Jump to content

Harbhajan Singh vs Saqlain Mushtaq

El_Pipita

By El_Pipita
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

ganeshran Explorer

ganeshran

Posted
Posted
Saqlain was good but Harbhajan is definitely better. Just remember something these stats dont point out' date=' the hidden variables. When Harbhajan was bowling he was doing it in the shadows of the greatest spinner of all times Anil "The Gentlemen" Kumble. He had to share his wickets with him. Saqlain never bowled with any decent spinner at the same time so no stat will always reflect that. Please people who hate Harbhajan will pull some nos out that are very meaningless. He is the best spinner right now. period.[/quote'] Kumble wasnt the greatest spinner of all time. It has to be either Murali or Warne. Kumble was a very good spinner and certainly our best spinner for a long time. But he wasnt the best in the world, maybe in the top 10.
Link to comment
Asoka Newbie

Asoka

Posted
Posted
I am yet to see a decent argument on why Saqlain was better than Bhajji as a test bowler. All of the reasoning seems to exist in your's and other Pakistani posters' minds
Saqlain was marginally better than Bhajji as a test bowler as the stats suggest. In ODIs however there is no comparision. Saqilain is probably the greatest tweaker in limited overs cricket. So overall Saqi>>Bhajji.
Link to comment
Asoka Newbie

Asoka

Posted
Posted
Saqlain was good but Harbhajan is definitely better. Just remember something these stats dont point out' date=' the hidden variables. When Harbhajan was bowling he was doing it in the shadows of the greatest spinner of all times Anil "The Gentlemen" Kumble. He had to share his wickets with him. Saqlain never bowled with any decent spinner at the same time so no stat will always reflect that. Please people who hate Harbhajan will pull some nos out that are very meaningless. He is the best spinner right now. period.[/quote'] And Saqlain had to share his wickets with Akram,Waqar,Akthar,Mushtaq Ahmed. So your point fails. BTW applying your logic Kapil Paaji must be a very mediocre bowler because he had practically no competition for wickets from the trundlers of the 80s.
Link to comment
ganeshran Explorer

ganeshran

Posted
Posted
Saqlain was marginally better than Bhajji as a test bowler as the stats suggest. In ODIs however there is no comparision. Saqilain is probably the greatest tweaker in limited overs cricket. So overall Saqi>>Bhajji.
No he wasnt. Bhajji has lasted twice the time Saqlain managed to play in tests. He still has the same stats as Saqlain. So in effect he has maintained the same level of performance for twice the time period. Hence in tests Bhajj >>>> Saqlain. In ODI's I already said Saqlain > Bhajji, and no Saqlain is not the best ODI spinner inspite of what some Pakistanis think. That crown would undoubtedly go to Murali and Warne.
Link to comment
Asoka Newbie

Asoka

Posted
Posted
No he wasnt. Bhajji has lasted twice the time Saqlain managed to play in tests. He still has the same stats as Saqlain. So in effect he has maintained the same level of performance for twice the time period. Hence in tests Bhajj >>>> Saqlain. In ODI's I already said Saqlain > Bhajji, and no Saqlain is not the best ODI spinner inspite of what some Pakistanis think. That crown would undoubtedly go to Murali and Warne.
OK forget about tests. They are more or less equal. But in ODI's Saqlain is the greatest. He has a bowling avg of 21.78 and an economy rate of 4.29 which is much better than that of Warne or Murali. Add to the fact that he always bowled 5 overs in the death which makes his record even more splendid. Moreover he had the worst fielders to support him. Warne and Murali had awesome fielding units to support them.
Link to comment
ganeshran Explorer

ganeshran

Posted
Posted
OK forget about tests. They are more or less equal.
No they are not. Bhajji is better in tests.
But in ODI's Saqlain is the greatest. He has a bowling avg of 21.78 and an economy rate of 4.29 which is much better than that of Warne or Murali. Add to the fact that he always bowled 5 overs in the death which makes his record even more splendid. Moreover he had the worst fielders to support him. Warne and Murali had awesome fielding units to support them.
Murali was far better than Saqlain. Economy rate of 3.9, average of 23 odd and he played 346 matches so maintaining the same stats was much more difficult. Murali played under the constant mental pressure of chucking allegations due to his own physical deformity. Yet he excelled. He got 526 ODI wickets and test 800 wickets. He was effective in both formats of the game.
Link to comment
Ranvir Rising Star

Ranvir

Posted
Posted

Harbhajan is better than Saqlain, Harbhajan is still playing top level cricket, whereas Saqlain's career brutally got ended by Sehwag. If Saqlain had continued playing test cricket his average would be around the 35 mark. Remember he was kept out of the Pakistan team by the legendry Kaneria and Saeed Ajmal.

