Three horse race to be the best team in the world?

[Teja.]

Unless you're not an Indian, because when Swann averaged less than 40 on roads in Australia, where off-spinners go to die (517-1, anyone) apparantly it wasn't good enough.

The post was in jest as indicated by the smiley tbh. Well, Swann definitely had the better series obv., but to be very frank, He's being a little over-praised, IMHO. Though It's a solid effort, People usually consider a 40 average in a series to be below average, While in the context of the series, Swann's was not, It was not exceedingly good or anything, IMO.

 

[Dissector]

Why are bowling figures that accurately measure the opposition a criticism? If Swann had failed against any of these teams it would be a good argument but he hasn't, he has been either good (vs Australia), very good (vs South Africa) or torn them a new one (vs Pakistan).

Yes Harbhajjan had a few very good series like the one in SA but has repeatedly failed in that time. This year, he averaged 105 vs New Zealand and 152 vs Sri Lanka. These are awful figures and also something Swann has yet to do in his career.

What's the standard for a "good" or "very good" performance? Can a series where he averages 40 seriously be considered a good performance no matter how good he has looked.

It's true that Swann hasn't had a truly terrible series like Bhajji in Sri Lanka but he hasn't had to bowl on-and-out roads like the ones you get occasionally on the sub-continent. And wasn't he injured in that series, I remember he missed the third test where he would probably have done much better.

My bottom line is simple: Swann has yet to average below 30 in even one series against a good batting side which would include India, SA, SL and Australia despite several opportunities. It seems a pretty low hurdle and I am astonished that he is hailed as a top-class spinner without clearing it.

 

[Howe_zat]

The post was in jest as indicated by the smiley tbh. Well, Swann definitely had the better series obv., but to be very frank, He's being a little over-praised, IMHO. Though It's a solid effort, People usually consider a 40 average in a series to be below average, While in the context of the series, Swann's was not, It was not exceedingly good or anything, IMO.

Fair enough. I don't think anyone's* claiming Swann had an exceedingly good series, just decent.






*Mr. Kipling aside, of course, but then he says that about everything.

 

[Howe_zat]

What's the standard for a "good" or "very good" performance? Can a series where he averages 40 seriously be considered a good performance no matter how good he has looked.

It's true that Swann hasn't had a truly terrible series like Bhajji in Sri Lanka but he hasn't had to bowl on-and-out roads like the ones you get occasionally on the sub-continent. And wasn't he injured in that series, I remember he missed the third test where he would probably have done much better.

My bottom line is simple: Swann has yet to average below 30 in even one series against a good batting side which would include India, SA, SL and Australia despite several opportunities. It seems a pretty low hurdle and I am astonished that he is hailed as a top-class spinner without clearing it.

Exactly what I said earlier in the thread. Harbhajan averages 40+ on home turf against mediocre batting and he gets away with it. Swann averages less than 40 down under and it's not acceptable.

Perhaps I should have described Swann's Ashes as "decent" rather than "good", but he was clearly very good in South Africa, you don't win MOTS for nothing. Claiming he hasn't performed just because he doesn't fit your numerical barrier means you clearly weren't watching.

I'd rather take a spinner that bowls like Swann did against the top teams and then owns the less good sides rather than one who might have a great series but horribly fail in another.

Harbhajan has had "several oppertunities" against Bangladesh, for example, but still averages 48 against them. I'd rather have Swann's record against them, certainly.

 

[Teja.]

Exactly what I said earlier in the thread. Harbhajan averages 40+ on home turf against mediocre batting and he gets away with it. Swann averages less than 40 down under and it's not acceptable.

Perhaps I should have described Swann's Ashes as "decent" rather than "good", but he was clearly very good in South Africa, you don't win MOTS for nothing. Claiming he hasn't performed just because he doesn't fit your numerical barrier means you clearly weren't watching.

I'd rather take a spinner that bowls like Swann did against the top teams and then owns the less good sides rather than one who might have a great series but horribly fail in another.

Harbhajan has had "several oppertunities" against Bangladesh, for example, but still averages 48 against them. I'd rather have Swann's record against them, certainly.

