Why does Bhaji get so much stick?

[King Tendulkar]

For those constantly cribbing about Bhajji faced with flat tracks. Here is his performance against Murali in tests in which both played. They played together in 13 test matches. Here are the stats

[B]Player   	Wkts	Ave	SR	5 fors	W/Test[/B]
					
[B]Harbhajan[/B]	47	36.36	69.4	2	3.6

[B]Muralitharan[/B]	77	28.42	55.3	6	5.9

Interesting. Wonder if we are going to hear that Bhajji was bowling to better batsmen in these games . . .

Could you do similar stat comparison for Kumble v Murali please

[SJS50]

I must stress, I am not giving these stats to because I think Bhajji is (or is expected to be) every bit as good as Murali. This was just to show that to take refuge behind flat tracks is a very old, tried, tested and largely failed defense for everyone's favourite batsmen and bowlers. If all wickets that a bowler faces are dead (whenever he fails) how does one show these may not be as dead as we claim. The only way to do that is to check how other world class bowlers perform on these. Otherwise wickets have for long been the ardent fan's last defense besides bad umpiring, poor decisions, brilliant catches etc. :-)

[SJS50]

Could you do similar stat comparison for Kumble v Murali please

Kumble comes out much better in such comparisons. He and Murali played together in 15 Test matchses. These are the stats. . .

[B]Bowler	Wkts	Avg	S Rt	W/Test	5 fors[/B]
					
[B]Murali[/B]	65	33.8	71.9	4.3   	4
					
[B]Kumble[/B]	58	32.3	70.0	3.9   	3

Interestingly, Kumble has two 10-fors in these Tests against Murali.s one. Its also interesting to see same figures for Harbhajan and Kumble. They played together in many more matches and all around the world - 54 in all. Have a look. . .

[B]Bowler	Wkts	Avg	S Rt	W/Test	5 fors[/B]

[B]Kumble[/B]	281	28.4	61.8	5.2   	19
					
[B]Bhajji[/B]	220	32.6	69.1	4.1   	17

Inspite of the difference in five fors being just 2 the difference in total wickets (and wickets per test) is much larger. This shows greater consistency on Kumble's part and an ability to perform more consistently under all conditions while Bhajji is more likely to be found wanting under less than ideal bowling conditions.

[SJS50]

Wow! Illuminating. SJS' date=' is there a way to break those stats up into home/away games?[/quote'] One can do that but I suspect that it might not be such a great idea. First of all conditions in India and Srei Lanka are fairly similar, maybe Sri Lanka is more batsman friendly - just maybe. Secondly the overall sample size of 13 Tests is not very large. Breaking it down may make one or both samples far too small. It can be done though.

[SJS50]

Its interesting to split Kumble's and Bhajji's home and away records while playing together. Have a look At home : 34 Tests

[B]

Bowler Wkts Avg S Rt W/T 5-fers

[/B]

[B]

Kumble

[/B]

201 25.6 59.5 5.9 17

[B]

Bhajji

[/B]

155 29.4 66.6 4.6 13

Away : 20 Tests

[B]

Bowler Wkts Avg S Rt W/T 5-fers 10fers

[/B]

[B]

Kumble

[/B]

80 35.4 67.5 4.0 2 0

[B]

Bhajji

[/B]

65 40.3 75.1 3.3 4 1

These are absolutely stunning figures. The Home figures do not spring a surprise. Kumble had long carried the reputation of being 'deadly' when playing at home. Have a look at the away figures, however, and one is amazed at Kumble's over all average, strike rate and Wkts/Test (the last a really solid criteria for judging the effectiveness of great bowlers) and you find the leg spinner is way ahead inspite of being castigated all his career for being ineffective. Here in lies a story. Kumble has just 2 five-fers and no ten-fers in these 20 away games. Bhajji has twice as many five-fers and even a ten-fer. Of course this might show the Bhajji devotee that the off spinner played more important part in these games. But consider the fact that inspite of this his overall away figures are inferior. This again points to Kumble's consistency and an ability to perform, even if at a lower level, on unhelpful surfaces where as Bhajji would appear to really revel on helpful tracks and be at see on less friendly ones. This is exactly the point under discussion about flat tracks. All bowlers love to have tracks that help them. All bowlers will perform better on bowler-friendly tracks. Yet the really top class bowlers will still bowl reasonably well under less helpful conditions whereas the lesser bowlers will swing from ecstasy to agony depending on whether or not the wicket suits them. A great bowler, I forget now who, said something to the effect that anyonecan bowl well on turning tracks, it is how you bowl on dead ones that separates the men from the boys. Exactly the opposite is the case for batsmen where the real class depends upon how you bat under conditions helpful to bowlers. Hence their are flat track bullies amongst batsmen and ravine bullies amongst spinners. :-)

