Is Mohammad Asif currently the best fast bowler in the world ?

[Richard]

Bhajji averages 42 in the last 20 matches.

Yeah, 't'was what I was thinking...

He's the perfect example of what a non-Murali\Warne spinner should be in the one-day game... though his methods are totally different to Dharmasena and the old Kumble.

 

[silentstriker]

He's the perfect example of what a non-Murali\Warne spinner should be in the one-day game...

You mean belted around?

 

[Richard]

Eh?

When was the last time before the recent South Africa series and the preceding Australia game that Harbhajan went for a few?

2003?

 

[silentstriker]

Eh?

When was the last time before the recent South Africa series and the preceding Australia game that Harbhajan went for a few?

2003?

In the last 40 matches, in 2005 or 2006:


10 overs - 63 runs - 0 wickets vs SA
10 overs - 59 runs - 0 wickets vs SA
10 overs - 49 runs - 0 wickets vs AUS
4 overs - 30 runs - 0 wickets vs West Indies
10 overs - 52 runs - 0 wickets vs West Indies
10 overs - 42 runs - 0 wickets vs West Indies
10 overs - 57 runs - 1 wickets vs Pakistan
10 overs - 46 runs - 0 wickets vs Pakistan
10 overs - 46 runs - 0 wickets vs Pakistan
10 overs - 43 runs - 1 wickets vs ENGLAND (In India to boot)
10 overs - 45 runs - 0 wickets vs SL (in India)
10 overs - 45 runs - 0 wickets vs NZ
10 overs - 46 runs - 0 wickets vs NZ
9 overs - 55 runs - 0 wickets vs NZ
10 overs - 40 runs - 0 wickets vs SL
10 overs - 63 runs - 0 wickets vs SA

 

[Richard]

IOW - 4 times in 40 matches.

Pretty damn superb, I'd say.

Going for 40 is hardly poor, and going for 42, 43, 45, 46 is a bit more than you'd like but it's hardly disastrous.

IMO Harbhajan couldn't really have demonstrated how to bowl fingerspin in ODIs much better than in his 40 games prior to the most recent 4.

 

[silentstriker]

IOW - 4 times in 40 matches.

Pretty damn superb, I'd say.

Going for 40 is hardly poor, and going for 42, 43, 45, 46 is a bit more than you'd like but it's hardly disastrous.

IMO Harbhajan couldn't really have demonstrated how to bowl fingerspin in ODIs much better than in his 40 games prior to the most recent 4.

Going for 40 runs while taking 0 wickets is poor. An Indian spinner is there to take wickets, not contain.

 

[Richard]

Why does the nationality come into it?

It depends on the type of pitch you're playing on, not the nation from which you hail.

A spinner on turning pitches is there to take wickets (and if he contains well, chances are he will).

A good economy-rate (ie 4-an-over or less) is good regardless of the wickets you take. 10-40-0 is a perfectly acceptible performance in my view. I don't care who the bowler is or which team from which nation they're reprisenting.

 

[silentstriker]

Why does the nationality come into it?

It depends on the type of pitch you're playing on, not the nation from which you hail.

A spinner on turning pitches is there to take wickets (and if he contains well, chances are he will).

A good economy-rate (ie 4-an-over or less) is good regardless of the wickets you take. 10-40-0 is a perfectly acceptible performance in my view. I don't care who the bowler is or which team from which nation they're reprisenting.

Nationality comes into it only in the sense of their role in the team. An English or South African spinner can be there to just play 'contain' and let the pace bowlers take wickets. In India, our spinners also tend to be our primary wicket takers so for us, its not a good thing if they can just see the spinner off....they need to take wickets.

 

[Richard]

Well, given that normal spinners can only take wickets if there's something in the pitch and\or they can contain... that just means India are in a bit of trouble.

Which is why they need the number of fantastic batsmen they have.

In any case... who needs wickets if you can contain? No-one. Equally - and perhaps more significantly - what use are a few wickets from one bowler if the others can't contain? Answer - nothing. If Harbhajan takes 10-14-3 it's no use if Balaji, Agarkar, Pathan and Nehra are going around the park.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, given that normal spinners can only take wickets if there's something in the pitch and\or they can contain... that just means India are in a bit of trouble.

Welcome to India.....

In any case... who needs wickets if you can contain? No-one. Equally - and perhaps more significantly - what use are a few wickets from one bowler if the others can't contain? Answer - nothing. If Harbhajan takes 10-14-3 it's no use if Balaji, Agarkar, Pathan and Nehra are going around the park.

But someone has to be the guy taking wickets, because everyone can't go for 4 an over. You always have your strike bowler, and in most countries thats the opening fast bowler. In India, its the spinner. The fast bowlers can play contain, but the spinner needs to take wickets.

 

[Beleg]

I have to agree with Richard. 10-0-42-0 is a perfectly respectable performance. If every other bowler performed like that, a batting team would score 210 in fifty overs. You'd back your team to chase that. Remember, ODI's isn't always about taking wickets - it is about scoring a certain amount of runs in a given amount of balls - you can achieve that by taking wickets and bowling tightly OR simply bowling tightly.

All these notions about an Indian spinner needing to take wickets are idealistic nonsense and have very little to do with reality. A bowler is only responsible for his figures - not the performance of his team-mates.

 

[vic_orthdox]

When was the last time a side scored less than 230 with no more than 3 wickets down, when batting first?

Champions Trophy, maybe?

