Thilan Samaraweera: a victim of black magic?

[Flem274*]

Jayawardene is a very impressive batsman, I haven't read all of Miagaras posts on him in here, so I don't know who he's rating him higher than, but he's right about the double standards in this example.

 

[0RI0N]

if you took your time to read some of this thread, you would find the answer



heres some good advice from evermind.



I would say to you, good guesses, but hey, the information was already in this thread.

/

Listen here,I'l just read start reading from whatever page I want.Don't get your panties in a knot.
Just calm your ass down,okay.
Thank you.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I know what I'm talking about far better than anyone who blindly looks at "ooh, Hayden dominates crap seam-bowling and averages 70 between 2001/02 and 2004 and 60 between 2005/06 and 2007/08, he must be good".

You clearly don't if you think that Pollock, Donald, Waqar, Shoaib, Bond, Ntini, Caddick, Flintoff, Sharma are all crap.

Assessing players on "a certain class when you watch them bat" is a notoriously unreliable method as this depends more on the ability of the bowlers than the batsman. If the bowling is inadaquete - and it mostly has been the last 7 years - then even a moderate batsman can look Godlike. The bowler controls the game, and it's how a batsman responds to high-quality bowling that demonstrates his ability best. How well he smashes the crap stuff is only a relatively minor aspect.

This is assessed by watching the bowling and considering scores (and not just the number at the end of the innings, but what happened within). Not just one or just the other.

So should Dravid and Tendulkar also be discredited because they failed in the most bowler friendly conditions in world cricket that featured quality bowlers (South Africa)? TBH, batsman that plays shot against quality bowlers are better then survivors that fend off and nudge the ball around.

It's pretty obvious to me that Hayden could not and never could counter high-quality seam-bowling, and to me anyone who refuses to acknowledge that either a) isn't looking hard enough or b) is just a blind Hayden fan who worships him because of the fact his success was so huge in Australia's success 2001/02-2006/07.

He did numerous times. Every batsman has bowlers that they struggle against and most of them don't get 100's against bowlers that they struggle against him. Hayden always managed to get a hundred when the chips were down, against bowling that he was struggling against, that's what made him so great.

 

[chaminda_00]

I have question for Ben91. With Sangakkara average 48 outside the SC, if he continues to increase the rate he has over the last three seasons. Went from low 40s to it current 48. Next series continuing on that progress, he may average over 50 outside the SC. If he does that make him a modern great?

Also it should be noted that Dravid had about the same average outside the SC, as Sangakkara at the same stage in their careers. EDIT: It was Tendulkar that averaged 46.58 after 24 Tests outside Asia.

 

[Migara]

Epic Fail? LOOOOOL! Pietersen played the most impressive shot off Murali that I've ever seen. He murdered Muralitharan. That comment is almost signature worthy

Proves that you have not been watching cricket. Pietersen managed it only in two innings. Then he was the bitch for Murali. He groped and struggled to read spin and flight after that. You have never seen the way Navjot Sidhu has played Murali and Warne. That would be the right definition of massacare. Azaruddin also played them beautifully. Pietersen, I would not rate him even in top 10 players of spin in last 30 years. Sidhu, Azhat, Sachin, Lara, Ganguly, Ranatunga, Gurusinghe, Miandad, Salim Malik are the best of examples to players who took spinners to cleaners. They have done it much regularly than Pietersen.

Piece of advice, see how those playes hammered spnners, and how impressive their shots were. Then we'll talk.

 

[chaminda_00]

Image if MoYo joined the ICL when he was orginally meant and didn't play that series against South Africa and averaged over 50 outside Asia. That will go down as one of those big what 'íf'' like Bradman getting out for duck and not averaging a 100. What an idoit he should have know he was averaging over 50 outside Asia and called it quits back then, just so he would go down as modern great.

 

[Migara]

Playing outside the subcontient does offer more value, for subcontient batsman. As statistics show, only 3 subcontient batsman in the history of the game have averaged over 50 outside the subcontient.

What's the stand for a non-subcontnental batsman then?

 

[chaminda_00]

What's the stand for a non-subcontnental batsman then?

10 batsmen average over 50 in SC, but most dominated the weaker sub continent sides.

