80: Bill O’Reilly

27 matches. 144 wickets @ 22.6. Strike rate: 69.61. 11x 5wi.

8 years. 1x good. 3x excellent. 3x outstanding.

The discussion

When you dive into the archives and look at some of the phrases used to describe Bill O’Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking he was a fast bowler. ‘Tremendous bounce’, ‘Always with a verbal accompaniment’, ‘Intimidated batters’. It’s the kind of language that would make any speedster gush with pride. O’Reilly was a wrist-spinner, but not as we know them today.

In modern Test cricket, spinners bowl somewhere between 80–100kph, but O’Reilly was more akin to medium-pace, with the complete variety of leg-breaks, top-spinners, wrong-uns. Pretty much any delivery you can hyphenate, O’Reilly could bowl it.

Spanning the pre-war and post-war periods, O’Reilly played only seven Test series, across a career that spanned 14 years. And it’s not as if he started young, either. Instead, he spent his early twenties as a teacher in country NSW and didn’t get an opportunity to make his Test debut until the age of 26.  But he quickly made up for lost time. In his four Ashes series, O’Reilly took over 100 wickets in only 19 Tests.

Indeed, the rate at which he took 5wi and 10wm hauls ranks O’Reilly 7th in both categories among qualifying bowlers. He took big bags of wickets at a rate better than any other spinner in Test history, except for one — Clarrie Grimmett. And Grimmett was operating at the other end! No other bowling tandem, before or since, are close to Grimmett and O’Reilly when it comes to taking wickets in bunches.

Despite playing only 27 Tests in total, O’Reilly amassed eleven 5wi, and three 10wm. Excellent figures for any Hall of Fame candidate. In an era where batting averages were almost at their highest in the history of cricket, O’Reilly dominated the opposition, taking bags at a great average (22.59 for his career, never more than 28 in a single series), even with another great bowler at the other end. 

Check out these legends of the game with fewer 5wi in their careers:

Of note, O’Reilly dismissed the great Wally Hammond ten times in Tests. Across the seven Test series the O’Reilly played, the ‘Bodyline’ series in 1932/33 stands as the only series loss, with five wins. He also averaged under 25 in all five of those series. Bradman will be (rightly) remembered as the man who dominated Test cricket in the 1930s and 1940s, but the contributions to winning by both O’Reilly and Clarrie Grimmett cannot be understated. It’s very difficult to win a Test without taking 20 wickets, after all.

I know that first-class records aren’t strictly relevant when considering Test Hall of Fame candidates, but it is worth noting in this case. O’Reilly’s first-class record — 774 wickets in just 135 matches, at an average of 16.60 — is remarkable. In those 135 matches, O’Reilly had sixty-three 5wi, at a rate of almost one 5wi every second match. Despite a late start, and sporadic appearances in first-class cricket early in his career, he more than made his mark.

Modern cricketers talk of ‘bowling hard into the wicket’. It’s no secret in white-ball (and particularly T20) cricket that bowling quickly and restricting a batter’s ability to adjust to variations in flight is a phenomenon that has been increasingly adopted. I have no numerical evidence to support my position, but I feel as though spinners are bowling quicker and quicker to negate batters being able to line them up and access areas that suit them. Looking at players like Mitchell Santner from New Zealand in particular, rarely does the ball rise above the eyeline of the batter. Bowlers from yesteryear like O’Reilly, seem to me to bowl trajectories that would translate very well in modern limited-overs cricket. I’ve no doubt he’d have made an excellent T20 bowler.

Here’s a prediction for you: I think that the natural evolution of a T20 spinner will soon combine the variations of a player like Sunil Narine, bowled at the pace of a player like Dwayne Bravo. Soon, the lines between a spinner (Adil Rashid) and medium-pacer (Chris Jordan) will become increasingly blurred. Just as in modern basketball, I believe that cricket will slowly transition to ‘positionless bowlers’ as medium pacers develop more and more variation, and spinners gradually increase their pace. Sadly, I don’t foresee that development resulting in more spin bowlers featuring heavily in Test cricket.

The verdict

In my mind, O’Reilly and Grimmett are the pre-eminent pair of wrist-spinners in the history of Test cricket.[1]

Even though I have a bias toward wrist-spin, O’Reilly is without doubt one of the greats. You can trace a direct lineage from O’Reilly to Richie Benaud, and then to Shane Warne, each mentoring the next great wrist-spinner in some shape or form. Don Bradman once described Bill O’Reilly as the greatest bowler he ever saw, played with or against. Those words from The Don are on their own probably good enough to warrant inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

Unfortunately, 27 Tests isn’t a large enough sample size to credit O’Reilly with ‘longevity’, despite a 14-year career. I wish that he had the opportunity to play even 10-12 more Tests, to get a better idea of how a slightly longer career might compare with English spinners like Underwood, Laker and Lock, or more contemporary players like Nathan Lyon, Anil Kumble or even Shane Warne. Just a few more Tests would have been enough to confidently project that the rate of 5wi and 10wm, and average, would continue to exceed that of modern greats. Test-for-Test, O’Reilly is one of the greatest three or four spin bowlers of all-time.

I shall say more, because you see I have a bee in my bonnet about wrist-spin in modern Test cricket. Australia’s periods of Test success coincide almost exclusively with the presence of a great wrist-spinner in the side[2], and O’Reilly and Grimmett formed a formidable pairing the likes of which I doubt we will ever see again. I’m sure we’ll see more pairings of two finger-spinners together (India have an exceptional pairing at the moment in Ashwin and Jadeja), but never wrist-spinners. I think it’s very unlikely there will be selectors brave enough to defy current trends and pick dual wrist-spinners in the first place, nor will there be a captain with the chutzpah, the attacking mindset and the innate understanding of how to use wrist-spinners to their greatest effect.

Unless a wrist-spinner becomes captain of their country, I just cannot see it happening.

I have been blessed to have watched some great players in my life so far. If I could have one wish for the rest of my cricket-watching days, it’s to see two truly great wrist-spinners bowl together in Tests — whatever country they may come from.

In one word

Tiger

Notes

[1] With apologies to Warne and MacGill, a pairing that could have been truly great had selectors played them together more often.

[2] Throw in Kerry O’Keeffe as the wrist-spinner in the Lillee/Thompson era and it’s pretty much exclusive. Argue all you want about how great a bowler O’Keeffe was, but the theory works. Oh, and the two most watchable cricket personalities on TV from Australia? Benaud and O’Keeffe. Wrist-spinners. I rest my case.

Bio

Record

Source: ESPN CricInfo

career peak

Sources: ESPN CricInfo