Touche.Worst to take 800 wickets - Murali
As a cricketer (and human being, obvz) I'd agree, but think Harby is the better test bowler.Would take Vettori over Harbhajan, personally.
Yeah Rafique was a lone hand most of the time, where as Giles and Harris' jobs were more to tie up an end. Back then opposition sides playing Bangldesh would try and see off Rafique and then attack from the other end which would make Rafique's job a lot harder.I think Giles and Harris contributed to more wins than Rafique perhaps but then Rafique didn't really have great support...
would take vettori over harbhajan, personally.
Had too much to drink, presumably
Genuinely surprised at that view. Any reason?
I don't particularly rate Harbhajan as a strike bowler (especially outside the subcontinent), so given a straight choice between the two, I'd take Vettori for his control and economy over a guy who I see as neither here nor there on either control or wicket taking.
Genuinely surprised at that view. Any reason?
A ha! I have this argument with Indian fans everywhere. I never got it bcos Vettori bowled beautifully against Oz. Then on holiday I had a room with foxtel and saw a test btwn India and NZ over in India. To my surprise he was mechanical and as dull as you say. Completely the opposite of what I'd seen of him. Can't explain why he appeared to be 2 different bowlers but after watching that game could understand why Indian fans didn't rate him.Vettori was one of the dullest front line test bowlers I have ever seen. You can have him for control, economy around a good pace attack, as Dan notes, but not for anything else, thank you.
Devon Malcolm said:Which living person do you most admire, and why?
Margaret Beckett (Labour MP for Derby South), she is so honest and consistent. She is a role model of mine – in any decision I think, ‘What would Margaret Beckett do?’
Yeah, Vettori had two distinct sections to his career -- one where he was a frontline bowler who could bat, the other where he was batting 6 as a genuine all-rounder after his back went. Early on he was absolute class; by the end he couldn't turn the damn thing so was reliant upon variations in pace and his accuracy/ability to build pressure -- which didn't translate to Test cricket nearly as well as it did in ODI cricket.A ha! I have this argument with Indian fans everywhere. I never got it bcos Vettori bowled beautifully against Oz. Then on holiday I had a room with foxtel and saw a test btwn India and NZ over in India. To my surprise he was mechanical and as dull as you say. Completely the opposite of what I'd seen of him. Can't explain why he appeared to be 2 different bowlers but after watching that game could understand why Indian fans didn't rate him.
I probably missed most of the interim period, but in 2001 he looked incredibly good, yet by 2007/08 seemed to be a little bit ****, to be brutally honest. Then he regressed further still after Kumble left entirely and he became a dart merchant really didn't do that much at Test level, leading to his eventual dropping.Harbhajan felt like 2 different bowlers while bowling with Kumble and without. Younger, fresher, Harbhajan tossed it up a lot, bowled with attacking fields, bowled those wicket taking balls, was a genuine threat...and the Harbhajan in the last 4 years of his career or so became flatter, faster, tighter, had in-out fields, built pressure, and when the mood struck him would toss it up and grab a five wicket haul here and there.
I would take version 1 over Vettori, but not version 2.
You're nuts. Later career Vettori was one of the best white ball spinners ever, IMO.Bhajji the better ODI bowler tho.