***Official*** Australia in Bangladesh 2017

[Howe_zat]

Cricinfo - Statsguru - Shakib Al Hasan - Test Bowling - Innings by innings list

7/36 (NZ)
6/82 (Pak)
6/99 (SA)
5/62 (Ind)
5/70 (SL)
5/85 (Eng)

Yup, clearly wouldn't have bowled much for Aussies

And btw I've watched him bowl in all the above matches and he's qualiteh.

I mean, Stephen's point isn't completely out there, there's a lot of runs in all those. There's no 5/40 or 7/50 you'd find with a bowler like Ashwin or Herath. In a very strong bowling side, at least a few of these would be good 2-fers and 3-fors. I'm not convinced Australia would be that side, though.

 

[stephen]

Name a better spinner Australia have had in Shakib's career then?

Warne (though technically he doesn't count since he retired in January and Shakib debuted in May)
MacGill.
Lyon (remember we're talking about playing 50% of our games in Australia).

And if Shakib was picked as a spinner for Australia, he'd be batting #8 and would not average anywhere near what he does batting up the order. He'd have a batting average around 33 or so. There are two reasons for this - he'd focus more of his training on his bowling so as to specialise in the skill most needed and when you bat below the keeper you get a lot fewer opportunities to pile on the runs in easy conditions and have fewer partners to build partnerships with.

It is fortunate for the world that Shakib is a) subcontinental and b) in a team that desperately needs both his skill sets.

We're talking about a guy who averages 33 with the ball, despite playing on mostly favourable tracks.

 

[Howe_zat]

Oh and he'd have debuted ages ago when the likes of Krejza, Beer and Hauritz were all Australia had, and Lyon would rarely if ever get a look in because Shakib would allow Australia to play 4 quicks and they'd never let that opportunity pass.

Yeah around that time they were trying to make this happen with Marcus North, early Steve Smith, etc. They'd have loved Shakib in that allround role.

 

[stephen]

Anyway, my point is only that the fact that Shakib plays for Bangladesh has worked in his favour as an all-rounder. I think most other countries (particularly South Africa, England and Australia) would probably have developed him more into a specialist batsman and kept his spin part time. He'd be a 50 average batsman who picked up 2 wpm @ 40 instead of a 40 average batsman and a 33 average bowler picking up 3.6 wpm. Alternatively he'd average 30 with both bat and ball and pick up 4 wpm.

But Shakib plays for Bangladesh who have no other bowlers who've taken 50 wickets or more that average less than Shakib's 33. So he gets an average of 23 overs per innings, which is a full time bowling workload (Lyon gets an average of 20 by comparison).

 

[M0rphin3]

I mean, Stephen's point isn't completely out there, there's a lot of runs in all those. There's no 5/40 or 7/50 you'd find with a bowler like Ashwin or Herath. In a very strong bowling side, at least a few of these would be good 2-fers and 3-fors. I'm not convinced Australia would be that side, though.

Well, you're talking of the two best spinners in the world rn, and of course I'm not arguing that he's the best standalone spinner in the world ATM. I'm saying that he's done way too much for the whole "Shakib gets wickets five fers coz his teammates suck" or "Shakib is not a bad bowler" - he's a damn good spinner and Aussies would gladly have taken him even in the earlier stages of his career as they've had no better spinner than Shakib post Warne. People just bring this up all the time to discredit his achievements ignoring the shitloads of factors that's against him is all I'm sayin.

 

[stephen]

Oh and he'd have debuted ages ago when the likes of Krejza, Beer and Hauritz were all Australia had, and Lyon would rarely if ever get a look in because Shakib would allow Australia to play 4 quicks and they'd never let that opportunity pass.

Do you really think that Shakib would have anywhere near the number of 5 wicket hauls that he does if Australia were playing a 4 prong pace attack?

Australian management really want 3 full time pace bowlers, a full time spinner and a part time pace bowler for home conditions. They only want two spinners for away conditions and even then they're more inclined to pick two specialists. If Shakib played for Australia he'd get 10 overs per innings as a 5th bowler and play mostly as a batsman or he'd play mostly as a spinner and would average mid 30s.

 

[stephen]

Well, you're talking of the two best spinners in the world rn, and of course I'm not arguing that he's the best standalone spinner in the world ATM. I'm saying that he's done way too much for the whole "Shakib gets wickets five fers coz his teammates suck" or "Shakib is not a bad bowler" - he's a damn good spinner and Aussies would gladly have taken him even in the earlier stages of his career as they've had no better spinner than Shakib post Warne. People just bring this up all the time to discredit his achievements ignoring the shitloads of factors that's against him is all I'm sayin.

I'm not trying to discredit his achievements. I'm trying to put them in context. I think he'd be a better batsman if he dropped his bowling and he'd be a better bowler if he focused less on his batting and I think that's how non-subcontinental teams would use him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Shakib is an Asian spinner, like Jadeja. If he was Australian he'd barely take a wicket in the Shield let alone play in the international side. From what i've seen lately to be a successful Asian spinner more than anything you have to be accurate and don't need to do too much with the ball, because the wicket will help you. But to be a successful spinner in Australia you need to do more with it and get more overspin especially.