 

[Migara]

Ha ha, there, evidence of double standards.

 

[gwo]

/

Listen here,I'l just read start reading from whatever page I want.Don't get your panties in a knot.
Just calm your ass down,okay.
Thank you.

don't get your knickers in a knot.

and getting into a habit of reading a thread before you post is a good idea.

just trying to help your transition into the CW community.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I have question for Ben91. With Sangakkara average 48 outside the SC, if he continues to increase the rate he has over the last three seasons. Went from low 40s to it current 48. Next series continuing on that progress, he may average over 50 outside the SC. If he does that make him a modern great?

Also it should be noted that Dravid had about the same average outside the SC, as Sangakkara at the same stage in their careers. EDIT: It was Tendulkar that averaged 46.58 after 24 Tests outside Asia.

Yeah, that was when Dravid and Tendulkar were in there early 20's and before they hit their peak. Sangakkara is well into his peak and as you've just proven, he was well on par with Tendulkar and Dravid before they hit their peak.

Sangakkara, Mohammad Yousuf and Mahela Jayawardene, only started averaging 50 in the past 2-3 years whilst other great non-subcontient batsman have been averaging over 50 for the majority of the past decade.

What's the stand for a non-subcontnental batsman then?

It doesn't really matter because unlike subcontient teams, no other cricketing country doesn't have the benefit of 2-3 countries surrounding them, that have similar conditions to their home country, which are incredibly infavour of their batsman. Subcontient players, generally play about 75-80% of their cricket, in the subcontient. Hence their strong subcontient records overpower their statistics outside the subcontient (regardless how poor they are) and increase their overall average.

Proves that you have not been watching cricket. Pietersen managed it only in two innings. Then he was the bitch for Murali. He groped and struggled to read spin and flight after that. You have never seen the way Navjot Sidhu has played Murali and Warne. That would be the right definition of massacare. Azaruddin also played them beautifully. Pietersen, I would not rate him even in top 10 players of spin in last 30 years. Sidhu, Azhat, Sachin, Lara, Ganguly, Ranatunga, Gurusinghe, Miandad, Salim Malik are the best of examples to players who took spinners to cleaners. They have done it much regularly than Pietersen.

Piece of advice, see how those playes hammered spnners, and how impressive their shots were. Then we'll talk.

"Only"

The fact is that Pietersen has proven that he can dominate spin-bowling when in-form. Of course he isn't going to dominate every single time he goes out to bat, because he is surrounded by a bunch of muppets who struggle against quality bowling. More often then not, Pietersen is playing to save the English Cricket Team. His playing in a batting lineup that is arguably weaker then the one that Brian Lara played in for the majority of his career. Subcontient players have proven with time that subcontient conditions are very much in favour of them. This is indicted by their below-par performance outside the subcontient. That's probably why there are more regulary high-scoring matches in the subcontient then anywhere else in the world.

 

[0RI0N]

don't get your knickers in a knot.

and getting into a habit of reading a thread before you post is a good idea.

just trying to help your transition into the CW community.

/
no worries
Now back to thread topic.
Sub continental players esp from SL just can't get a break.Why is that?I think that some people can't stomach the fact that Sri Lankan players are...actually good.
~
Anyone dare to differ.Let's keep this debate going.

 

[chaminda_00]

Yeah, that was when Dravid and Tendulkar were in there early 20's and before they hit their peak. Sangakkara is well into his peak and as you've just proven, he was well on par with Tendulkar and Dravid before they hit their peak.

Sangakkara, Mohammad Yousuf and Mahela Jayawardene, only started averaging 50 in the past 2-3 years whilst other great non-subcontient batsman have been averaging over 50 for the majority of the past decade.

You watch Langer and Hayden bat before they hit their peak and started opening together?

Both those two averaged below 50 at that point and only started averaging 50 plus during their peak. The same applies for Dravid and Kallis, it just that these guys peaks have been basically the last decade, give or take a couple years.

Sangakkara, Yousuf, Jayawardene are in the middle of their peaks (or in Yousuf case was). As it Younis Khan. If you had a good hard look through the careers of Langer, Hayden, Dravid, Kallis you would see they all started off similar to Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Younis and Yousuf. Showed a lot of promise at the start of their careers, but it wasn't until the their peaks they really started putting together massive numbers like Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Younis are going now. Another to add is Chanderpaul, who is in the same boat.

