-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Graeme Swann Appreciation Thread
- Thread starter Furball
- Start date
I dunno if he is necessarily better but it certainly is no laughing matter. There is a case. 400+ wickets at an average similar to Swann's, had an epic series against the greatest side to step foot on the planet whilst Swann came nowhere close to doing that against far weaker Aussie sides(outbowled by Hauritz and Lyon!). Not a watertight case in Harbhajan's favour but whoever thinks it's clear-cut is deluded.
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Set one up many years ago man
Slifer
International Captain
Sorry but I think that the only thing SIngh has on Swann is total number of wickets, otherwise Swann is clearly a superior spinner to Harbhajan. Singh is nothing outside of India whereas Swann was effective in most places (particularly in India)
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Are you aware of what post-Warne means?
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Worst bloke
Salamuddin
International Debutant
To say harbhajan was nothing outside India is a bit silly. He played key roles in India's series wins in the West Indies in 2006, New Zealand in 2009 and their series draw in South Africa in 2010.
Obviously he was a better at home but that,s only to be expected given the nature of Indian wickets relative to those of other countries.
Harbhajan was probably the better bowler against the better batting lineups. Swan for all his lofty status doesn't average under 30 against any of Australia, South Africa or India. Even his strong last series against India came against an Indian side sans laxman and Dravid and where Sehwag and tendulkar were clearly on he wane. Harby averaged under 30 against Australia and South Africa and there's no doubt he faced far better Aussie batting lineups than swann did.
Harbhajan also played 40 tests more than swann - that is a pretty significant difference that also needs to be factored in if you're looking at overall stats. Swans career trajectory certainly suggests his numbers would have worsened had he played more tests.
I don't think swann is that much superior to harbhajan if at all - certainly think you can mount a case for harbhajan being the better bowler. Truth is Harbhajan is actually seriously underrated as a test match bowler - 400 test wickets for a finger spinner in the covered wickets era is no joke.
Last edited:
Slifer
International Captain
Lets see, Harbhajan averages under 30 vs the above teams u mentioned (at home) but away its a completely different story. Sorry but averaging 28 in India and 38 outside vs Swann who averages 28 at home and 31 away is all that really needs to be said. But I'll elaborate even further. Swann averages over 30 only vs Oz, RSA and India, he averages under 30 vs everyone else. Swann also averages over 30 away only vs Oz and RSA. Singh on the other hand averages over 30 vs everyone else except for Oz RSA WI and ZIm. Away Singh is over 30 vs everyone except for NZ, WI and Zim. Suffice to say that Harbhajan's reputation owes a lot to bowling on pitches tailor made for him where as Swann was a lot more versatile. And that quip about Swann playing an Indian lineup on the wane, sorry don't buy it. No matter how much on the wane their lineup might have been , Indians (sorry to generalize) eat spinners for dinner regardless of form.
The 3 best batting line-ups that he faced incidentally...and it is nigh on 40 against Australia and South Africa. I don't disagree with you on their away records, Swann has a better record away from home no question but given his career trajectory it is likely he would have ended with numbers as bad as Harbhajan's if he had played another 40 tests (which is about 2/3 of Swann's entire career). Now looking at their away records :
Harbahajn averages sub 25 in New Zealand, Swann hasn't played in New Zealand.
They are about equal in West Indies and South Africa - Swann edges him out marginally in both places but you will have to factor in that Harbhajan probably played against stronger WI line-ups - Lara alone would make a big difference.
Australia - well Swann was definitely better in Australia despite not being all that flash himself but I dunno, the batting line-ups Harbhajan faced in Australia were superior to any Swann has faced anywhere, let alone Australia.
I'll give Swann Sri Lanka. As for Pakistan, again Harbhajan was crap in Pakistan but this was on pitches were the Sehwags and Younis Khans were smashing 200s for fun. Compare that to how the spinners performed and what the scores were in the 2 matches Swann played against Pakistan in the UAE.
It would be unfair on Swann to say he faced a crap Indian line-up in India but clearly it wasn't the same Indian line-up of the past (Tendulkar was totally hopeless against spin). Can't hold that against Swann though because it would have definitely been held against him if he had failed. So yeah, all said and done it was an impressive performance. Harbhajan's 2001 Australia series shades it and anything Swann has ever done though.
While I'd agree that Swann has been better than Harbhajan on the road, I don't think the difference is anywhere near as big as it is being made out to be.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Harbhajan definitely being underrated here. He had a poor last 4 years or so but before that he was one of the very best spinners on the world. There are two things which color people's opinions, imo. One is that he played his entire career when Warne and Murali dominated world cricket and also alongside Kumble for India, and people failed to appreciate he was actually a very good spinner in his own right. Second is that he had one series which was so mind bogglingly sensational that people forget he was a quality spinner for a good 5 years after the as well. If it wasn't for his last 4 years when he bowled dross, he performed at swann's level or higher, that too for a much longer duration.
Still think Swann's slightly better but it depends on what you value from a spinner. Swann performed in more varied conditions than Harbhajan but he also had a ridiculously short career
Still think Swann's slightly better but it depends on what you value from a spinner. Swann performed in more varied conditions than Harbhajan but he also had a ridiculously short career
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yup but doesn't erase 7 years of very good bowling. Swann had what, 4? Apart from a couple of bad years in the middle, Harbhajan was very very good from 2001 to 2009. Much more than Swann.
davidbarron
Cricket Spectator
smash84
The Tiger King
Swann's career a little too short for my liking and Harbhajan's a little too long :P
having said that I think Swann had a better stock delivery and looked more dangerous than Bhajji (at least from what I recall). Harbhajan never really spun the ball that much. But there isn't daylight between the two. It is pretty close IMO.
The fact that Bhajji didn't come across as a very likeable bloke probably doesn't help his cause
having said that I think Swann had a better stock delivery and looked more dangerous than Bhajji (at least from what I recall). Harbhajan never really spun the ball that much. But there isn't daylight between the two. It is pretty close IMO.
The fact that Bhajji didn't come across as a very likeable bloke probably doesn't help his cause