Link to comment
Asoka Newbie

Asoka

Posted
Posted
Murali was far better than Saqlain. Economy rate of 3.9, average of 23 odd and he played 346 matches so maintaining the same stats was much more difficult. Murali played under the constant mental pressure of chucking allegations due to his own physical deformity. Yet he excelled. He got 526 ODI wickets and test 800 wickets. He was effective in both formats of the game.
I am talking only about ODI's. Here are reasons why I rate Saqi higher than Murali. 1.Murali is a minnow basher.If you exclude the minnows his average drops to 26.Economy is still good at just 4 an over. Saqi on the other hand still has a healthy avg of 23.55. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/42628.html?class=2;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=8;orderby=default;template=results;type=allround http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/49636.html?class=2;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=4058;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling 2. Pitches in Lanka are much more spinner friendly compared to the roads in Pakistan. Murali's avg overseas is 25+ while Saqi's is 23. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/42628.html?class=2;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=8;orderby=default;template=results;type=allround http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/49636.html?class=2;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=4058;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling 3. Saqi bowled 5 overs in the death almost everytime he played and still has an economy rate nearly as good as that of Murali. Can you imagine any other spinner in the world bowl that much in the death and escape unharmed. Had Murali adopted this practice his economy rate would have been 6 point something, not 3.9 . 4.Murali had better fielders to support him.Enough said. 5. Saqi had to share the wickets with Akram,Waqar,Akthar,Mushtaq etc. Murali on the other hand hardly had any competition. I wouldn't dare compare Malinga and Vaas with the Pakistani counterparts. 6. Against Aus and India( 2 of the best teams against spin) Saqi owns Murali. Saqi averages 23 qnd 24 against these 2 teams while Murali averages 31.2 . http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/42628.html?class=2;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=8;orderby=default;template=results;type=allround http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/49636.html?class=2;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=4058;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling As far as the chucking allegations are concerned, they weren't unjustified. ICC still allowed him to bowl despite a highly suspect action. He got a lot of support from many people. He could easily have faced harsher punishments but he pulled through. The only point in favour of Murali is his longevity.
Link to comment
ganeshran Explorer

ganeshran

Posted
Posted

First of all, I dont know how you can easily chuck out longevity as if its merely an inconsequential bit of information. The point I am repeatedly making is that any student of Statistics 101 would understand that maintaining averages and strike rate gets more and more difficult as the number of matches increase. In fact longevity is one of the biggest supporting factor to prove Murali is better than Saqlain, He maintained a close enough average inspite of his career spanning so many years. Also, while Saqlain was below par in test matches, Murali continued to excel in all the formats of the game (800 test wickets). Thats the stuff legends are made of.

Inconsequential stat, Does nothing to prove Murali is a minnow basher. After filtering Murali's average against test playing nations his average increases by 2.7% than his career average. Saqlain's average increase from his career is 1.7%. This is because the number of minnow matches Saqlain played is lesser at 24, so unless there is a phenomenal difference in his performance against minnows, his average against test playing nations would be closer to his career average.
Again you are ignoring the fact that a filtering any career record would be closer to their original average unless there is a phenomenal discrepancy in performance. The difference you quote is hardly enough to arrive at an conclusion
3. Saqi bowled 5 overs in the death almost everytime he played and still has an economy rate nearly as good as that of Murali. Can you imagine any other spinner in the world bowl that much in the death and escape unharmed. Had Murali adopted this practice his economy rate would have been 6 point something, not 3.9 .
Murali has been playing in the recent years far after Saqlain retired. In the recent years the average scores have increased much more after T20 has debuted. So if you are factoring in death bowling, you also should factor in the tendency of batsman to go after bowlers which has increased in the last 3-4 years. So consequentially Murali holds a far better economy rate even after bowling in batsman friendly times.
4.Murali had better fielders to support him.Enough said.
Hardly, Most of the Lankan fielders have been as slow as Pakistani fielders barring the recent years. Fielders like Ranatunga and Aravinda de Silva were as slow in the second half of 90s just like Pakistani and Indian players. The better fielders that Lanka got are came in the latter half of the 2000 decade.
5. Saqi had to share the wickets with Akram,Waqar,Akthar,Mushtaq etc. Murali on the other hand hardly had any competition. I wouldn't dare compare Malinga and Vaas with the Pakistani counterparts.
If anything this could be used to prove (if with supporting stats) Akram and Waqar as good bowlers, not Saqlain as a good one. And Vaas is far better than erratic Akhtar
This is a conclusive stat. Aussies and India have played Murali better than Saqlain, but with Aussies it was matters more than the cricketing fielding. There was sustained psychological warfare against Murali by the Aussies including their PMs
As far as the chucking allegations are concerned, they weren't unjustified. ICC still allowed him to bowl despite a highly suspect action. He got a lot of support from many people. He could easily have faced harsher punishments but he pulled through. The only point in favour of Murali is his longevity.
Why were they justified when ICC cleared him of chucking? His action has been time and again been proved to be legal inspite of withstanding so much scrutiny.
Link to comment
Kean0 Newbie