The only batsmen in the modern ear that averaged 50 plus regularly prior to their peaks was Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar. These three plus Langer and Hayden due to fact that didn't get a consistent chance prior to their peaks are real modern greats.

Right now Dravid and Kallis may look like they are a class above. But if you look at their whole careers they are on par with the rest of the next teir. Pietersen the jury still out.

Not sure why I made this post, you just go back to your flawed stats breakdown and basic your judgement of that.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

You watch Langer and Hayden bat before they hit their peak and started opening together?

Both those two averaged below 50 at that point and only started averaging 50 plus during their peak. The same applies for Dravid and Kallis, it just that these guys peaks have been basically the last decade, give or take a couple years.

Sangakkara, Yousuf, Jayawardene are in the middle of their peaks (or in Yousuf case was). As it Younis Khan. If you had a good hard look through the careers of Langer, Hayden, Dravid, Kallis you would see they all started off similar to Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Younis and Yousuf. Showed a lot of promise at the start of their careers, but it wasn't until the their peaks they really started putting together massive numbers like Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Younis are going now. Another to add is Chanderpaul, who is in the same boat.

The only batsmen in the modern ear that averaged 50 plus regularly prior to their peaks was Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar. These three plus Langer and Hayden due to fact that didn't get a consistent chance prior to their peaks are real modern greats.

Right now Dravid and Kallis may look like they are a class above. But if you look at their whole careers they are on par with the rest of the next teir. Pietersen the jury still out.

Not sure why I made this post, you just go back to your flawed stats breakdown and basic your judgement of that.

You say my stats are flawed but yet you go and make a post of complete nonsense.

Hayden's or Dravid's career was nothing like Sangakkara's, Yousuf's, Younis Khan's or Jayawardene's. Hayden and Dravid always averaged over 50 from 2000 onwards whilst Sangakkara, Yousuf and Jayawardene didn't start averaging over 50 until just recently. Also, both Hayden and Dravid were averaging over 50 in Test Cricket before Ponting and Kallis were.

Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis and Hayden, all got their career averages in the high 50's (58+) during their peak. I don't see Sangakkara, Yousuf, YKhan or Jayawardene doing that.

 

[chaminda_00]

You say my stats are flawed but yet you go and make a post of complete nonsense.

Hayden's or Dravid's career was nothing like Sangakkara's, Yousuf's, Younis Khan's or Jayawardene's. Hayden and Dravid always averaged over 50 from 2000 onwards whilst Sangakkara, Yousuf and Jayawardene didn't start averaging over 50 until just recently. Also, both Hayden and Dravid were averaging over 50 in Test Cricket before Ponting and Kallis were.

Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis and Hayden, all got their career averages in the high 50's (58+) during their peak. I don't see Sangakkara, Yousuf, YKhan or Jayawardene doing that.

I'll break it down. It ages of the players why they averaged 50 plus at different times in their careers.

- Dravid started averaging 50 plus in 2000 when it was 27. But as you can see by his decline in the last couple seasons he peaked early
- Hayden started to average above 50 in 2002, when he 31.
- Kallis in 2002 when he was 27.
- Yosuf in 2006 when he was 31
- Sangakkara 2006 when he was 28
- Jayawardene in 2007 when 29

Your looking at thing purely from the prospective that player a have been doing this for x number of years and player b has only y number of years. Without even taking into account the ages of the players when they started playing at that level or their experience.

It is one of the reason why it is kind of pointless to rate players in different stages of their careers, without taking into account where they were at the same stage. Sangakkara and Jayawardene still have it all to do and the other have already done it. But if you look at where they were at the same stages they not much difference. They may or may not reach the same highs, but at the same stage there not a lot of difference.

 

[Richard]

Haha, I see wfdu_ben91 has been initiated into the forum, arguing with Richard about Hayden. It's like surgery without anesthetic but more painful.

Yeah, it's difficult for me to deal with these rabid Hayden fans. I'll solider through it though, like I always do.

 

[Richard]

You clearly don't if you think that Pollock, Donald, Waqar, Shoaib, Bond, Ntini, Caddick, Flintoff, Sharma are all crap.