[Zelig]

Kumble got to bowl at the tail enders more often than Bhajji:hitler: I'm not saying that they shouldn't count...neway, I'm just a troll, my opinions need not make sense (and I got tht luxury:dance:).

[f.b.m]

That was an anti-Punjabi analysis from the hate group..

[SJS50]

Kumble got to bowl at the tail enders more often than Bhajji:hitler: I'm not saying that they shouldn't count...neway, I'm just a troll, my opinions need not make sense (and I got tht luxury:dance:).

You might well be right but if so you need to ask yourself why Kumble would be asked to bowl at tail enders. Even the best fast bowlers in history have been asked to do the same. Getting through the tail and not allowing a dying innings to get prolonged is a very very impoortant criteria for all Test captains. If Kumble was preferred to Bhajji it would be because Bhajji was less effective in getting the nuiance out of the way. Not that Kumble was lesss effective against the top order. Just as Waqar would provide the breakthrough at the top and clean up the tail as well (Lee did the same in more recent times for Australia). Thats not a job to be decried. The inability to get the tail enders quickly has been a big problem for Indian sides and the lack of top class pacers is the main reason for that. It is rare that a spinner is good at this job too.

[Zelig]

You might well be right but if so you need to ask yourself why Kumble would be asked to bowl at tail enders. Even the best fast bowlers in history have been asked to do the same. Getting through the tail and not allowing a dying innings to get prolonged is a very very impoortant criteria for all Test captains. If Kumble was preferred to Bhajji it would be because Bhajji was less effective in getting the nuiance out of the way. Not that Kumble was lesss effective against the top order. Just as Waqar would provide the breakthrough at the top and clean up the tail as well (Lee did the same in more recent times for Australia). Thats not a job to be decried. The inability to get the tail enders quickly has been a big problem for Indian sides and the lack of top class pacers is the main reason for that. It is rare that a spinner is good at this job too.

Thanks for your reply, ji. They deleted my post btw:giggle: Mods, learn some etiquette from Mr. SJS:popcorn:

[SJS50]

My friend who felt Kumble perhaps got "cheap" lower order wickets may like to have a look at these figures. These are career figures for wickets taken of top, middle and tail end of the batting order. All figures are in percentage.

[B]Order		Kumble		Harbhajan[/B]
				
[B]Top (1[/B]-3)		27.9		24.8
				
[B]Middle (4-7[/B])		39.6		38.6
				
[B]Tail (8-11)	[/B]	32.5		36.6

Everyone gets tailenders amongst their victims. Some are just more effective in getting them. :-)

[Fontaine]

Its interesting to split Kumble's and Bhajji's home and away records while playing together. Have a look At home : 34 Tests

[B]

Bowler Wkts Avg S Rt W/T 5-fers

[/B]

[B]

Kumble

[/B]

201 25.6 59.5 5.9 17

[B]

Bhajji

[/B]

155 29.4 66.6 4.6 13

Away : 20 Tests

[B]

Bowler Wkts Avg S Rt W/T 5-fers 10fers

[/B]

[B]

Kumble

[/B]

80 35.4 67.5 4.0 2 0

[B]

Bhajji

[/B]