Nah, Harbhajan certainly does not, If he averages 40, It's a poor series from him, Nothing to write an obituary about, but we don't praise him for being accurate and taking crucial wickets and all that. It's a completely insignificant performance.

It should be like that for Swann too, Instead you have people saying how accurate he's been, as though it's an excuse for being unpenetrative.

 

[vcs]

Nah, Harbhajan certainly does not, If he averages 40, It's a poor series from him, Nothing to write an obituary about, but we don't praise him for being accurate and taking crucial wickets and all that. It's a completely insignificant performance.

It should be like that for Swann too, Instead you have people saying how accurate he's been, as though it's an excuse for being unpenetrative.

It's how it's always been, as long as your team's winning you can get away with meh performances. Dravid would probably have got dropped a good while back if we were getting the same results as Australia.

 

[Dissector]

Swann has averaged 40 against Australia in both Ashes. At some point you can't just hide behind good-looking spells, you have to produce results. And against good batting sides Swann just hasn't done that consistently.

Also it's not correct to assume that Bhajji is bowling on turners in India. In the last couple of years there haven't been too many of those and if anything given the odd out-and-out road, it may be a bit more difficult bowling in India than England.

Probably the respective SA tours are the best source of comparision between the two bowlers since we have the same side in the same conditions in a recent series. Though Swann got MOTS, his batting probably played a significant role in that as well. In terms of bowing he had a good series but certainly not better than Bhajji who was handicapped by having to bowl with a terrible seam attack in the first test.

 

[Spark]

There has been the fact that Swann hasn't got many wickets because there haven't been many wickets on offer for him... in many cases the job is basically done by the time he bowls.

 

[Dissector]

That doesn't really explain his high average though. I mean if he comes in when the opposition is 50-5 he should have a great opportunity to mop the tail cheaply. If he is going for 35-40 per wicket in those situations that is hardly a good sign.

 

[Howe_zat]

Swann has averaged 40 against Australia in both Ashes. At some point you can't just hide behind good-looking spells, you have to produce results. And against good batting sides Swann just hasn't done that consistently.

Also it's not correct to assume that Bhajji is bowling on turners in India. In the last couple of years there haven't been too many of those and if anything given the odd out-and-out road, it may be a bit more difficult bowling in India than England.

Probably the respective SA tours are the best source of comparision between the two bowlers since we have the same side in the same conditions in a recent series. Though Swann got MOTS, his batting probably played a significant role in that as well. In terms of bowing he had a good series but certainly not better than Bhajji who was handicapped by having to bowl with a terrible seam attack in the first test.

Swann has bowled consistently, this is my entire point. You are conviently removing Swann's results against poorer sides and removing Harbhajan's lack thereof. Swann getting okay figures against top batsmen in tough conditions, then returning home to get outstanding figures when things are in his favour is not a sign of weakness.

If poor figures against top sides - which in itself would be a very harsh assessment of Swann - is a valid criticism, then how do you excuse a run of similar or worse performances against a whole range of opposition?

I never assumed pitches in India are turners. I've been watching the matches, there is often very little life in modern Indian pitches, especially on the first three days. This does not excuse performances like averaging 152 when Sehwag's part-time efforts managed to average under 30.

Either you can set store by the averages as you claim to, in which case you would recognise that there has been a large difference in performance over the time period we are discussing; or you examine the performances themselves and you would acknowledge Swann's consistency when the situation is against him.

 

[Dissector]

In the last couple of years I would say Bhajji has been better than Swann against top sides especially SA and Australia and Swann has a been a lot better against weak sides. In the context of discussing the no.1 side I would put a lot more weight on the former so I would say they are roughly equal as bowlers.

 

[Spark]

That doesn't really explain his high average though. I mean if he comes in when the opposition is 50-5 he should have a great opportunity to mop the tail cheaply. If he is going for 35-40 per wicket in those situations that is hardly a good sign.