Kean0

Posted
Posted

As they say the devil is in the detail. Ganeshran is quick to quote the number of tests players and wickets taken. Delve into the detail of these stats and you will see the true picture. Bhaji at home - Average 28.43, Econ 2.69, SR 63.3, wickets 258 - 52 tests Bhaji away - Average: 39.00, 3.05 Econ, 76.3 SR, 148 wickets - 46 tests Saqi at home - Average 29.22, Econ 2.60, SR 67.2, wickets 77 - 19 Tests Saqi away - Average 30.00, 2.65 Econ, SR 67.9, wickets 106 - 24 Tests You can argue that Harbajan has had a much elongated career but the quality of his play has depreciated over the years. Clear to see that Bhaji at home is a lion but away from home is a mouse. Having played 6 more tests at home but having a 100 more wickets at home. Saqi's career has spanned a shorter period but the quality of his play has always remained throughout his career. Clear to see he was not only good at home but also was better away from home. You can argue that Bhaji is a confidence player and hence plays better at home. Try using this as an excuse when you team is losing away from home. It just doesnt cut it. Everyone will have their own opinion but the fact will remain that Saqi will always be remembered for having done something for the game where as his counterpart bhaji will be remembered for taking apart the Aussies in his back yard. I think i know what id rather be remembered for.

Link to comment
Old guy Apprentice

Old guy

Posted
Posted

bhajji was good at start just like saqlain..but when saqlain starting sucking he was dropped.. bhajji kept on playing but he still has a very decent record specially at home.. if sqlain would ve played as many matches as bhajji did in the end he would ve averaged much more.. (as we saw near end of his career he wasnt the same) this is what makes warne,murali so gr8 they were pretty effective through out there careers even when people start reading murali he kept on out smarting people.. warne was just genius..u cant really read changes in amount of turn .. and he used to do that..

Link to comment
ganeshran Explorer

ganeshran

Posted
Posted
bhajji was good at start just like saqlain..but when saqlain starting sucking he was dropped.. bhajji kept on playing but he still has a very decent record specially at home.. if sqlain would ve played as many matches as bhajji did in the end he would ve averaged much more.. (as we saw near end of his career he wasnt the same) this is what makes warne,murali so gr8 they were pretty effective through out there careers even when people start reading murali he kept on out smarting people.. warne was just genius..u cant really read changes in amount of turn .. and he used to do that..
This. Bhajji was persisted with way longer than what he should have. BCCI should have asked him in 2009 to go back to domestic cricket for a season and come back to international cricket. He could still have been a regular in the test side.
Link to comment
Old guy Apprentice

Old guy

Posted
Posted
This. Bhajji was persisted with way longer than what he should have. BCCI should have asked him in 2009 to go back to domestic cricket for a season and come back to international cricket. He could still have been a regular in the test side.
yep.. till 2005-2006 he was rated very highly and did gave consistent enough performances after that he stopped spinning but i think he is still good enough for odis. he is not that bad.. people in anger made him look like he was the worst thing that happened to indian cricket..but tbh im dissapointed with his attitude.. just look at what he is doing now a days :sad:
Link to comment
adi B Veteran

adi B

Posted
Posted
i am an indian' date=' but saqlain alone with murali and warne were the best spin boweler ever. period. bhaji is a kid compared to those three[/quote'] +1 saqlain was class apart compared to bhajji ajmal is also going the saqlain way to glory just look at saqlain`s odi stats, just amazing :omg:
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...