Don't get me wrong, he's better than Lyon, but they are very different kinds of spinners. This is why guys like Jadeja and Ashwin who are probably the best spinners in the world are next to useless outside Asia. It takes a different kind of spinner IMO.

I'm probably just talking **** but whatever

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Warne (though technically he doesn't count since he retired in January and Shakib debuted in May)
MacGill.
Lyon (remember we're talking about playing 50% of our games in Australia).

And if Shakib was picked as a spinner for Australia, he'd be batting #8 and would not average anywhere near what he does batting up the order. He'd have a batting average around 33 or so. There are two reasons for this - he'd focus more of his training on his bowling so as to specialise in the skill most needed and when you bat below the keeper you get a lot fewer opportunities to pile on the runs in easy conditions and have fewer partners to build partnerships with.

It is fortunate for the world that Shakib is a) subcontinental and b) in a team that desperately needs both his skill sets.

We're talking about a guy who averages 33 with the ball, despite playing on mostly favourable tracks.

Yet he averages 42+ in those favourable tracks which most of your batsmen can only dream about. This type of logic has no sense

 

[stephen]

Shakib may have debuted for his state at around the time he debuted for Bangladesh but it would have been as a batting allrounder. He'd not have been bowled much, especially if he played for Queensland or WA (TBF, WA did find Agar so maybe he would have played for them). His bowling probably would have been considered the same as Steve O'Keefe albeit with a better batting average (O'Keefe was regularly ignored by selectors despite averaging under 25 in the shield for a very long time).

North was seen as the next in line for the batting order when he was picked. His bowling was really seen as a bonus.

 

[stephen]

Yet he averages 42+ in those favourable tracks which most of your batsmen can only dream about. This type of logic has no sense

He averages 33 at home and the same away? He's played the vast majority of his tests at home so looking at any particular country other than Bangladesh is an exercise in statistical insignificance.

Unless you're talking about his batting?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Anyway, my point is only that the fact that Shakib plays for Bangladesh has worked in his favour as an all-rounder. I think most other countries (particularly South Africa, England and Australia) would probably have developed him more into a specialist batsman and kept his spin part time. He'd be a 50 average batsman who picked up 2 wpm @ 40 instead of a 40 average batsman and a 33 average bowler picking up 3.6 wpm. Alternatively he'd average 30 with both bat and ball and pick up 4 wpm.

But Shakib plays for Bangladesh who have no other bowlers who've taken 50 wickets or more that average less than Shakib's 33. So he gets an average of 23 overs per innings, which is a full time bowling workload (Lyon gets an average of 20 by comparison).

While you're not totally wrong, I don't buy that this is totally unique to Shakib.

- Sobers opened the bowling for WI, and as good as he was, it was primarily because WI's fast bowling resources weren't amazing. In most teams, he'd have been at best a 3rd seamer playing a supporting role and wouldn't get anywhere close to the 230 odd wickets he did shouldering a massive bowling workload for WI.

- Imran Khan towards the end of his career could afford to basically become a part time bowler and bat as high as 5 because Pakistan needed his batting, which wasn't particularly deep and could afford him bowling far less since Wasim and Waqar had emerged. And yes, I did just use Sobers and Imran to make a point about Shakib

Shakib may be a slightly more extreme case but his performances just can't be written off. It also comes with it's own challenges which others don't face:

1) The only other consistent batsman in his lineup over his entire career is Tamim and he's constantly scoring runs amidst collapses and coming in at 10/3. He could easily hide down at 7 and pump up his averages with not-outs which would ironically make his statistics even more appealing to the eye. But he has to bat higher up and it should be to his enormous credit that he's still averaging 40 odd.

2) And bowling as part of a rubbish lineup as the lead spinner is a tough job. Especially for a finger spinner. More than any other form of bowling, finger spinners rely on pressure being built constantly to force an error from a batsman. He's had ****all support from the other end to keep things tight and help him take wickets. I could easily see him taking fewer wickets overall but having a way better average and SR if he played for Aus or SA. If he had Steyn,Philander or Hazelwood at the other end, imagine how much easier his job becomes... no one else is giving anything away, and he can do his thing just chipping away and getting 2-3 cheap wickets every game.

 

[cnerd123]

Shakib is an Asian spinner, like Jadeja. If he was Australian he'd barely take a wicket in the Shield let alone play in the international side. From what i've seen lately to be a successful Asian spinner more than anything you have to be accurate and don't need to do too much with the ball, because the wicket will help you. But to be a successful spinner in Australia you need to do more with it and get more overspin especially.

Don't get me wrong, he's better than Lyon, but they are very different kinds of spinners. This is why guys like Jadeja and Ashwin who are probably the best spinners in the world are next to useless outside Asia. It takes a different kind of spinner IMO.

