Is Harbhajan Singh one of the greatest fingerspinners ever ?

[George.Hinton]

Guys like Prasanna and Bedi get regularly spoken of as some of the greatest finger spinners that have played the game.

Harbhajan is not usually mentioned in the same league despite having more wickets at a similar average and a better strike rate.

Thoughts ?.

 

[Burgey]

No.

 

[Shri]

Way to put out a light bulb.

 

[Jono]

No.

I agree he's not.

But if he has similar figures to Bedi and Prasanna (I haven't looked) it is worth discussing if he's in the same league as them and people look back at such bowlers with rose tinted glasses.

Or perhaps they are better.

 

[Migara]

Who is the best finger spinner ever then?

 

[Sir Alex]

He is nideed one of the best. Certainly one among the ones this side of 1950.

 

[honestbharani]

hey, if it is worth arguing that Kallis is a better allrounder than Sobers, then surely this is worth too. After all, the premises are the same for both arguments...



PS: I haven't checked Bhajji's stats comparative to Prasana and Bedi either, so my post above is assuming what the OP says is true.

 

[nexxus]

Who is the best finger spinner ever then?

Well, for me, it's got to be Pat Symcox innit?

I remember reading an article once about him & his 11 variations. Sometimes he's bowl the ball a bit earlier in his run up, every now and then he'd just bowl a cutter. 11 variations!! Legend. Don't forget the one ball that went through the stumps either.

Not to mention he got me a mini-bat with autographs from Malcolm Marshall, Clive Rice, Jonty Rhodes, Andrew Hudson & Shaun Pollock. That's the main reason he's the best ever.

 

[Uppercut]

If the entire premise of this proposal is statistical, then you could indeed argue that Harbhajan is in the same league as Prasanna and only a little behind Bedi. But you couldn't argue that he's one of the greatest finger-spinners of all time, because there's masses and masses of finger-spinners with much better records than him. I mean, I don't really agree with the practice, but if you're going to name someone as the greatest finger-spinner of all time on account of their stats you might as well pick someone who actually has good stats. Pervez Sajjad?

 

[Richard]

In my book it's completely pointless comparing fingerspinners whose home is in the subcontinent to those whose home is elsewhere; and it's even more pointless to compare those who played in the covered wickets and uncovered wickets era. To a fingerspinner, the pitch is inestimably important, and those of equal ability who play(ed) on spin-friendly wickets with massively greater regularity than those who do\did not will inevitably have far better records.

Thus there is in my book no "best ever" or "best" of anything outside pretty narrow spectrums. It's an impossible question, unlike the question of comparing batsmen and seamers (and even wristspinners) accross spectrums.

As for is Harbhajan better than Bedi and Prasanna, well, maybe. Honestly don't really know enough about either to say. Prasanna and Harbhajan from what I do know were very similar bowlers.

 

[The Legend]

I don't think so that Harbhajan is the best ever. I admit that he is one of the best spinners but I highly doubt his bowling action and same is the case with Muralitharan.

If you really want to see the greatest spinner ever, just look back to Shane Warne or Anil Kumble. Though Kumble wasn't able to spin the bowl much but his accuracy was fantastic.

 

[silentstriker]

Muralitharan, Warne and Kumble are wrist spinners, not fingerspinners .

 

[The Legend]

Yeah, I was just talking about general spinners

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think he'd have been lethal in the 90s.

 

[Uppercut]

I think he'd have been lethal in the 90s.

He definitely doesn't get enough respect for his record on the horrible, flat, slow pieces of crap that pass for pitches in India these days, presumably because of the country's reputation for being a very good place to bowl spin. I don't know if being able to take wickets at 32 on flat decks necessarily translates as being able to take them at 22 on dustbowls though.

Just because it's interesting:
Harb's record with Kumble in the team

Kumble's record with Harbs in the team

 

[Migara]

Harbhajan for some strange reason had a bad time in SL, while fellow finger spinners like Vettori enjoyed success. May be SL wickets are very different to Indian ones despite being spin friendly. Similarly Kumble had a very difficult time in SL while Warne and Mushtaq did well. possibly in SL you need to flight the ball a lot to get success.

 

[G.I.Joe]

He definitely doesn't get enough respect for his record on the horrible, flat, slow pieces of crap that pass for pitches in India these days, presumably because of the country's reputation for being a very good place to bowl spin. I don't know if being able to take wickets at 32 on flat decks necessarily translates as being able to take them at 22 on dustbowls though.

Just because it's interesting:
Harb's record with Kumble in the team

Kumble's record with Harbs in the team

I must be slow, whats interesting about that?

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I was just talking about general spinners

A bit pointless really because just about anyone will agree that Murali, Warne and the two Australians of the 1920s\1930s were better than just about any fingerspinner.

 

[Burgey]

If Harby only had to bowl to Ponting his record would rival SF Barnes tbh..

 

[Top_Cat]

Muralitharan, Warne and Kumble are wrist spinners, not fingerspinners .

Take issue with this designation of Murali as a wrist-spinner. If you take the level of wrist involvement in spinning as the deciding factor, then every spinner is a wrirst spinner. If you're an offie or left-arm orthodox and you don't learn how to use your wrirst, you won't take many wickets at any level. Similarly, if you're a leggie who doesn't use his fingers properly (e.g. third finger on your spinning hand).

The distinction is as rubbery as Murali's wrirst itself. And, ultimately, pointless.