Habibul Bashar vs Mohammad Ashraful - Who was the better batsman? A study of the two.

[mr_mister]

The only two batsman of any sustained quality Bangladesh possessed for several years after they entered test cricket, who was the better out of Ash and Bash?

Bashar averaged 30 to Ashraful's 24, but scored only 3 tons to Ashraful's 6, in a similar amount of tests. Bashar's highest was only 113, while Ashraful had 5 scores higher than this including two 150+ scores.


Their best ever years, which happened back to back, kinda showcase what they were all about.

In 2003, Bashar hit 804 runs @ an average of 44, with 1 ton and 7 fifties(including a 97). A genuinely decent year for any test cricketer.

In 2004, Ashraful hit 502 runs @ an average of 40, with 1 ton, 4 fifties(including a 98), and 4 ducks. He was dismissed 8 times in single digits from 15 digs and yet still averaged 40 for the year due to a couple of really impressive big scores. Kinda remarkable actually. Sums him up as a player really.


Bashar hit 24 fifties to Ashraful's 8, so that pretty much wraps it up for Bashar you'd say.

What is also interesting is that against Sri Lanka, Bangladesh's most played opponent in the 2000s by a decent margin, Bashar averaged 23 and Ashraful 45. He scored 5 of his 6 tons against SL, 4 of them with Vaas and Murali in the attack. Bashar's best was 84 from 10 tests against them.


It seems Ashraful was a total rocks and diamonds player who had the higher bar but regularly whiffed that bar. Bashar was a more consistent batsman, if not perhaps not talented enough to compile big scores? Though I'm unsure as I didn't watch much of him.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Ashraful was probably getting brown paper bag money throughout most of his career anyway, honestly wouldn't surprise me

 

[a massive zebra]

Yeah Ashraful often came across as a really dumb batsman but the reality may have been somewhat more sinister.

Bashar wins this hands down. If Bangladesh had had six Habibul Bashars during his time, they may have drawn a fair number of the matches in which they were absolutely decimated. One simply shudders at the prospect of six Ashrafuls.

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

Ashraful should have been but Bashar probably was the better.

Ashraful was a young player, debuting at 17 and finishing his career at 28.
Bashar debuted at 28 and played until he was 35.

Ashraful passed 50 in 14 our of 119 innings, 11.7%
Basher passed 50 in 27 our of 99 innings, 27.3 innings.

So Ashraful had more centuries but also failed to deliver on his talent a vast majority of the time.
Bashar scored less centuries but was a far more consistent contributor to the team.

Ashraful was very successful against Sri Lanka, scoring 5 of his 6 centuries and averaging 45.41 from 13 tests.
He also had a good record against India, averaging 42.88 and scoring his only other century against them.
Against everyone else, apart from Zimbabwe who he average 24 against, he averaged under 20.

Bashur fell away badly at the end of career, his last 8 tests he only averaged around 12.
He had a much more consistent record against countries, he did quite well against Australia averaging 35.25.
He also scored centuries in Pakistan and the West Indies, but in the opposite to Ashraful he really struggled in Sri Lanka.
The most disappointing part is he failed to convert more than on of the 14 times he passed 50 in Bangladesh into centuries.

 

[fredfertang]

I liked Habibul - hard working batsman with some ability

As for Ashraful he was absolutely brilliant at one thing, and did it consistently throughout his career - flattering to deceive

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ashraful was probably getting brown paper bag money throughout most of his career anyway, honestly wouldn't surprise me

Yeah Ashraful often came across as a really dumb batsman but the reality may have been somewhat more sinister.

Ashraful didn't even average much better in First-class cricket in general either though (average 28). And surely there wouldn't be a whole lot of fixing going on in Bangladesh domestic cricket you would think, and it was likely very poor quality, which leads me to think that he really was just that dumb and crap and trying to blame any proportion of his failures on fixing is a bit flattering.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Habibul Bashar was quality...almost like the batting equivalent of a Mohammad Rafique.

Ashraful on the other hand is the complete opposite of an Adam Voges.

 

[Gowza]

ashraful even now barely scores any domestic runs.

Pretty sure habibul averaged close to 35 in test cricket before his decline in the last couple of years.

 

[a massive zebra]

Yeah. Habibul played 50 Tests. After 42 Tests he was averaging 34.60 which was miles ahead of any of his colleagues.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

 

[Bahnz]

It was always frustrating listening to the commentators talking up Ashraful every time he played, as though he was a Bangladeshi Sachin. Just not a very good player regardless of how sparkling his cover drives looked. Bashar by comparison was a hard working cricketer of modest ability. Would've likely played for a few other test playing nations which is hardly something you can say for Ashraful.

 

[MrPrez]

It was always frustrating listening to the commentators talking up Ashraful every time he played, as though he was a Bangladeshi Sachin. Just not a very good player regardless of how sparkling his cover drives looked. Bashar by comparison was a hard working cricketer of modest ability. Would've likely played for a few other test playing nations which is hardly something you can say for Ashraful.

While I agree that Bashar > Ashraful, I struggle to believe that this is the case (other than Zim).

 

[GoodAreasShane]

West Indies maybe? They had 4 genuine quality test batsman around that era (Lara, Chanderpaul, Gayle, Sarwan) but pretty much nothing else

 

[_Ed_]

Yeah, definitely would have got a few games for WI, I reckon. He might even have been given a shot for NZ - probably as a makeshift opener, but I doubt he would have been much worse than some of the blokes we tried.

 

[Malcolm]

Ashraful still holds the record of youngest to score a test century.

 

[h_hurricane]

Habibul was the better batsman. Always thought he was Bangladesh's best batsman during the period he played.

Ashraful could be brilliant at times, but mostly mediocre.

 

[Prince EWS]

Habibul was the better batsman. Always thought he was Bangladesh's best batsman during the period he played.

Ashraful could be brilliant at times, but mostly mediocre.

If he was brilliant at times but mostly mediocre he would've ended up with an average that looked much more like Habibul's. He was brilliant at times but mostly absolutely ****.

 

[h_hurricane]

If he was brilliant at times but mostly mediocre he would've ended up with an average that looked much more like Habibul's. He was brilliant at times but mostly absolutely ****.

Yeah, I under estimated Ashraful's rubbishness.

Regarding Habibul, he was never brilliant but consistent (only relative to his mates though). But having watched him play, I got a feeling that he would have averaged a bit more if he got an opportunity to play when he was younger.

 

[Maximas]

Ashraful to some extent embodied the qualities of the Bangladeshi team during the early 2000s, capable of occasional brilliance and pulled off some great heists, but largely coming up well short

Habibul was a forerunner to the Mushfiqur Rahim type, attempting to provide some semblance of stability and reliability to the batting line-up

 

[Starfighter]

Ashraful is a good case of something that I mentioned in another recent thread, that judging a batsmen by eye without the context of their statistics is extremely misleading. The fact that he actually could put up a good score somehow only serves to highlight just how bad he was the rest of the time.

The gap between their careers outside of tests is pretty much the same too: 37.99 vs 32.46.

I suppose in Ashraful's defence he was the better limited overs player and one of the innings that drove his reputation was that 2005 ton against Australia.

 

[mr_mister]

I suppose in Ashraful's defence he was the better limited overs player and one of the innings that drove his reputation was that 2005 ton against Australia.

And the 90 odd off fifty balls he got the next game against England. During that innings Michael Holding was going gaga on comms over the fact he was only 20 and had 15 more years to produce these types of innings, lol

He actually played some amazing shots in that knock. He must have had a terrible mental game in the long run, got hardly anything out of his raw ability really