Ravindra Jadeja vs Saqlain Mushtaq

[subshakerz]

We say that they prepare green-top pitches that negate spin completely and encourage swing and pace bowling. Have also given stats to support it.

Still, you want to dwell on hyperbole. When someone says that a pitch in India is a batting pitch, you say that they said that Kohli will score a 400 on it.

But they've always done that. There is no case they did that specifically for India touring recently. That is merely excuses for Jadeja not having real impact touring there.

 

[subshakerz]

I was making a point in contrary to what I think you thought I did. Players retiring early at 27 like Saqlain have a natural advantage of not going through a period when they are found out or their skills decline

27 is way too early. Saqlain was treated like crap by the PCB who ignored his injuries and then dropped him like a hat. A better board would have given Saqlain a few more years in his prime to get 300 wickets.

 

[TheJediBrah]

We say that they prepare green-top pitches that negate spin completely and encourage swing and pace bowling. Have also given stats to support it.

Still, you want to dwell on hyperbole. When someone says that a pitch in India is a batting pitch, you say that they said that Kohli will score a 400 on it.

The last decade or so Australia has been doing the opposite. Shooting themselves in the foot by dishing up slower and less bouncy wickets. Last couple of seasons have been better though.

 

[_00_deathscar]

This oversimplif argument is still missing the main factors:
- India as a team got better, particularly at home.
- Ashwin + Jadeja bowling together. Apart from a couple of Bhaji series where he was insane, he just wasn’t at that same level to truly support Kumble.
- India’s pace attack. We actually have one.

Yes more spin friendly pitches will have helped and plays into it, but these 3 factors are seriously being ignored. It’s also why in an Indian ATG XI, I’ll pick Ashwin + Jadeja - they bowled together, we know exactly how this would have looked like (plus their batting of course).

As far as Jadeja himself goes, one can speculate all one likes about how some other spinners would have performed. But we have actual hard evidence that Jadeja at home was an absolute cheat code. And as a cricket player, that could be anywhere from 45-60% (or even more) of your tests. Why would you not want to win most of those?

 

[subshakerz]

This oversimplif argument is still missing the main factors:
- India as a team got better, particularly at home.
- Ashwin + Jadeja bowling together. Apart from a couple of Bhaji series where he was insane, he just wasn’t at that same level to truly support Kumble.
- India’s pace attack. We actually have one.

Yes more spin friendly pitches will have helped and plays into it, but these 3 factors are seriously being ignored. It’s also why in an Indian ATG XI, I’ll pick Ashwin + Jadeja - they bowled together, we know exactly how this would have looked like (plus their batting of course).

As far as Jadeja himself goes, one can speculate all one likes about how some other spinners would have performed. But we have actual hard evidence that Jadeja at home was an absolute cheat code. And as a cricket player, that could be anywhere from 45-60% (or even more) of your tests. Why would you not want to win most of those?

Here we go with this old tired myopic argument. Just because you play more in friendly conditions doesnt make you a better player.

All of your arguments actually kind of downgrade Jadeja the bowler even more. Not only did he have spinning wickets that even average spinners abroad got wickets on, but he also benefited significantly from support and pressure from the other end.

You don't need to speculate how other Indian spinners would have performed when your entire cricket history is littered with great and ordinary spinners who all achieved worldclass figures at home. Nobody defending Jadeja in this thread has pointed to some significant edge in skill he has over these others. It's just that flashy average which is pretty much indicative of the times he played in.

 

[OverratedSanity]

But we have actual hard evidence that Jadeja at home was an absolute cheat code. And as a cricket player, that could be anywhere from 45-60% (or even more) of your tests. Why would you not want to win most of those?

Obviously yes. But most good teams have plenty of players who can do well at home. Don't pretend you don't know why overseas performers are valued higher.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Obviously yes. But most good teams have plenty of players who can do well at home. Don't pretend you don't know why overseas performers are valued higher.

But Jadeja (and Ashwin) are the reason we win like 80% of our home games. That’s almost unprecedented even for Australia/Windies GOAT teams (I think it’s thereabouts or not far off the Aus one, better than the Windies one) nevermind any Indian team.

 

[subshakerz]

But Jadeja (and Ashwin) are the reason we win like 80% of our home games. That’s almost unprecedented even for Australia/Windies GOAT teams (I think it’s thereabouts or not far off the Aus one, better than the Windies one) nevermind any Indian team.

Thriving primarily in one type of conditions is usually seen as a weakness not a strength.

 

[ataraxia]

Going by continents, Jadeja is the better bowler in Asia, Africa and Americas. Saqlain better in Europe and arguably Oceania.

BTW this sort of analysis by checklist is the most objective metric for rating a player. Evidently John R Reid is the greatest cricketer of all time: the only test cricketer to have played in Antarctica iirc. The wicket was the South Pole.

 

[h_hurricane]

BTW this sort of analysis by checklist is the most objective metric for rating a player. Evidently John R Reid is the greatest cricketer of all time: the only test cricketer to have played in Antarctica iirc. The wicket was the South Pole.

In the same post, I had mentioned that sample size was lolworthy in several of those cases.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Obviously yes. But most good teams have plenty of players who can do well at home. Don't pretend you don't know why overseas performers are valued higher.

Overseas performers shouldn't be valued higher