Players who had careers that started off gun...

[zaremba]

Richard Illingworth

 

[wpdavid]

Richard Illingworth

Rest of the over was a let-down though.

Another brief effort was Frank Hayes' debut ton, which may well have been more than he managed in the rest of his test career.

 

[Xuhaib]

Imran Nazir anyone?

Good call.
was a proper batsman when he started, remember him handling Pollock,Ambrose,Walsh with proper technique I feel the adulation that Afridi got inspired him to to take that route thought he was good enough to succeed in that manner hence he suffered in the long run.

 

[Richard]

Harbhajan Singh. Never looked close to reaching the level of play which made him take 30 odd wickets in 3 tests.

It was 28 in 2 TBH, but most people will never even come remotely close to doing that. Anyone who freakishly does so never has a hope of maintaining anything close to it.

Harbhajan has remained what he was in 2000/01 - a very dangerous bowler on a turning deck. Anyone who hoped that the fact that he took 28 wickets on two spin-receptive decks meant that he was going to be a threat on non-spin-receptive ones was living in cloud-****oo-land.

 

[Richard]

Good call.
was a proper batsman when he started, remember him handling Pollock,Ambrose,Walsh with proper technique I feel the adulation that Afridi got inspired him to to take that route thought he was good enough to succeed in that manner hence he suffered in the long run.

When was that?

First time I saw Imran Nazir he was supposedly just 18 years old but readily played a completely needless slog for six off Mark Ealham in the First ODI of 2000/01. I said there and then that this kid's got no chance whatsoever if he keeps playing like that and lo-and-behold, he did and didn't have a chance.

Really surprised if he was a genuinely proper batsman at any point.

 

[Shri]

It was 28 in 2 TBH, but most people will never even come remotely close to doing that. Anyone who freakishly does so never has a hope of maintaining anything close to it.

Harbhajan has remained what he was in 2000/01 - a very dangerous bowler on a turning deck. Anyone who hoped that the fact that he took 28 wickets on two spin-receptive decks meant that he was going to be a threat on non-spin-receptive ones was living in cloud-****oo-land.

He just doesn't bowl the same way now. Bowls a negative leg stump line more these days. Doesn't flight the ball as much as he used to in the past. He wouldn't have an average of around 30 in tests if he bowled the same way as he bowled in the earlier part of the decade.

 

[slowfinger]

When was that?

First time I saw Imran Nazir he was supposedly just 18 years old but readily played a completely needless slog for six off Mark Ealham in the First ODI of 2000/01. I said there and then that this kid's got no chance whatsoever if he keeps playing like that and lo-and-behold, he did and didn't have a chance.

Really surprised if he was a genuinely proper batsman at any point.

I think that's moderately harsh, he played to impress,yes. But it's like just how he plays. You can't have a go, a failed player maybe. But it's what he feels the need to do. Even when his team are 50-odd runs ahead of the game he will slog and you can't have a go nor try and stop him but hey, he is like what 27,and he can just learn to keep his head but he has so much talent...

 

[slowfinger]

Shoaib Akhtar...
I needn't tell why tbh.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Another brief effort was Frank Hayes' debut ton, which may well have been more than he managed in the rest of his test career.

You haven't read page 2.

 

[Richard]

He just doesn't bowl the same way now. Bowls a negative leg stump line more these days. Doesn't flight the ball as much as he used to in the past. He wouldn't have an average of around 30 in tests if he bowled the same way as he bowled in the earlier part of the decade.

He'd have an average around 30 if he bowled as regularly as he has on non-turning decks.

In my experience Harbhajan is still a huge threat on a turning deck, because he is still more than capable of bowling with loop and dip, and drift, that is up with the best and still spins the ball easily enough to extract considerable turn from a helpful pitch. I can't say I've seen him bowl a leg-stump line when the potential to turn the ball in big from outside off is there, though yes he does often enough when the potential is not there, because otherwise he'd be smashed around the park instead of keeping it tight.