There's no such thing as "are crap". There were times in their careers when they were crap; there were times when they were good. Players DO NOT stay the same throughout a lengthy career. Just does not happen.

So should Dravid and Tendulkar also be discredited because they failed in the most bowler friendly conditions in world cricket that featured quality bowlers (South Africa)? TBH, batsman that plays shot against quality bowlers are better then survivors that fend off and nudge the ball around.

Not neccessarily, there's no hard-and-fast best way to go about things. Sometimes it's best to play expansively, sometimes it's best to play softly and quietly. And yes, Tendulkar's less-than-outstanding performances in South Africa, against the best seam-attack he ever faced, is a slight black-mark against him. Dravid in the good part of his career has done perfectly OK in SA when not opening the batting.

He did numerous times. Every batsman has bowlers that they struggle against and most of them don't get 100's against bowlers that they struggle against him. Hayden always managed to get a hundred when the chips were down, against bowling that he was struggling against, that's what made him so great.

No he didn't, actually. No-one "always" manages to get a certain score under certain circumstances, it's completely impossible.

In Hayden's case, he only once managed to score anything of note against what might be called good-quality seam-bowling in Test cricket - The Oval 2005. Every other score of note he made, the seam-bowling was poor or diabolical.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Yeah, it's difficult for me to deal with these rabid Hayden fans. I'll solider through it though, like I always do.

Good luck with that. I've confronted much more knowledgable cricket fanatics then you on this topic and overcome them all.

There's no such thing as "are crap". There were times in their careers when they were crap; there were times when they were good. Players DO NOT stay the same throughout a lengthy career. Just does not happen.

You fail to comprehend when bowlers were past it or not. Pollock in particular, by saying that he lost his effectiveness in 2001, despite maintaining the exact same age of 20, for the next 3 years. You have absolutely no excuse for Hayden's success against Ntini and Vaas either so you say that overall, that both bowlers were rubbish.

No he didn't, actually. No-one "always" manages to get a certain score under certain circumstances, it's completely impossible.

In Hayden's case, he only once managed to score anything of note against what might be called good-quality seam-bowling in Test cricket - The Oval 2005. Every other score of note he made, the seam-bowling was poor or diabolical.

Here are Hayden's 100's against good bowling attacks. Their career statistics that are shown are the bowlers averages at the time that Hayden faced them.

125 vs. West Indies, 1997 @ Adelaide
Bowlers: Courtney Walsh (323 wkts @ 25.47), Ian Bishop (132 wkts @ 22.55), Cameron Cuffy (7 wkts @ 43.71), Patterson Thompson (5 wkts @ 43.00), Carl Hooper (53 wkts @ 55.33), Jimmy Adams (15 wkts @ 43.60), Shivnarine Chanderpaul (3 wkts @ 111.33)

136 vs. New Zealand, 2001 @ Brisbane
Bowlers: Chris Cains (177 wkts @ 29.20), Dion Nash (93 wkts @ 28.48), Simon O'Connor (53 wkts @ 32.52), Daniel Vettori (106 wkts @ 33.31), Nathan Astle (30 wkts @ 49.60), Craig McMillan (21 wkts @ 43.76)

131 vs. South Africa, 2001 @ Adelaide
Bowlers: Shaun Pollock (254 wkts @ 20.46), Nantie Hayward (30 wkts @ 29.80), Makhaya Ntini (45 wkts @ 35.93), Jacques Kallis (105 wkts @ 28.20), Lance Klusener (78 wkts @ 37.34), Claude Henderson (18 wkts @ 33.27)

138 vs. South Africa, 2001 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Allan Donald (328 wkts @ 21.77), Shaun Pollock (258 wkts @ 20.50), Nantie Hayward (32 wkts @ 31.34), Jacques Kallis (105 wkts @ 28.72), Claude Henderson (19 wkts @ 37.21), Lance Klusener (78 wkts @ 37.48)

105 vs. South Africa, 2002 @ Sydney
Bowlers: Allan Donald (329 wkts @ 22.10), Shaun Pollock (261 wkts @ 20.72), Jacques Kallis (106 wkts @ 29.66), Claude Henderson (19 wkts @ 43.84), Nicky Boje (48 wkts @ 27.06), Justin Ontong (0 wkts @ -)

