• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Whos the better off spinner, Muralitharan or Laker?

who is the better off spinner

  • Laker by a lot

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Laker by a little

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • pretty much even

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Murali by a little

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Murali by a lot

    Votes: 8 34.8%

  • Total voters
    23

hourn

U19 Cricketer
was having a bit of an argument as to an all time XI on another forum, and the debate is who the better spinner is - Murali or Laker.

For mine it is Laker, this is the extract of my post with my reasonings for this decision.

------------------------------------------------

In terms of off spinners, Laker is clearly the best IMO.

Just went on to CricInfo to have a look at Murali v Laker (Laker also didn't have a great, although not a bad reord, against South Africa).

(Take out my bias againt Murali cause i believe he throws, Laker still beats him).

- Murali just wins on strike rates (58 to 62)
- Laker just wins on average (21.24 to 22.86)
- I always reckon wickets per test i believe is pretty irrelevant. Murali has no competition for wickets, and each team basically takes 20 wickets a test. Someone has to take those wickets. When his only competition for wickets is a reasonable test quickie in Vaas, of course Murali is gonna take 6 wickets a test, because he basically comes on after about 6 overs from the other opener, and bowls practically non stop to the end of an innings.
- take out 16 tests with 110 wickets at about 14 against Zim and Bangladesh, then suddenly they're practically even on strike rates, and Laker pretty much dominates him on average. Murali now has 425 wickets (5.66 wickets per test) at 24.68 with a strike rate of 60.85.
- Murali has also struggled against the best in the world Australia, and hasn't performed well at all in either Australia or New Zealand.
- Laker has only ever had two calendar years where has averaged over 30 (and another where he took 1 wicket @ 86 in 1 test).
- Murali really struggled in his first 4 to 6 years, before he really his strides.

Basically, i would just take Laker over Murali.



------------------------------------------------

Thoughts???


And just for the record, this was my all time team 1) Herb Sutcliife 2) Jack Hobbs 3) Don Bradman 4) Graeme Pollock 5) Gary Sobers 6) Adam Gilchrist 7) Keith Miller 8) Malcolm Marshall 9) Joel Garner 10) Bill O'Reilly 11) Jim Laker

But Could basically pick any two of Sutcliffe, Hobbs or Hutton to open.

Could pick any one of the about 12 or 15 players for the number 4 batting spot.

Could also easily replace Imran Khan or Richard Hadlee with Keither Miller.

Could also pick any one of the about 12 or 15 players for the number 9 spot and second opening bowling position.

I think Marshall is the best bowler of all time and has a right to be included straight into that time, but that is just my opinion, and others may differ.
 

KennyD

International Vice-Captain
Lker bowled on crummier pitches though, quite a few stickies back then, made it easier for hi,. S oI'll go with Murali by a little...

And wheres Warney in that team? not that i like him, but i think he deserves a place ahead of O'Riely.
 

hourn

U19 Cricketer
KennyD said:
Lker bowled on crummier pitches though, quite a few stickies back then, made it easier for hi,. S oI'll go with Murali by a little...

And wheres Warney in that team? not that i like him, but i think he deserves a place ahead of O'Riely.
always liked O'Reilly.

Warne, O'Reilly and Grimmett (who knows what this guy could've done if he was given the approriate opportunities) pretty much all have their own things that they bring to a team. I just reckon O'Reilly has conquered on all pitches, whereas Warne hasn't quite done it in India, and to a lesser extent Pakistan (i think - don't know hes exact record there off my head, but can't remember him dominating in Pakistan ebfore).

A good point you do make about Laker though and being able to bowl on sticky and crumby wickets.

I reckon Murali getting 14 tests and countless wickets against two teams that aren't even FC standard, and the fact he gets Sri Lankan wickets basically tailored to his bowling (mainly because he is all they have got) basically evens out the advantages Laker had.....
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Once you get to the kind of level that these players were (are) at at their respective peaks, it becomes pedantry to argue over who's the better.
 

hourn

U19 Cricketer
Neil Pickup said:
Once you get to the kind of level that these players were (are) at at their respective peaks, it becomes pedantry to argue over who's the better.
yeah not much difference, but it's still good fun to have some topical debate and see some opinions out there.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
KennyD said:
Lker bowled on crummier pitches though, quite a few stickies back then, made it easier for hi,. S oI'll go with Murali by a little...

And wheres Warney in that team? not that i like him, but i think he deserves a place ahead of O'Riely.
And ofcourse Murali gets no help from his pitches.
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
Laker at his best was pretty much the best bowler ever, but he only managed to sustain a regular Test spot for around 5 years. Admittedly England were spoilt for riches in the bowling department during the 1950s, in complete contrast to Sri Lanka. This explains Laker's lower average and Murali's higher wickets per match. Murali clearly has more types of delivery, but that does not necessarily make him better (Adam Holliake has as many variations as anyone, yet he was never any good); accuracy wise and in terms of flight and amount of spin they are pretty much even.

I say Murali but that is just down to personal preferance, I have no objection to people selecting the Englishman. Anyone who votes 'Murali by a lot' or 'Laker by a lot' is simply wrong, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
Laker.

Who's better Langer or Hayden? Langer

Who's better? Donald or Marshall? Donald

Who's better? Waugh or Bradman? Waugh(Steve)

Spot the link :P
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Jamee999 said:
Laker.

Who's better Langer or Hayden? Langer

Who's better? Donald or Marshall? Donald

Who's better? Waugh or Bradman? Waugh(Steve)

Spot the link :P
You're picking the shortest name every time, because you're incredibly lazy?
 

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
Would that be Basin " We're in the Super 6's and the Sharjah Stinking Sharks aren't" Reserve Bears?
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
Jamee999 said:
Would that be Basin " We're in the Super 6's and the Sharjah Stinking Sharks aren't" Reserve Bears?
Would that be the Basin "we can't win Tests to save our lives" Reserve Bears?
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
And that has nothing to do with the fact that Dhaka's bowling attack consists of the fearsome Wayward, Dev, Nadkarni and...wait for it...Jonty Rhodes...

*shivers*

Edit: Okay, Shoaib too. World class in LftA terms, I bet.
 
Last edited:

Top