Harbhajan vs. Saqlain in Tests?

[silentstriker]

Bradman had 7000 test runs, is he not comparable to Sachin?

No.

 

[BoyBrumby]

200 wickets not enough regardless of how his career ended.

Pffft.

Some bloody fine bowlers have ended up with fewer than 200 wickets. Longevity is laudable and all and I'd have no problems in using it as a tie-breaker if bowlers are otherwise evenly matched, but (IMHO) it's all Harbhajan has over Saqlain.

 

[vcs]

Bradman had 7000 test runs, is he not comparable to Sachin?

Well, Bradman and Sachin's case is different as they belong to different eras, circumstances, and they had fewer opportunities to play Tests back then, it took a longer time to travel, World War etc. In any case, Bradman's longevity is not in question as he kept up his standard for 20 years, albeit with fewer opportunities to play. However Harbhajan and Saqlain are contemporaries.

 

[ankitj]

Saqlain has bowled well in Aus, hasn't he? At least I assumed that was what Ankit was referring to when he said he has played match-winning hands outside the subcontinent. Though, of course, as Xuhaib pointed out, Pakistan could not actually finish the job in Hobart thanks to Gilly and Langer.

Actually no, he hasn't done that much outside sub-continent. Hobart was his best effort. I confused Mushtaq Ahmed's effort to win a test in South Africa for Saqlain's effort.

So you can see, I am all mixed up

 

[vcs]

I was a big fan of Mushtaq Ahmed as well (he possessed a divine wrong 'un). In general, always prefer leggies to off-spinners, aesthetically.

 

[Xuhaib]

away from Sub cont Mushtaq was always the preferred choice and he really had 4-5 memorible years in mid-90's.

 

[fredfertang]

We've seen much more of Saqi in England than we have of Harbhajan - when he's bowling well which, when he's fit, is almost always the case, he's the dog's bollocks and however good Harbhajan might be I can't see him coming out on top in a straight comparison

 

[centurymaker]

Bradman had 7000 test runs, is he not comparable to Sachin?

diff era.

200 nowadays is not enough

 

[centurymaker]

Pffft.

Some bloody fine bowlers have ended up with fewer than 200 wickets. Longevity is laudable and all and I'd have no problems in using it as a tie-breaker if bowlers are otherwise evenly matched, but (IMHO) it's all Harbhajan has over Saqlain.

he may have been clearly more skillful but 200 in this era for a SPINNER is hardly enough.

 

[Z-Man]

And what does 'more fascinating wise' mean?

I mean "Who is more fascinating", who is more exciting.

 

[Cevno]

Pffft.

Some bloody fine bowlers have ended up with fewer than 200 wickets. Longevity is laudable and all and I'd have no problems in using it as a tie-breaker if bowlers are otherwise evenly matched, but (IMHO) it's all Harbhajan has over Saqlain.

Tbf, up to his 50th match Harbhajan Singh averaged 27.87 which is actually 2 points lesser than Saqlain and had more wickets too (219 wickets).

While i agree Saqlain was the better bowler in the period despite the averages(various factors),it is unfair to penalise Harbhajan because he played longer and his standards dropped afterwards for whatever reason.

If they had retired say together at that time ,would it be a more closer comparison ?

 

[smash84]

Tbf, up to his 50th match Harbhajan Singh averaged 27.87 which is actually 2 points lesser than Saqlain and had more wickets too (219 wickets).

While i agree Saqlain was the better bowler in the period despite the averages(various factors),it is unfair to penalise Harbhajan because he played longer and his standards dropped afterwards for whatever reason.

If they had retired say together at that time ,would it be a more closer comparison ?

Saqlain seemed to have more variety, more turn, more guile, and better strategy for getting batsmen out. Also Harbhajan doesn't seem to do quite ordinarily against teams who play spin decently (at least he doesn't do well against Pak) at all. Won't be surprised if he doesn't do that well against SL either. Saqlain was outstanding against India too who are considered the best players of spin.

Nobody is penalizing Harbhajhan for longevity. If anything that is the only edge that he seems to hold over Saqi

 

[vcs]

Worth mentioning that few bowlers in history can match Harbhajan's career-high series in 2001. That may turn out be his only real high (unlike Laxman, who has many more memorable moments), but what a high it was.

You could probably equate it to a batsman scoring 4-5 centuries in a 3-Test series against a top-notch attack, with virtually zero support from the rest of his team.

 

[smash84]

Worth mentioning that few bowlers in history can match Harbhajan's career-high series in 2001. That may turn out be his only real high (unlike Laxman, who has many more memorable moments), but what a high it was.

You could probably equate it to a batsman scoring 4-5 centuries in a 3-Test series against a top-notch attack, with virtually zero support from the rest of his team.

Indeed his 2001 series vs Aus is a big big achievement but you also have to hand it to Saqlain for his 1999 show in India against a side which is by far the strongest player of spin bowling

 

[vcs]

Indeed it is an achievement but you have to hand it to Saqlain for his 1999 show in India against a side which is by far the strongest player of spin bowling

Disagree, would say Harbhajan's series in 2001 was more noteworthy by far. He had virtually zero support, while Saqlain had the likes of Wasim and Shoaib at the other end. Also, that Australian side >>>>> that Indian side by several degrees of magnitude, plus the confidence of a 16-game winning streak.

 

[Cevno]

Saqlain seemed to have more variety, more turn, more guile, and better strategy for getting batsmen out. Also Harbhajan doesn't seem to do quite ordinarily against teams who play spin decently (at least he doesn't do well against Pak) at all. Won't be surprised if he doesn't do that well against India either. Saqlain was outstanding against India too who are considered the best players of spin.

Nobody is penalizing Harbhajhan for longevity. If anything that is the only edge that he seems to hold over Saqi

I agree on thie bolded part with you.

But what i was saying was that it is not as if Harbhajan was far behind Saqlain when they both played together ,that Longevity does not matter.

And the fact that Harbhajan carried on beyond that (though he may have detiorated after that) counts more for him than against him and closes the gap for sure.

Who knows how Saqlain would have done had he carried on for 5/6 years more ? It is all speculative.

Similar case with Shane Bond so to speak(though a smaller sample) .When he hit form and was on top he was better than many other bowlers but played for a too short duration due to injuries and other factors.

 

[vcs]

Also Harbhajan did a fine job when Australia finally won in India in 2004, given that they had exponentially improved their play against spin by then, adding Martyn, Clarke and Lehmann to their lineup.

 

[Cevno]

Saqlain is like the spinning equivalent of Shoaib Akthar and Shane Bond (smaller sample size for Bond, though spinners generally play longer).
Never know where to rate them factoring in longevity,when on form and fit they were better than many other bowlers who might get rated ahead of them.

 

[smash84]

Disagree, would say Harbhajan's series in 2001 was more noteworthy by far. He had virtually zero support, while Saqlain had the likes of Wasim and Shoaib at the other end. Also, that Australian side >>>>> that Indian side by several degrees of magnitude, plus the confidence of a 16-game winning streak.

yeah the aus side >>>> indian side in almost everything except in playing spin it is probably the other way around.

 

[smash84]

I agree on thie bolded part with you.

But what i was saying was that it is not as if Harbhajan was far behind Saqlain when they both played together ,that Longevity does not matter.

And the fact that Harbhajan carried on beyond that (though he may have detiorated after that) counts more for him than against him and closes the gap for sure.

Who knows how Saqlain would have done had he carried on for 5/6 years more ? It is all speculative.

Similar case with Shane Bond so to speak(though a smaller sample) .When he hit form and was on top he was better than many other bowlers but played for a too short duration due to injuries and other factors.

awta