122 vs. South Africa, 2002 @ Johannesburg
Bowlers: Allan Donald (330 wkts @ 22.25), Makhaya Ntini (46 wkts @ 37.84), Jacques Kallis (108 wkts @ 30.19), Andre Nel (8 wkts @ 36.12), Nicky Boje (49 wkts @ 29.63), Neil McKenzie (0 wkts @ -)

119 vs. Pakistan, 2002 @ Sharjah
Bowlers: Waqar Younis (357 wkts @ 23.22), Shoaib Akhtar (78 wkts @ 27.87), Danish Kaneria (39 wkts @ 23.83), Abdul Razzaq (48 wkts @ 31.83), Saqlain Mushtaq (181 wkts @ 28.09)

197 & 103 vs. England, 2002 @ Brisbane
Bowlers: Andy Caddick (220 wkts @ 29.60), Matthew Hoggard (60 wkts @ 34.16), Simon Jones (5 wkts @ 32.20), Craig White (47 wkts @ 39.44), Ashley Giles (55 wkts @ 38.21), Mark Butcher (10 wkts @ 32.00)

130 vs. Sri Lanka, 2004 @ Galle
Bowlers: Chaminda Vaas (230 wkts @ 30.45), Kumar Dharmasena (69 wkts @ 42.31), Muttiah Muralitharan (496 wkts @ 22.86), Tillakaratne Dilshan (0 wkts @ -, Sanath Jayasuriya (75 wkts @ 33.72), Upul Chandana (22 wkts @ 39.00)

138 vs. England, 2005 @ London
Bowlers: Stephen Harmison (138 wkts @ 28.49), Matthew Hoggard (173 wkts @ 29.63), Andrew Flintoff (143 wkts @ 32.31), Ashley Giles (137 wkts @ 38.66), Paul Collingwood (0 wkts @ -)

111 vs ICC World XI, 2005 @ Sydney
Bowers: Stephen Harmison (142 wkts @ 28.40), Andrew Flintoff (150 wkts @ 31.52), Jacques Kallis (184 wkts @ 31.63), Muttiah Muralitharan (568 wkts @ 22.23), Daniel Vettori (208 wkts @ 34.86)

137 vs. South Africa, 2005 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Shaun Pollock (384 wkts @ 22.39), Makhaya Ntini (230 wkts @ 29.22), Jacques Kallis (187 wkts @ 31.80), Andre Nel (72 wkts @ 25.91), Nicky Boje (88 wkts @ 38.89), Graeme Smith (8 wkts @ 81.50)

102 vs. South Africa, 2006 @ Durban
Bowlers: Shaun Pollock (387 wkts @ 22.97), Makhaya Ntini (239 wkts @ 29.15), Nicky Boje (93 wkts @ 39.30), Andre Nel (81 wkts @ 27.20), Jacques Kallis (194 wkts @ 31.56)

153 vs. England, 2006 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Matthew Hoggard (235 wkts @ 30.18), Andrew Flintoff (196 wkts @ 31.89), Stephen Harmison (187 wkts @ 30.36), Sajid Mahmood (19 wkts @ 36.05), Monty Panesar (40 wkts @ 33.15), Paul Collingwood (1 wkt @ 265.00), Kevin Pietersen (1 wkt @ 201.00)

124 vs. India, 2007 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Zaheer Khan (170 wkts @ 33.60), RP Singh (29 wkts @ 32.89), Harbhajan Singh (251 wkts @ 30.72), Sourav Ganguly (32 wkts @ 49.93), Anil Kumble (591 wkts @ 28.63), Sachin Tendulkar (42 wkts @ 52.04)

103 vs. India, 2008 @ Adelaide
Bowlers: RP Singh (40 wkts @ 33.22), Irfan Pathan (100 wkts @ 31.41), Ishant Sharma (12 wkts @ 45.58), Harbhajan Singh (256 wkts @ 31.40), Anil Kumble (604 wkts @ 28.85), Virender Sehwag (18 wkts @ 41.61), Sachin Tendulkar (42 wkts @ 52.66), Sourav Ganguly (32 wkts @ 50.53)

 

[Migara]

It doesn't really matter because unlike subcontient teams, no other cricketing country doesn't have the benefit of 2-3 countries surrounding them, that have similar conditions to their home country,

You are talking absolute rubbish. This reigion had differences in climate, other cricketing nations only could dream of.

