against England that the parliament of Australia has seen fit to change the laws of immigration in this country to allow for the fast tracked citizenship of a 31 year old leg spinner from Merguz in Pakistan who has played only 13 first class games just so he may be available.

Before the “Era of Ahmed” a compendium of spin bowlers used by Australia since 5 January 2007 (when the “Era of Warne” ended) reads like this (this list necessarily removes batsmen who bowl a bit): 

SCG MacGill (4 matches)

GB Hogg (3 matches)

B Casson (1 match)

CL White (4 matches)

JJ Krejza (2 matches)

NM Hauritz (16 matches)

MA Beer (2 matches)

BE McGain (1 matches)

XJ Doherty (4 matches)

NM Lyon (22 matches)

GJ Maxwell (2 matches)

Australia has played 67 test matches in that span and have won 33, lost 21 and drawn 13 of same.  The present incumbent, Nathan Lyon, comes into the Ashes with a record that shows that he has taken 76 wickets in his 22 test matches at an average of 33.18 runs per wicket and with an economy rate of 3.12 runs per over. 
Am I alone in considering those numbers to actually be good numbers and, indeed, unworthy of the pressure being placed on Lyon’s place in the team by seemingly all and sundry including Cricket Australia?  Let’s consider for a moment the records of the other spinners presently playing test match cricket and see how the record of Lyon compares (the qualification make for this exercise is 20 wickets taken):

Player  Games Wickets Average Economy 

Swann  52        261       28.69      2.91 

Singh   44         175       35.79      2.86 

Herath  35         165      28.48      2.71 

Ajmal    26         133      27.6        2.66 

Ohja     22         102      31.78      2.68 

Ashwin 16          92       28.53      2.89 

Patel     18         49        49.02     3.22 

Vettori   39        131       34.66     2.45 

Panesar 35       122       33.8       2.71 

Mendis   17        64       34.2        3.08

Looking at this numbers now and comparing those of Nathan Lyon to them is all of the angst about his place in the Australian team and, indeed, the pressure being exerted by Ahmed’s selection really warranted?  His performances and statistics are all the more admirable give that he plays the bulk of his matches in Australian on less than friendly pitches, he rarely has the support of a second spinner and he has been, it must be conceded, poorly captained by captains who are themselves seemingly remembering the days of Warne.
Despite those impediments he is still tracking to have similar numbers at similar times as players of the stature of Singh, Vettori, Herath or Panesar.  I am more than a bit certain that Cricket Australia and cricket supporters of the Australian team would happily accept any of those players in the current lineup.  So, at the risk of becoming repetitious but still restating the question, what is the problem with relying on N Lyon? 
The answer to this question gets on back to an examination of the question posed in the title to this post:

Why is finding a good spinner for the Australian team so hard?

It must be clear from what has gone above that that question is unfair stated or, in fact, redundant because Australia already has a good spinner in Nathan Lyon.  The problem is that the Australian public, pundits and, possibly, players are NOT looking for a good spinner.  Rather they are looking for an answer to this question: 

Why is it so hard to find the next Shane Warne?  

That is a question that can simply must be answered this way: we will never find a spinner like Shane Warne again.  Therein lies the rub: we, the Australian cricket public, pundits and players, are searching for something we can not and will not ever have again.   Until we as a cricketing nation can get our heads around that immutable truth we are going to continue to “burn” our clearly good spinners with the pressure that comes with expectation.  Surely now it is time to get behind Nathan Lyon and back him to get the job done because, simply put, we already have a good spinner in him. 

On player behaviour: time for some credit where it is due

The question of the behaviour of sportsmen has been a topic of regular comment on this blog.  I have bemoaned the lowering of standards of behaviour and praised those clubs and codes prepared to make a statement about such behaviour.  I have commented on domestic violence and sportsmen and the massive double standard that seems to pervade such cases.  In the interests of, therefore, fairness it is important also recognise when a player of sport conducts himself in a positive way.

Quade Cooper and his conduct in recent weeks has been nothing short of exemplary and deserves our acclamation.  Simply, has there been a player under more scrutiny from the fans and the pundits in recent weeks? The focus of attention has been on Cooper because of the ongoing saga of his selection or otherwise in the Wallabies squad to face the British and Irish Lions.  During the totality of the recent weeks when all and sundry have been talking about whether he would be selected and, more particularly, the “feud” with Robbie Deans he has remained respectful and honest in his work with the media and has continued to play solid, if not error free, rugby.  
If the story, and this blog, ended here such conduct would still be worthy of acclamation particularly in light of where Cooper was behaviour wise last year.  Certainly under more scrutiny now than ever before his “toxic culture” comments and certainly baited by some quarters in the press he has kept his mouth shut and clearly has shown that he has learned from his previous falls.  However: this is only half the story. 
It has now been made official that he will not be in said Wallabies squad to face the British and Irish Lions.  I have commented vociferously about that on twitter and will let my twitter comments and lack of future attendance at Wallabies games speak for themselves in that regard.  
Since the announcement that Cooper was not to be selected in the Wallabies squad he has conducted himself in a manner, in my view, beyond reproach and deserving of acclaim.  His interviews about this topic, whilst others have bayed for Deans’ blood, have been direct and honest without bring himself or the game into disrepute.  More particularly, when faced with an abusive “fan” yesterday evening in a pub in the suburbs of Brisbane and doused with a full beer, he declined to take the first punch and declined to get involved in a physical confrontation. 
Evidence from years past suggest that this is not the approach that Cooper would have taken previously and it is the maturity shown in not rising to the bait of a physical altercation having just had his British and Irish Lions dream shattered that must now impress those who previously have been “haters” of the person Cooper is without knowing him other than to read about him in the paper or watch him play the beautiful game.  
We are quick to jump all over the players of sport that we watch when they make a mistake.  We are less swift to give them the acclaim they warrant when they conduct themselves in the right way and, indeed, show that they have learned from the past.  
Well done Q Cooper: for how you have conducted yourself in the face of the scrutiny surrounding the “Deans feud” and for your conduct in declining to take the first punch.  I, for one, salute you!