Mohammad Rafiq is ignored in cricinfo article on Finger spinners

[Miraz]

This is really a shame that Cricinfo omitted both Mohammad Rafiq and Enamul huq jnr. from their article Is the finger-spinner a dying breed? by S Rajesh. They have included Monty Panesar with only 31 test wickets and others with fewer test wickets than Rafiq. I have lodged a complain from the feedback option of the column. They haven't even mentioned Rafiq's name in the slow left arm spinner category in tests.

We should strongly condemn it and write to cricinfo. This is completely unacceptable. I am speechless

[Mr-Cricket]

Send them your article regarding the abundance of quality SLA bowlers we have at our disposal at this time.

It was a great read.

That'll show them!

Originally Posted by Miraz
They haven't even mentioned Rafiq's name in the slow left arm spinner category in tests.

To be fair, unfortunately Rafiques career average just doesn't stack up to that of the remaining bowlers.

[Miraz]

Originally Posted by Mr-Cricket
To be fair, unfortunately Rafiques career average just doesn't stack up to that of the remaining bowlers.

Rafiqs average is 36.59 and took 87 wickets with S/R 83.13. They mentioned bvowlers taking just 31 wickets and average above 35 with S/R of 84 or even 87. Diffrence of average by simply 1-2 run cannot be a criteria when he is so succesful in taking wickets. Rafiq is much better than many other if you consider wicket/test.

[israr]

I've responded to Cricinfo expressing my disappointment and anger over this topic.

[Sovik]

i don't think rafiq done worse than ashley giles

[rudro]

Originally Posted by israr
I've responded to Cricinfo expressing my disappointment and anger over this topic.

They don't respond at all. I emailed them about other issues before and have not heard since. Remember the article by the same author on Prosper Utseya? Would they be willing to write it for Abdur Razzak?

Look at the stats of both players:
Raj:
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
22 90 21 15.00 0 0 30 3/17 24.43 0 6 0

Utseya:
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
44 189 31 9.00 0 0 31 3/35 45.58 0 15 0

[Miraz]

S Rajesh responded to my feedback

Dear Mr Rahman,
Clearly you are getting swayed by regional and nationalistic
sentiments.
Much as I would like Mohammad Rafique to be in the list, I can't since
the
table is sorted by averages for bowlers with at least 50 Test wickets,
and
Rafique's average doesn't make the cut. He is a very good bowler, but
I'm
going strictly by numbers here.
Regards
S Rajesh
Stats editor, Cricinfo

I repied to the mail and after that he is silent. He is simply double standard, included Panesar who have got just 31 wickets, talked about Giles with 40 average but excluded Rafiq with 87 wickets and 36 average.

[Zunaid]

It seems appropriate to dredge up an old article of mine:

The SLA Wars: M Rafique vs. D Vettori (18th October, 2004)

[Tigers_eye]

Not all are same.
That rajesh dude may think he is somebody. he is just trying to prove Indians are great, even if they represent England. Tactfully ignoring others.

[babubangla]

Originally Posted by Miraz
S Rajesh responded to my feedback



I repied to the mail and after that he is silent. He is simply double standard, included Panesar who have got just 31 wickets, talked about Giles with 40 average but excluded Rafiq with 87 wickets and 36 average.

Mr. Rajesh cleverly redefined the criteria to "at least 90 balls per Test, and 30 wickets"... this successfully ensures Panesar's place in the list.

This criteria is custom made for Panesar.

[sadi]

What kinda criteria is 90 balls per test? Thats really stupid... I mean what if there is a great bowler who takes 5/20 in 7 overs in each innings... he won't be mentioned just because he bowled less than 90 balls?

[babubangla]

Originally Posted by sadi
What kinda criteria is 90 balls per test? Thats really stupid... I mean what if there is a great bowler who takes 5/20 in 7 overs in each innings... he won't be mentioned just because he bowled less than 90 balls?