Most of Indian pitches are in areas which are very dry, and subjected to seasonal rains from monsoons. Because the climate is dry, they tend to be flat, or to crack and spin hard.

Pakistan pitches are subjected to much harsher winter than in India. And the air is much drier in Pakistan. This explains why so much belters are there.

In SL, it rains throughout the year. pitches are damp if not covered properly, and the atmosphere is heavy. Ball swings madly in Sri Lanka as a result. But the loose soil makes the pitches very batsman unfriendly.

which are incredibly infavour of their batsman.

You are talking utter rubbish. SL pitches are one of the worst for the batsman. As a result, most of SL players have higher test averages than FC averages. (Ex. Sangakkra, Samaraweera, Warnapura etc). in SL batting averages tend to be below 30. And for visiting batsmen, it is still lower.

Subcontient players, generally play about 75-80% of their cricket, in the subcontient.

Non-sub continental players do the same thing out side the SC.

H

ence their strong subcontient records overpower their statistics outside the subcontient (regardless how poor they are) and increase their overall average.

Analogus theory for n0n-SC batsmen.

The fact is that Pietersen has proven that he can dominate spin-bowling when in-form.

Arjuna Ranatunga did it even better when he was on form. The problem is Pietersen cannot get in to form against top class spin bowling when he is out of form. SRT, Lara and Ponting were able to do it. Even Kallis did it.

Subcontient players have proven with time that subcontient conditions are very much in favour of them. This is indicted by their below-par performance outside the subcontient.

Same explanation can be given for English players. blow-par performance in SC.

That's probably why there are more regulary high-scoring matches in the subcontient then anywhere else in the world.

Utter rubbish. In SL the first innigs score is about 250-300. On Indian turners, it is even lesser. There are flat tracks, yes. But there are absolute raging turners as well, and these pitches scuff the ball so strongly, you could prosper with reverse swing as well.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

You are talking utter rubbish. SL pitches are one of the worst for the batsman. As a result, most of SL players have higher test averages than FC averages. (Ex. Sangakkra, Samaraweera, Warnapura etc). in SL batting averages tend to be below 30. And for visiting batsmen, it is still lower.

You're the one talking "utter rubbish" when you say that SL pitches are one of the worst for batsman. Yeah, they're worse for opposition batsman, who are facing Murali - not other bowlers. Murali, Warne, Vaas and Pollock are the only bowlers who have good bowling records in Sri Lankan over an extended period of time. It's as flat as any other country with bowlers like Kumble, Bond, Gillespie, Vettori, Sharma, Hoggard, Steyn, Streak all struggling.

Jehan Muburak averages 30 in first-class cricket. If he played in any different first-class system throughout the world, barring India or Pakistan, he would probably average under 20. He is a shocking batsman. Bad example mate.

Non-sub continental players do the same thing out side the SC.

HAnalogus theory for n0n-SC batsmen.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, and if non-subcontient batsman played the majority of their career in the subcontient then allot more batsman would be averaging over 50.

Arjuna Ranatunga did it even better when he was on form. The problem is Pietersen cannot get in to form against top class spin bowling when he is out of form. SRT, Lara and Ponting were able to do it. Even Kallis did it.

I doubt any of them would be confident enough to try reverse-slog-sweeping Murali over cover for six. Even if they were confident, I doubt they'd be able to pull it off.

Same explanation can be given for English players. blow-par performance in SC.

How many Englishmen have averaged over 50 in Test Cricket in the past 30 years?

Utter rubbish. In SL the first innigs score is about 250-300. On Indian turners, it is even lesser. There are flat tracks, yes. But there are absolute raging turners as well, and these pitches scuff the ball so strongly, you could prosper with reverse swing as well.

Pfft, Indian pitches are more of an exhibition of how well batsman play on flat-tracks, as was illustrated in the recent India vs Australia series. Only pieces of brilliance from the likes of Murali, Kumble or Harbhajan at times have seen the pitches look un-flat.