Is Harbhajan Singh one of the greatest fingerspinners ever ?

[Faisal1985]

Murali's stock-ball is a completely different delivery than Saqlain's stock-ball; likewise, Murali's Wrong-'Un is a completely different delivery than Saqlain's Doosra.

If Murali says he was "inspired" to bowl a Wrong-'Un by Saqlain it's clearly true, but it's no more bowling the same ball as the fact that Mark David Chapman was inspired to murder John Lennon by The Catcher In The Rye was Chapman doing the same as the author.

Murali's ball which turns the other way is a completely different ball to anything else that has ever been bowled, and being the phenomenal bowler he is I rather doubt that if he'd not had Saqlain to give him the idea of bowling a Wrong-'Un he'd not have found someone else to do so.

Will people stop talking about ODIs? This is CricketWeb.net - here, discussion centres around Test cricket unless otherwise stated. There is some amount of case for Saqlain being better in ODIs than Murali at some point, but in Tests there is no contest, Murali was better (often miles better) than Saqlain all career, end of.

Simple speculation is not going to change the fact...which even Murali accepts that regardless of how good anyone was Saqi was the one who introduced it according to Murali's interview......case closed.

 

[Richard]

People had bowled wrong-'uns before Saqlain you know. And there is precious little doubt that people had even bowled the precise same wrong-'un Saqlain bowled before him.

Murali whatever anyone thinks (and no-one who has looked at their actions actually does think this BTW) does not use the same technique as Saqlain\Harbhajan\other-conventional-fingerspinner to bowl the ball that turns in the same direction. As I've said a good few times now, Murali's stock-ball and wrong-'un are both unique balls which no other bowler has ever bowled.

 

[Burgey]

Murali's stock-ball is a completely different delivery than Saqlain's stock-ball; likewise, Murali's Wrong-'Un is a completely different delivery than Saqlain's Doosra.

If Murali says he was "inspired" to bowl a Wrong-'Un by Saqlain it's clearly true, but it's no more bowling the same ball as the fact that Mark David Chapman was inspired to murder John Lennon by The Catcher In The Rye was Chapman doing the same as the author.

Murali's ball which turns the other way is a completely different ball to anything else that has ever been bowled, and being the phenomenal bowler he is I rather doubt that if he'd not had Saqlain to give him the idea of bowling a Wrong-'Un he'd not have found someone else to do so.

Will people stop talking about ODIs? This is CricketWeb.net - here, discussion centres around Test cricket unless otherwise stated. There is some amount of case for Saqlain being better in ODIs than Murali at some point, but in Tests there is no contest, Murali was better (often miles better) than Saqlain all career, end of.

Mate, why can't you just admit you were in error on this occasion? Seriously, your original post was Murali wasn't even "remotely inspired" by Saqlain. He plainly was. He said it himself. End of, surely?

I might have been inspired by Greg Chappell or Dennis Lillee when I grew up. If I'd become a Test player, I'd still have been inspired by them, even though I'm left-handed and would therefore have done things differently to them.

 

[thierry henry]

Nah.... I don't like to rate players I have never seen...

Unless it's to rate them miles above modern players with similar records based purely on reputation?

 

[bagapath]

If Murali says he was "inspired" to bowl a Wrong-'Un by Saqlain it's clearly true, but it's no more bowling the same ball as the fact that Mark David Chapman was inspired to murder John Lennon by The Catcher In The Rye was Chapman doing the same as the author.

hey... murali says he is inspired by saqlain. there cant be any more discussion on this. just say sorry and move on rich.

 

[0RI0N]

hey... murali says he is inspired by saqlain. there cant be any more discussion on this. just say sorry and move on rich.

Richard is trolling as far as the whole 'inspired' sub topic is concerned.
The Catcher in the Rye reference in a Harbhajan thread...yeah right.

 

[honestbharani]

First off, I hope the majority of this post was in jest, because otherwise you missed the point severely.

But do you not rate Bradman then? Or Headley of the George variety?

well... I do think they are great because it is widely accepted that they are.. And I think a great in one era can always define his game to be a great in any era...


But beyond that, as a Vs comparison, I am not comfortable doing that unless it is someone who was and is still regarded head and shoulders better than anyone, like Bradman.


I place more value on contemporary rating than I do on stats too... But obviously there are cases with today's players where we feel they are being even over rated by contemporaries, not solely based on stats too, I might add..


If you ask me to name who was better between two players I have seen, I find it easier to respond than to compare a guy I have seen action with one I have never seen in action..


And as for the rest of the post, they were a direct reply to the guy who wrote a thing I used once or twice in my CW posting history as some kind of a funny response... Maybe for the rest of the forum, our back and forth posts are in jest..

 

[honestbharani]

I'm very much substance over style too, which is what makes hb periodically go off on a tangent about how little I know about cricket. It's not that I ignore what contemporaries have to say, but I do count how many runs they score and wickets they take as more important, because that's the bottom line.

I went off on that tangent once because you made a gem of a post on Lara saying he is not that great because he scored all his runs in dead rubbers or draws or in matches Windies lost.


And I have explained my reasons in the concerned thread.. If people find it unreasonable, they can always respond and I am willing to clarify my stand.


Yes runs and wickets are important as is the context in which it was done. Most finger spinners of the 19th century seem to have <20 bowling average. They must be the greatest bowlers ever going by stats alone....

 

[honestbharani]

Unless it's to rate them miles above modern players with similar records based purely on reputation?

Yeah, I rate contemporary opinion and the ratings of people who have seen both players in question over the ratings of one who has seen only one and only has the company of statsguru...