"90 balls per innings" criteria needed to ensure Panesar's place in the list.
Look at the wicket criteria...not 35, not 40, not 50.....exactly 30-- becasue Panesar has 31 wickets.
This list was NOT made to statistically find the best spinners. Rather it was tailored to statistically find Panesar.

[SS]

what else you expect from these indian editors who think they are superior. They are typical money hungry "talents" who use their talents where the money is. They don't know nothing but money in all fields, though they are undoubtedly smart but still they know how to make money. When media is powered by false represntators in this age, what good can you expect. Only one was to answer them is to perform. Waiting for India to visit us as they never won't invite us but will invite other countries for their own interest.

[sadi]

Its just a joke. I mean before I thought maybe he forgot or something but the way he is trying to cover it up is really disgusting.

[Hatebreed]

Well done Miaz bhai and keep up your efforts. It's high time we respond to Cricinfo's evident bias.

[israr]

Guys, please don't stay quiet and remain callous. Reply back to these []

[LateCut]

Instead of complaining ask Rabid to write one and send it to CI.

[ialbd]

keep it up Miraz bhai, this might look small but this is how Bangladesh is belittled everytime in this world, this is just sad....
________
Crf450X

[israr]

Originally Posted by ialbd
keep it up Miraz bhai, this might look small but this is how Bangladesh is belittled everytime in this world, this is just sad....

Dont loose hope, we're soon going to shut these critics up.
INSHA'ALLAH

[Mr-Cricket]

Yes, on second thoughts, Miraz bhai, you were quite right to be annoyed.

Clear double standard going on here.

[Tigers_eye]

Ah! the 90 ball per match rule. So this is what the standard criteria is. Never saw or heard on any cricket rule books or for any statistics analysis of other cricketers. Since this is the first time I am hearing about this absurd criteria I will name it as "Rajesh's 90 balls criteria" (Although he has 88 less of them, may be 89 less - since he can't live up to his mistakes of not including Rafique). This will be under my armour and I will certainly point out if he ever tries to post an article with any other criteria beside the 90 ball 30 wicket rule.

[BangladeshFan]

somehow these useless indians keep ignoring us. just wait, we will show them our mettle and make them eat grass!

[SMHasan]

If stephen boock can be included in the list with an average of 35.22 and with a strike rate of 84 so why not Rafique? Have a look at Boock's strike rate, this is not better than Rafique and the average is not far better than him also, so why not Rafique? Moreover Mr Rajesh did not mention that it is a list of top eight bowlers, I believe if he wanted to take 9 or 10 bowlers then the next name would be Rafique!

This analysis of Rajesh smells cow dung oh sorry it smells ****, pure human ****. I just don't understand one thing- in his table there is no specific requirement, so why taking Stephen Boock whose average is 35.22 and omitting Rafique with an average of 36.59?

Statistics are always a donkey we know this very well. Rafique is the best left arm bowler at this moment I believe. It's not a big deal not to see him in the list but it is a big deal the way Mr Rajesh tried to overlook and hide his mistake. Very sad.

[SMHasan]

Can't understand why my sig is on the top of my post?

[thebest]

Originally Posted by babubangla
"90 balls per innings" criteria needed to ensure Panesar's place in the list.
Look at the wicket criteria...not 35, not 40, not 50.....exactly 30-- becasue Panesar has 31 wickets.
This list was NOT made to statistically find the best spinners. Rather it was tailored to statistically find Panesar.

I think Babubhai is absolutely right. Look at the stat of latest 2 SLA of England after 9 tests. Paneser is worst in terms of wicket. Underwood has far better average with the same number of wickets.
Monty Panesar has taken 31 wickets at 30.12 runs apiece from 2,228 balls.
Phil Tufnell had 37 wickets at 27.14 from 2,569 balls
Phil Edmonds 33 at 22.24 from 2275
Derek Underwood 31 at 21.55 from 2,279.