is paul harris the worst bowler to take 100+ wickets?

[Blocky]

Of those to take 300 wickets, Vettori far away above and beyond has to be the worst bowler.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yes, I'm sure Vettori is crying himself to sleep every night over that.

 

[Cabinet96]

Not sure Paul Harris or Ashley Giles cry themselves to sleep every night over this either. It's not the point of the thread...

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Worst to take 800 wickets - Murali

 

[Blocky]

Worst to take 800 wickets - Murali

Touche.

 

[Dan]

Would take Vettori over Harbhajan, personally.

 

[the big bambino]

Agree with the defence of Fidel Edwards. Reckon he was a decent bowler and better then his average might suggest. Another in that list is Doug Wright who's reputation is the greatest contrast to his figures of any other who have played the game imo. Also thought that Harris was better than Giles though even then you'd have to becareful who you disparage as Giles certainly fulfilled a role in England's winning side in the mid noughties.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Would take Vettori over Harbhajan, personally.

As a cricketer (and human being, obvz) I'd agree, but think Harby is the better test bowler.

 

[African Monkey]

I think Giles and Harris contributed to more wins than Rafique perhaps but then Rafique didn't really have great support...

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.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

For the role Harris played in building South Africa to be on top of the world I really liked him... him bowling in unison with Steyn brought Steyn many wickets as well... It is a shame we dropped him for Tahir.

 

[Jono]

would take vettori over harbhajan, personally.

Genuinely surprised at that view. Any reason?

 

[GIMH]

Genuinely surprised at that view. Any reason?

Had too much to drink, presumably

 

[Dan]

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.

It would be somewhat dependent upon the fast bowling stocks I had available; if I had quality, incisive pacers it would be Vettori every day of the week. If the quality of the quicks was lacking, then Harbhajan's greater ability to take wickets would become more valuable.

I would, however, take Graeme Swann or a more attacking off spinner with a similar record to Harbhajan ahead of Vettori most of the time. I just flat out don't rate post-2001 Harbhajan that highly.

 

[the big bambino]

I rate Vettori up there. His bowling against Australia had been consistently good, both home and away. He had an ability to alter flight, pace and line without comprimising length thereby constantly attacking our batsmen when we had some real good ones. His skills made him good fun to watch.

 

[harsh.ag]

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.

 

[the big bambino]

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.

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.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

After seeing Devon Malcolm in that list, I had a good old reminisce about ole big Dev.

I also happened to stumble across this interview: 21 Questions: Devon Malcolm | Interview | English Cricket

My favourite has to be this:

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?’

I fear that big Dev may have gone a bit Frank Bruno.

 

[cnerd123]

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.

Bhajji the better ODI bowler tho.

 

[Dan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

And of all people to rate him, I probably should. Up until that 2001 series in which he basically beat Australia single-handedly (well, with some help from VVS & Dravid), I'd never consciously witnessed an Australian Test loss.

Bhajji the better ODI bowler tho.

You're nuts. Later career Vettori was one of the best white ball spinners ever, IMO.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea Bhajji V2 was pretty terrible. Never looked like getting a wicket on most days, and unlike Vettori didn't seem to trouble the batsmen in the air or with his variations. Once in a while he would, inexplicably, begin tossing the ball up and getting it to spin and look so good and pick up a five wicket haul (he looked so good during hi 7-for in Cape Town 2011)...and then he'd descend back in mediocrity.

As for ODIs, I can see the argument for Vettori, but watching them both I just felt Bhajji kinda had ODIs figured out. Bowled lots of good tight spells in pressure situations on dead pitches and small outfields. Usually had little to no support as well. Even towards the end when he was just firing it in and couldn't pick up wickets, he kept a good economy rate. I've watched a lot more of India than NZ though, so I guess that creates a bias.

Not sure how I'd compare them at their peaks, since at Bhajji's peak he was an attacking bowler and Vettori was a holding one, and the stats do compare favourably for Vettori (especially 2007-2011).