I'm probably just talking **** but whatever

You have a point. You're missing something in that what Asian spinners do is side-spin the ball more, which looks great when the wicket has some support, but looks toothless elsewhere because the ball skids on at normal speeds, and if you slow it down to the point where you can get turn you're just bowling too slow.

Jadeja, Ashwin, Shakib...if these guys grew up playing their cricket in Australia or England they would be very different bowlers because they would have to be different bowlers.

 

[stephen]

In any case, the fact that Shakib's unique circumstances are what they are is no detraction from what he's accomplished. There's not many cricketers who have it in them to prop up a fledgling team for a decade.

Indeed. He's been carrying their batting and their bowling for a very long time and that's a huge effort. He rightly sits atop the all rounder rankings.

 

[Aritro]

He's bowled a very significant number of overs on desperately unresponsive Bangladeshi pitches that were designed to produce draws. This notion of Bangladeshi pitches being overwhelmingly favourable to spin hasn't been true for a lot of the 33 tests he's played at home. He's had to toil away on pitches that have offered him nothing many times, particularly in Chittagong. He's also had to deal with being the only bowler of quality in the side a lot of time, trying to remove set batsmen who've plundered runs off other bowlers. And in the first half of his career, there would have been a fair few times he didn't get to bowl in the fourth innings because his team weren't able to take the game that far.

There's a lot more nuances to this than you're acknowledging.

And I will very confidently speculate that he'd have averaged a lot more than 42 if he'd come in against the old ball at number 7 than he has at number 4 or 5, often against a new ball.

He has, however, been helped by piling on the runs on the Chittagong pitch a few times, as well as by his double century on the road at Galle.

 

[Aritro]

1) The only other consistent batsman in his lineup over his entire career is Tamim and he's constantly scoring runs amidst collapses and coming in at 10/3. He could easily hide down at 7 and pump up his averages with not-outs which would ironically make his statistics even more appealing to the eye. But he has to bat higher up and it should be to his enormous credit that he's still averaging 40 odd.

2) And bowling as part of a rubbish lineup as the lead spinner is a tough job. Especially for a finger spinner. More than any other form of bowling, finger spinners rely on pressure being built constantly to force an error from a batsman. He's had ****all support from the other end to keep things tight and help him take wickets. I could easily see him taking fewer wickets overall but having a way better average and SR if he played for Aus or SA. If he had Steyn,Philander or Hazelwood at the other end, imagine how much easier his job becomes... no one else is giving anything away, and he can do his thing just chipping away and getting 2-3 cheap wickets every game.

Absolutely.

 

[stephen]

He's bowled a very significant number of overs on desperately unresponsive Bangladeshi pitches that were designed to produce draws. This notion of Bangladeshi pitches being overwhelmingly favourable to spin hasn't been true for a lot of the 33 tests he's played at home. He's had to toil away on pitches that have offered him nothing many times, particularly in Chittagong. He's also had to deal with being the only bowler of quality in the side a lot of time, trying to remove set batsmen who've plundered runs off other bowlers. And in the first half of his career, there would have been a fair few times he didn't get to bowl in the fourth innings because his team weren't able to take the game that far.

There's a lot more nuances to this than you're acknowledging.

And I will very confidently speculate that he'd have averaged a lot more than 42 if he'd come in against the old ball at number 7 than he has at number 4 or 5, often against a new ball.

He has, however, been helped by piling on the runs on the Chittagong pitch a few times, as well as by his double century on the road at Galle.

How many number 7 batsmen in history have averaged over 42? The list is very short. I think that the not outs would hurt him ITBT because in tests you want as much time to cash in when you are set and in form. Which is why numbers 3-6 are the best spots for batting (after the shine has come off the new ball but while you still have a lot of potential batting partners left). If you get stranded on 70 most times you got set, you'll do less well than if you had the opportunity to convert that to a big score. The best batsmen in history bat 3-5 for a reason. It's the best place to maximise your runs.

I think if he played for a more complete side Shakib would bat pretty much where he is but his bowling load would be dramatically reduced so that he could focus on becoming a 50+ average batsman.

 

[cnerd123]

2) And bowling as part of a rubbish lineup as the lead spinner is a tough job. Especially for a finger spinner. More than any other form of bowling, finger spinners rely on pressure being built constantly to force an error from a batsman. He's had ****all support from the other end to keep things tight and help him take wickets. I could easily see him taking fewer wickets overall but having a way better average and SR if he played for Aus or SA. If he had Steyn,Philander or Hazelwood at the other end, imagine how much easier his job becomes... no one else is giving anything away, and he can do his thing just chipping away and getting 2-3 cheap wickets every game.

Case and point: Nathan Lyon and Keshwar Maharaj.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Jadeja, Ashwin, Shakib...if these guys grew up playing their cricket in Australia or England they would be very different bowlers because they would have to be different bowlers.

One of the reasons I find these 'what if a player playing for some other country' talks useless. There are too many variants involved to make a successful comparison.

 

[Furball]

It doesn't matter if they do. Warner is a complete spud away from home no matter where it is. He's just horrendous

He did alright in South Africa didn't he?