 

[grecian]

I have to agree with Richard. 10-0-42-0 is a perfectly respectable performance. If every other bowler performed like that, ]a batting team would score 210 in fifty overs. You'd back your team to chase that. Remember, ODI's isn't always about taking wickets - it is about scoring a certain amount of runs in a given amount of balls - you can achieve that by taking wickets and bowling tightly OR simply bowling tightly.

All these notions about an Indian spinner needing to take wickets are idealistic nonsense and have very little to do with reality. A bowler is only responsible for his figures - not the performance of his team-mates.

Unless that team are England

 

[silentstriker]

I have to agree with Richard. 10-0-42-0 is a perfectly respectable performance. If every other bowler performed like that, a batting team would score 210 in fifty overs. You'd back your team to chase that. Remember, ODI's isn't always about taking wickets - it is about scoring a certain amount of runs in a given amount of balls - you can achieve that by taking wickets and bowling tightly OR simply bowling tightly.

All these notions about an Indian spinner needing to take wickets are idealistic nonsense and have very little to do with reality. A bowler is only responsible for his figures - not the performance of his team-mates.

I'm sorry but I just disagree. Each person is in there for a reason. If there are other bowlers whose job it is to contain, and your job is to take wickets, thats what you need to do. The others don't have your wicket taking capability. Ideally you'd have four bowlers who can all take wickets and all can keep it tight, but it doesn't work out that way often.

 

[Beleg]

Ideally, the job of everyone in ODI's is to contain. Taking wickets is just another way of containment - considered the best by most. However, it is not the only manner of containment, taking wickets does not always translate into keeping it tight - by bringing down the run-rate. As I said earlier, unlike test matches, the purpose in ODI's is NOT to take wickets, but to stop leaking out runs. A bowler who goes for 10-0-40-0 is a MUCH better choice than someone who went for 10-0-65-3. Harbajhan hasn't been, cannot be, given carte balanche to give away runs if he can keep on taking wickets. That simply isn't very practical.

(otherwise every captain would be hammering down Imran Khan's advice to Wasim Akram during the 92 WC to just go out and bowl without fear of giving away runs - it worked for Wasim because he had the extraordinary talent to be both a wicket-taker and run-container. Most bowlers aren't that talented; in Harbajhan's case, bowling when the field restrictions are over and with no fielders around the bat - you are deluding yourself if you think an off-spinner can be attacking in such a condition.)

I am sorry but I think your reasoning is pretty flawed.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I have to agree with Richard. 10-0-42-0 is a perfectly respectable performance. If every other bowler performed like that, a batting team would score 210 in fifty overs. You'd back your team to chase that. Remember, ODI's isn't always about taking wickets - it is about scoring a certain amount of runs in a given amount of balls - you can achieve that by taking wickets and bowling tightly OR simply bowling tightly.

All these notions about an Indian spinner needing to take wickets are idealistic nonsense and have very little to do with reality. A bowler is only responsible for his figures - not the performance of his team-mates.

Doesn't work like that. Look at how huge the percentages are in D/L tables for teams with all (or most of) their wickets left - D/L tables are based on analysis of real life. Teams are perfectly capable of taking risks to increase the run rate.

 

[marc71178]

Anyone seriously contending that Bracken is not currently the best ODI bowler in The World needs their head examined IMO

Explain how on Earth Pollock and McGrath are not massively superior to all, with the possible exception of Bond.

Hmm, this multi-quote does work

 

[Scaly piscine]

Ideally, the job of everyone in ODI's is to contain. Taking wickets is just another way of containment - considered the best by most. However, it is not the only manner of containment, taking wickets does not always translate into keeping it tight - by bringing down the run-rate. As I said earlier, unlike test matches, the purpose in ODI's is NOT to take wickets, but to stop leaking out runs. A bowler who goes for 10-0-40-0 is a MUCH better choice than someone who went for 10-0-65-3. Harbajhan hasn't been, cannot be, given carte balanche to give away runs if he can keep on taking wickets. That simply isn't very practical.

(otherwise every captain would be hammering down Imran Khan's advice to Wasim Akram during the 92 WC to just go out and bowl without fear of giving away runs - it worked for Wasim because he had the extraordinary talent to be both a wicket-taker and run-container. Most bowlers aren't that talented; in Harbajhan's case, bowling when the field restrictions are over and with no fielders around the bat - you are deluding yourself if you think an off-spinner can be attacking in such a condition.)

I am sorry but I think your reasoning is pretty flawed.

I believe a wicket in an ODI used to be worth roughly 8 runs on those ICC rankings, don't know if that's changed or what. A 10-0-65-3 in the middle or early part of the innings is easily better than 10-0-40-0.

 

[Beleg]

I believe the D/L system is pretty flawed. But in this case, it doesn't work like the idealized scenario because others bowlers just don't bowl as well. That by itself should not impact the performance of a bowler who did bowl well.

Teams are perfectly capable of taking risks to increase the run rate.

I do agree with that but I am not quite sure how that applies in this situation?

 

[marc71178]

Doesn't work like that. Look at how huge the percentages are in D/L tables for teams with all (or most of) their wickets left - D/L tables are based on analysis of real life. Teams are perfectly capable of taking risks to increase the run rate.

Oh no, we've often been told that if 5 bowlers were good enough to concede 4 an over whilst being completely unthreatening then a team would score 200-0 against them in 50 overs.

How dare you use something like D/L and its detailed analysis of real life to question robot-cricket?!