Except he wasn't, he just wasn't bowling. Bowled about one over in the first innings at Melbourne, not much more at Perth first innings - where he got Hussey at a crucial juncture and he did actually clean up the only tailender he was allowed to bowl at.

 

[Dissector]

But that's only one test. What about all the other tests where he was bowling a lot and not getting wickets. His strike rate against Australia is 80.

 

[George.Hinton]

Am with Dissector here.

Key to remember is that Bhajji has played three times the number of tests that Swann has - his career record represents a fairly accurate picture of his capabilities.

Swann on the other hand still is somewhat unproven - he hasn't played a lot against India or Sri Lanka, the two most proficient teams against spin.

He has yet to dominate Australia or South AFrica in the way that Harbhajan has done at points in his career - remember, Harbhajan destroyed one of the greatest Australian batting lineups ever in 2001.

And yet, he is rated as being considerably better than Harbhajan by several people on this forum.
There is little real evidence to support that.

 

[Howe_zat]

Am with Dissector here.

Key to remember is that Bhajji has played three times the number of tests that Swann has - his career record represents a fairly accurate picture of his capabilities.

Swann on the other hand still is somewhat unproven - he hasn't played a lot against India or Sri Lanka, the two most proficient teams against spin.

He has yet to dominate Australia or South AFrica in the way that Harbhajan has done at points in his career - remember, Harbhajan destroyed one of the greatest Australian batting lineups ever in 2001.

And yet, he is rated as being considerably better than Harbhajan by several people on this forum.
There is little real evidence to support that.

I agree that at times in his career Harbhajan has been an outstanding bowler. But we were talking about who has performed better over the last couple of years or so. On which Dissector seems to have a very selective memory.

 

[vcs]

Career wise, it's faaar too early to be rating him better, or even equal to Harbhajan at this stage. Form wise, he's ahead because he's had an excellent 2010 whereas Harbhajan had a poor one.

Personally, I think he's been about as good as you can expect from any spinner in the modern era not named Warne or Murali.. i.e. in the same class as Harbhajan, MacGill, Vettori when he was an attacking spinner etc.

 

[Howe_zat]

But that's only one test. What about all the other tests where he was bowling a lot and not getting wickets. His strike rate against Australia is 80.

So we have to justify a poor return in each and every Test match now, where as all these recent performances are all fine?

 

[George.Hinton]

I agree that at times in his career Harbhajan has been an outstanding bowler. But we were talking about who has performed better over the last couple of years or so. On which Dissector seems to have a very selective memory.

Problem is they've played different opponents and at different venues over the last two years.

Well if you really wanted to do a recent apples v apples comparison - you'd have to look at
Swann's performance in South AFrica last summer and compare it to what Harbhajan did recently in the same country.

21 at 31 v 15 at 29 - fairly similar numbers there.

 

[Dissector]

I am getting bored of this now. When did I say Bhajji's poor performance are fine. I am just saying that Swann's performances are being grossly exaggerated on the basis of great performances against weak batting, especially Pakistan who were possibly match-fixing those very games. His perfomances against good sides are very average and cherrypicking this or that spell doesn't change that.

Like I said I would rate Bhajji as a better bowler against good sides and the best evidence comes from teams they have both played against namely SA and Australia. Let me again repeat:

Over the last two years Harbhajan averages 30.5 against South Africa and Australia with 36 wickets from 7 tests.

Over that period Swann averages 36.5 against those two sides with 50 wickets from 14 games. So not only does he average more he takes far fewer wickets per test.

 

[Howe_zat]

Problem is they've played different opponents and at different venues over the last two years.

Well if you really wanted to do a recent apples v apples comparison - you'd have to look at
Swann's performance in South AFrica last summer and compare it to what Harbhajan did recently in the same country.

21 at 31 v 15 at 29 - fairly similar numbers there.

Right. Perfectly fair comparison and a good starting point.

I would go on to suggest that Swann's much more prolific home form this year pushes him ahead of Harbajan.

Dissector, however, has tried to argue that the barrier of 30 runs per wicket is enough to justify Harbajan's run of poor performances in the subcontinent, which I don't accept.