I would have a problem if someone rates Sachin as > than Bradman too.. I am not comfortable doiing these ratings but when so many of the cricket world who have seen both feel that way, why should I fail to accept that because one guy with a net connection and statsguru points out a few numbers..


I know enough of cricket to know that the numbers alone never, ever tell the FULL story. They give an indication of how someone went in a certain match. How is that comparable to another guy playing another match in another century??? So, yeah I do go by peer rating more than stats and when certain ludicrous claims are made (and the nonsense sprouted about Sobers' bowling and the responses it has gotten from folks like SJS are proof enough of that), I take exception to that. And most of my points were to show that the stats are fallible from both ends, and that the numbers being superior alone does not make one a better player than the other, esp. when both are at a certain level that defines "greatness".....

 

[honestbharani]

Unless it's to rate them miles above modern players with similar records based purely on reputation?

No, unless it is a case where a guy who has equally no idea of the other player in question decides to jump in and denigrate an old player with just statsguru for company... And when we use the same stats to show that his current flame player ain't too hot either, we are called men who can't face facts..


Is it only facts when the stats support you??????

 

[Flem274*]

Murali's stock-ball is a completely different delivery than Saqlain's stock-ball; likewise, Murali's Wrong-'Un is a completely different delivery than Saqlain's Doosra.

If Murali says he was "inspired" to bowl a Wrong-'Un by Saqlain it's clearly true, but it's no more bowling the same ball as the fact that Mark David Chapman was inspired to murder John Lennon by The Catcher In The Rye was Chapman doing the same as the author.

Murali's ball which turns the other way is a completely different ball to anything else that has ever been bowled, and being the phenomenal bowler he is I rather doubt that if he'd not had Saqlain to give him the idea of bowling a Wrong-'Un he'd not have found someone else to do so.

Will people stop talking about ODIs? This is CricketWeb.net - here, discussion centres around Test cricket unless otherwise stated. There is some amount of case for Saqlain being better in ODIs than Murali at some point, but in Tests there is no contest, Murali was better (often miles better) than Saqlain all career, end of.

You're wrong. Admit it.

Oh and on the bolded part-says who? People can talk about what they like and don't have to announce to the world otherwise. Seriously, you're in danger of projecting CW as snob central.

 

[Richard]

Mate, why can't you just admit you were in error on this occasion? Seriously, your original post was Murali wasn't even "remotely inspired" by Saqlain. He plainly was. He said it himself. End of, surely?

I might have been inspired by Greg Chappell or Dennis Lillee when I grew up. If I'd become a Test player, I'd still have been inspired by them, even though I'm left-handed and would therefore have done things differently to them.

My posting in this thread has related entirely to the idea that Murali learned ideas off Saqlain or anyone else - because he quite simply didn't. Murali is a unique bowler and has created every single one of the three deliveries that he bowls.

 

[Richard]

Richard is trolling as far as the whole 'inspired' sub topic is concerned.
The Catcher in the Rye reference in a Harbhajan thread...yeah right.

Just because you don't like what it shows doesn't mean it's of no relevance.

 

[Richard]

You're wrong. Admit it.

I'll admit I'm wrong if I am, and not if people try to use totally irrelevant matters to disprove something I've never remotely said.

Oh and on the bolded part-says who? People can talk about what they like and don't have to announce to the world otherwise. Seriously, you're in danger of projecting CW as snob central.

Says lots of people - many times. People can of course talk about what they like but there's no point replying to something someone's said with posts about things they have not remotely even mentioned - ie, in this case, ODIs.

 

[Burgey]

My posting in this thread has related entirely to the idea that Murali learned ideas off Saqlain or anyone else - because he quite simply didn't. Murali is a unique bowler and has created every single one of the three deliveries that he bowls.

learned ideas = remotely inspired?

Mate, when you kick off your legal practice, you'll learn that occasionally you have to learn to concede a point or withdraw a submission. There's no shame in it, there's nothing wrong with it.

Actually, you don't have to do it, but if you don't do it when it's appropriate, you end up wasting a lot of people's time and more importantly money and they get the ****s with you, leading to people (wrongly) thinking you're nothing more than a stuck up stubborn ****.

That's all I'm saying anyway.

 

[Top_Cat]

What the **** would you know Burgey? It's abundantly clear you don't need to actually do something to know everything you need to know about it.

 

[Richard]

learned ideas = remotely inspired?

I can't even remember off the top of my head where the "remotely inspired" phrase came from, because it certainly wasn't what I instigated talking about. The whole discussion has sprung from this post, followed by this one. All I have ever argued against is the notion that Murali's wrong-'un was a copy of Saqlain's, and that Murali learned his wrong-'un from Saqlain.

Mate, when you kick off your legal practice, you'll learn that occasionally you have to learn to concede a point or withdraw a submission. There's no shame in it, there's nothing wrong with it.

Actually, you don't have to do it, but if you don't do it when it's appropriate, you end up wasting a lot of people's time and they get the ****s with you, leading to people (wrongly) thinking you're nothing more than a stuck up stubborn ****.

That's all I'm saying anyway.

Love the way people are talking as if I'm already on the road to legal practice when I'm in the first year of a preliminary degree. Anyways I'll concede the point that the phrase "inspired" wasn't remotely appropriate for the discussion, because it wasn't what was meant - everyone happy?

 

[Burgey]

(y)

 

[thierry henry]

No, unless it is a case where a guy who has equally no idea of the other player in question decides to jump in and denigrate an old player with just statsguru for company... And when we use the same stats to show that his current flame player ain't too hot either, we are called men who can't face facts..


Is it only facts when the stats support you??????

Dude what are you even going on about

Absolute incoherent dribbler

 

[Richard]

What the **** would you know Burgey? It's abundantly clear you don't need to actually do something to know everything you need to know about it.