 

[Sir Alex]

It was 28 in 2 TBH, but most people will never even come remotely close to doing that. Anyone who freakishly does so never has a hope of maintaining anything close to it.

Harbhajan has remained what he was in 2000/01 - a very dangerous bowler on a turning deck. Anyone who hoped that the fact that he took 28 wickets on two spin-receptive decks meant that he was going to be a threat on non-spin-receptive ones was living in cloud-****oo-land.

Harbhajan benefited from some terrible umpiring (Gilchrist - how many times he was given wrongly out in that series!) and inept batting by the Australians, particularly Ricky. Ricky corrected those second time around and that was the reason why he was able to dominate Harbajan in almost all tests they played against each other since then. The visiting South Africans, who traditionally suck at playing spin, showed the frailty of Harbhajan Singh in 2008. He can nowadays dominate only substandard batting lineups like West Indies, New Zealand, Bangladesh etc (In tests); I think it is time India really start looking at Mishra as the spinner and Ojha as his understudy.

 

[wpdavid]

You haven't read page 2.

True. I see that tim Robinson got a first mention there as well as Hayes.

 

[Shri]

He'd have an average around 30 if he bowled as regularly as he has on non-turning decks.

In my experience Harbhajan is still a huge threat on a turning deck, because he is still more than capable of bowling with loop and dip, and drift, that is up with the best and still spins the ball easily enough to extract considerable turn from a helpful pitch. I can't say I've seen him bowl a leg-stump line when the potential to turn the ball in big from outside off is there, though yes he does often enough when the potential is not there, because otherwise he'd be smashed around the park instead of keeping it tight.

If players are trying to smash him around, it also gives him a chance to pick wickets. It worked out well for him(still works imo) when he played/plays the role of an attacking off spinner. His reluctance to stick to the off/middle stump line which gives him a better chance of taking wickets puzzles me.

 

[Richard]

The visiting South Africans, who traditionally suck at playing spin, showed the frailty of Harbhajan Singh in 2008.

That's why Harbhajan had them in knots on the only turning deck produced in that series?

The fact that he couldn't make any impact on two of the flattest decks you'll see (which the First was throughout and the Second was for most of the game after being a rank green seamer in the opening couple of sessions) is precisely what I'm saying. On a turner he remains an excellent bowler, and he showed that in the Third Test of that series.

 

[Richard]

If players are trying to smash him around, it also gives him a chance to pick wickets.

Not if the ball isn't turning. Good-ish players will score quickly without much danger against flighted bowling on a non-turning pitch. Trying to play that way against flighted and well-pitched bowling on a turning deck however is a recipe for disaster.

It worked out well for him(still works imo) when he played/plays the role of an attacking off spinner.

Off-spinner (as in fingerspinner) can only play the attacking role when the pitch allows the bowler to do so by offering sufficient grip. No fingerspinner can attack without the right type of pitch.

 

[Shri]

Off-spinner (as in fingerspinner) can only play the attacking role when the pitch allows the bowler to do so by offering sufficient grip. No fingerspinner can attack without the right type of pitch.

With all due respect, Murali disagrees.

 

[Perm]

With all due respect, Murali disagrees.

Yes, but Murali is a freak, as I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[Prince EWS]

With all due respect, Murali disagrees.

Murali isn't a finger spinner.

 

[Shri]

Murali isn't a finger spinner.

Saqlain Mushtaq disagrees too.

 

[Richard]

So go on then, show me all these non-turning surfaces that Saqlain succeeded on.

Saqlain, exactly like Harbhajan, was a damn good fingerspinner whose Doosra made him even more dangerous than ever on a turning deck. But just like Harbhajan he was easily enough handled by good batsmen on a deck that didn't allow the ball to grip.

And as mentioned, Murali is a wristspinner and a freak of nature at that. There may well never be another like him.