65 40.3 75.1 3.3 4 1

These are absolutely stunning figures. The Home figures do not spring a surprise. Kumble had long carried the reputation of being 'deadly' when playing at home. Have a look at the away figures, however, and one is amazed at Kumble's over all average, strike rate and Wkts/Test (the last a really solid criteria for judging the effectiveness of great bowlers) and you find the leg spinner is way ahead inspite of being castigated all his career for being ineffective. Here in lies a story. Kumble has just 2 five-fers and no ten-fers in these 20 away games. Bhajji has twice as many five-fers and even a ten-fer. Of course this might show the Bhajji devotee that the off spinner played more important part in these games. But consider the fact that inspite of this his overall away figures are inferior. This again points to Kumble's consistency and an ability to perform, even if at a lower level, on unhelpful surfaces where as Bhajji would appear to really revel on helpful tracks and be at see on less friendly ones. This is exactly the point under discussion about flat tracks. All bowlers love to have tracks that help them. All bowlers will perform better on bowler-friendly tracks. Yet the really top class bowlers will still bowl reasonably well under less helpful conditions whereas the lesser bowlers will swing from ecstasy to agony depending on whether or not the wicket suits them. A great bowler, I forget now who, said something to the effect that anyonecan bowl well on turning tracks, it is how you bowl on dead ones that separates the men from the boys. Exactly the opposite is the case for batsmen where the real class depends upon how you bat under conditions helpful to bowlers. Hence their are flat track bullies amongst batsmen and ravine bullies amongst spinners. :-)

That is exactly right and what some of us have been saying for some time. Bhajji's inclusion in the side is based upon few performances on very helpful tracks rather than a steady performance that is the hall mark of guys like Zaheer Khan etc. And that bowler who said that was Jeff Thompson I believe and he is absolutely right. The true test of character and skill aren't when things are going your way in helpful situations, it's when you're under pressure, when things are going against you and you have to perform.

[Zelig]

I give up!

[SJS50]

I give up!

You are cute :-)

[Zelig]

You are cute :-)

No, that's not me in my av:--D

[saneindian]

Its interesting to split Kumble's and Bhajji's home and away records while playing together. Have a look At home : 34 Tests

[B]
Bowler	Wkts	Avg	S Rt	W/T	5-fers
[/B]


[B]
Kumble
[/B]
	201	25.6	59.5	5.9	17

[B]
Bhajji
[/B]
	155	29.4	66.6	4.6	13

Away : 20 Tests

[B]
Bowler	Wkts	Avg	S Rt	W/T	5-fers	10fers
[/B]

						
[B]
Kumble
[/B]
	80	35.4	67.5	4.0	2	0
						
[B]
Bhajji
[/B]
	65	40.3	75.1	3.3	4	1

These are absolutely stunning figures. The Home figures do not spring a surprise. Kumble had long carried the reputation of being 'deadly' when playing at home. Have a look at the away figures, however, and one is amazed at Kumble's over all average, strike rate and Wkts/Test (the last a really solid criteria for judging the effectiveness of great bowlers) and you find the leg spinner is way ahead inspite of being castigated all his career for being ineffective. Here in lies a story. Kumble has just 2 five-fers and no ten-fers in these 20 away games. Bhajji has twice as many five-fers and even a ten-fer. Of course this might show the Bhajji devotee that the off spinner played more important part in these games. But consider the fact that inspite of this his overall away figures are inferior. This again points to Kumble's consistency and an ability to perform, even if at a lower level, on unhelpful surfaces where as Bhajji would appear to really revel on helpful tracks and be at see on less friendly ones. This is exactly the point under discussion about flat tracks. All bowlers love to have tracks that help them. All bowlers will perform better on bowler-friendly tracks. Yet the really top class bowlers will still bowl reasonably well under less helpful conditions whereas the lesser bowlers will swing from ecstasy to agony depending on whether or not the wicket suits them. A great bowler, I forget now who, said something to the effect that anyonecan bowl well on turning tracks, it is how you bowl on dead ones that separates the men from the boys. Exactly the opposite is the case for batsmen where the real class depends upon how you bat under conditions helpful to bowlers. Hence their are flat track bullies amongst batsmen and ravine bullies amongst spinners. :-)

The only problem with these stats is that we are comparing the numbers of a bowler whose career is over with someone who can still play for next 5-6 years. Now lets look at where Kumble was after 84 tests Kumble: 84 tests, 397 wickets@28.21, In away tests, 43 tests, 162 wickets@37 Bhajji after 84 tests, 355 wickets@31.5 In away tests, 38 tests, 119 wickets@39 Kumble obviously was a better bowler of the two and his record is also aided by the fact that between 1993-2000 he bowled on some of the most bowler friendly tracks in India. Post 2000, we havent had tailor made dustbowls with a spin trioka bowling bulk of the overs. Away from home, both have had a horrible record, with Kumble improving his away record post the 2004 tour of Australia.

[SJS50]

No' date=' that's not me in my av:--D[/quote'] :haha:

[Fontaine]

The only problem with these stats is that we are comparing the numbers of a bowler whose career is over with someone who can still play for next 5-6 years. Now lets look at where Kumble was after 84 tests Kumble: 84 tests, 397 wickets@28.21, In away tests, 43 tests, 162 wickets@37 Bhajji after 84 tests, 355 wickets@31.5 In away tests, 38 tests, 119 wickets@39 Kumble obviously was a better bowler of the two and his record is also aided by the fact that between 1993-2000 he bowled on some of the most bowler friendly tracks in India. Post 2000, we havent had tailor made dustbowls with a spin trioka bowling bulk of the overs. Away from home, both have had a horrible record, with Kumble improving his away record post the 2004 tour of Australia.

You missed the entire point. The stats were from Kumble/Bhajji playing together and thus on the same conditions against the same opposition. About as fair as it gets.

[SJS50]

The only problem with these stats is that we are comparing the numbers of a bowler whose career is over with someone who can still play for next 5-6 years. Now lets look at where Kumble was after 84 tests Kumble: 84 tests, 397 wickets@28.21, In away tests, 43 tests, 162 wickets@37 Bhajji after 84 tests, 355 wickets@31.5 In away tests, 38 tests, 119 wickets@39 Kumble obviously was a better bowler of the two and his record is also aided by the fact that between 1993-2000 he bowled on some of the most bowler friendly tracks in India. Post 2000, we havent had tailor made dustbowls with a spin trioka bowling bulk of the overs. Away from home, both have had a horrible record, with Kumble improving his away record post the 2004 tour of Australia.

I am not comparing their careers at one point of time or another, just how they bowled when both were playing in the same game, on the same ground and against the same opposition, suffering from the same consequences of batting first or second or so forth. If I had to compare Bhajji and Kumble as bowlers, trust me I coul;d produce much more devastating stats that would send Bhajji in the orbit. But that was not the point under discussion. PS also that has and never will be (in any but the most obsessively-devoted-Bhajji-fan-club) a point of serious debate. Thank you and goodbye.

[saneindian]

You missed the entire point. The stats were from Kumble/Bhajji playing together and thus on the same conditions against the same opposition. About as fair as it gets.

Paaji, I did go through the stats. My point is Kumble had a terrific 4-5 year period post his 80th test when he picked nearly 225 wickets in 40 odd test tests and this was when verybody had nearly written him off (he hardly played a match in the 2003 WC). I am sure Bhajji too will bounce back, is going through a bit of a rough patch and is getting written off. All it will take is one good series performance and he will be back again. Also we are comparing him to Kumble, our biggest match winner ever. The very fact that he isn;t too far from AK on many accounts alone is a massive achievement, ad then as I said who knows what is in store for the next 5-6 years. Like Kumble, one good performance ( Adelaide vs Aus, 2004) can reignite the spark and get him back on track.

[asterix]

SaneIndian..Bhajji will not bounce back. Bouncing back doesn't means performing well occasionally. You have to do well at a regular rate. For Bhajji, it will be difficult because he can't be bothered, can't be asked, not willing to work hard, not willing to explore, not willing to change his bowling style, not willing to take advice from anybody, Ego, IPL, Business relations with Dhoni, overall hype and many other factors.. He might be able to help in winning occasional matches for India and then keep on bragging about it but he is now on the downward slope. As somebody mentioned, at his age and experience top bowlers try to do more to separate themselves from the crowd and achieve more specialisations. He is certainly not and it's quite obvious..