chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
I thought that was interesting too, i wonder what his record against Vaas, Gillespie and Warne is butTim said:Interesting that Stephen Fleming seems to be the best at playing both of those bowlers.
I thought that was interesting too, i wonder what his record against Vaas, Gillespie and Warne is butTim said:Interesting that Stephen Fleming seems to be the best at playing both of those bowlers.
The average against a said batsman is utterly inconsequential.chaminda_00 said:This is why i think McGarth is slightly a little bit better then Murali:
Murali McGrath
Out Ave Out Ave
J Kallis 6 34.8 6 9.8
I Ul Haq 5 39.6 5 23.8
B lara 5 56.8 13 30
R Dravid 4 32.3 4 12.5
S Fleming 3 56.7 5 33.6
S Tendulkar 2 75.5 6 22.2
These are the best 6 batsmen IMO throught majority of both of these batsmen careers. As u can see McGarth got a better record aganist then all. I hate to admitt it but Murali gets allot of wickets against tailenders which brings down his average and other stats.
That isnt true.No, I'm assuming they've totted up total runs scored against that bowler, and total amount of times they've been out to that bowler, and divided it.
Well RSA and AUS of recent times have been more suitable for batting but whether it is the lack of bowlers ( OZ does manage to get out opposition for low scores but the opposition lack bowlers of quality) or pitch is the question.To those saying that Aus and SA pitches (leave NZ pitches out of it) favour pace as much as the sub-continent favours spin - NONSENSE.
If anything, both countries pitches are flatter than they have ever been and favour batting more than anything else.
The averages aren't worked out like that it is how many runs each batsmen score of each bowler divided by how many times a batsmen gets out to that bowler.C_C said:The average against a said batsman is utterly inconsequential.
It merely denotes what is the average score you dismissed the batsman on, not what the batsman scores off of you in average.
ie, if Lara for eg. scores 300*,5,15,200* against McGrath, with both wickets taken by McGrath and he scores 50,40,60,50 vs Murali, with all four taken by murali, his ave. against McGrath is 10.00 and 50.00 vs Murali....
It is the % that count and McGarth has lower % aganist tailenders and higher aganist % aganist 1-7 batsmen.C_C said:Murali has 163 wickets for the tail, at 30.6% which means 369 wickets for #1 to 7. ( 140 @ 26.3% for 1-3 and 229 @ 43% for 4-7). This from 91 tests
McGrath has 122 wickets for the tail @ 25.4% which means 359 wickets for #1 to 7 ( 191 @ 39.7% for 1-3 and 168 @ 34.9% for 4-7). This from 106 test.
So while mural takes more lower order wickets than McGrath,he also takes more top order wickets than McGrath.
*NO IT ISNT*The averages aren't worked out like that it is how many runs each batsmen score of each bowler divided by how many times a batsmen gets out to that bowler.
% doesnt apply here...as the question is, does Murali take more top order wickets than McGrath or not. The answer is yes.It is the % that count and McGarth has lower % aganist tailenders and higher aganist % aganist 1-7 batsmen.
Lara's only just below him but has played the 2 far more times..Tim said:Interesting that Stephen Fleming seems to be the best at playing both of those bowlers.
You'd expect him to take more, he's got more overall.C_C said:Murali has 163 wickets for the tail, at 30.6% which means 369 wickets for #1 to 7. ( 140 @ 26.3% for 1-3 and 229 @ 43% for 4-7). This from 91 tests
McGrath has 122 wickets for the tail @ 25.4% which means 359 wickets for #1 to 7 ( 191 @ 39.7% for 1-3 and 168 @ 34.9% for 4-7). This from 106 test.
So while mural takes more lower order wickets than McGrath,he also takes more top order wickets than McGrath.
Yes I know that, but then again how often have SL had good opening bowlers?C_C said:well Murali doesnt come on till the 15th-16th over or so while McGrath opens..
And that has nothing to do with Murali being SL's only World Class bowler, and Murali having played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe so frequently?C_C said:The fact that Murali has more top order wickets in less matches than McGrath rubbishes any claim that McGrath is more effective against quality batsmen than Murali.
Vaas is pretty decent. But thats irrelevant. If you come later down, you WILL take less wickets....its not like mediocre bowlers NEVER take wickets....but an opening bowler ALWAYS gets the first crack.Yes I know that, but then again how often have SL had good opening bowlers?
Irrelevant.And that has nothing to do with Murali being SL's only World Class bowler, and Murali having played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe so frequently?
Top_Cat said:Best bowler currently playing; Glenn McGrath
Quote me stat after stat and I won't change my opinion. Sorry.
You couldn't be more wrong. I just don't think the stats you're quoting are instructive in this case. And no, I'm not going to start a debate with you on this so don't even bother. I had zero time last week and this week, I have so little time, I'm actually planning on travelling into the past a few times so I can get all of my work done.Otherwise known as a biassed and pre-determined opinion which will not see reason.
If Mcgrath has a better strike rate and a better average then murali on his own turf compared to Murali on Mcgraths turf, how is it 'UNQUESTIONABLY muralitharan'.... and the fact that he has more wickets just shows how much the SL attack relies on him and how often he is bowledC_C said:Like i said, wickets have been flatter everywhere in the world as of late.
But i see no reason to believe that SL pitches suit spinners more than OZ pitches suit pacers on average.
Anyways....
The claim is McGrath performs better on pitches which offer little for pacers than Murali perfroms on pitches which offer little for spinners.
Well which countries predominantly favour pacers ? NZ,ENG,AUS,WI,RSA.
Which countries predominantly favour spinners : IND, SL and PAK
Murali overall in these 'predominantly pacer friendly places' :
19 matches, 100 wickets @ 26.14 B-B : 9-65 5-fer:10 10-fer :2 St/R : 61.60
McGrath overall in these 'predominantly spin friendly places' :
17 matches, 62 wickets @ 25.54 B-B: 5-66 5-fer:1 10-fer: 0 St/R: 60.24
Both are very close. While McGrath has a marginally better average and strike rate, Murali has a whole bucketload more wickets and is significantly more destructive ( 10 five-fers as opposed to 1 by McGrath)...i know..the argument is gonna be 'mcgrath has more competition'...well more competition or not, one fivefer in 17 matches is definately below par.
And besides, the argument is about the past couple of yers.
In the past couple of years, Murali has far more wickets at a better average and strike rate than McGrath, has a better away record and the only common 'away' venue they played in is the caribbean-where Murali outshone McGrath by a LONG margin.
Based on the past couple of years, its UNQUESTIONABLY muralitharan.
Far too simplistic. The entire point I was making in my post is that pitches, particularly in Australi, South Africa and the West Indies, no longer significantly favour pacers. They are mostly flat with little in them for bowlers at all, and whatever they might offer for pace bowling is minimal in comparison to what the same pitches offered for pace bowling a decade ago. A decade ago all three countries were, in many places, absolute paradises for pace bowling. Now they are absolutely nothing of the sort and only rarely favour pacers to a small degree. It is true, however, that they largely fail to assist spin as well. They are simply predominately flat wickets with little in them for bowling compared to the past.C_C said:The claim is McGrath performs better on pitches which offer little for pacers than Murali perfroms on pitches which offer little for spinners.
Well which countries predominantly favour pacers ? NZ,ENG,AUS,WI,RSA.
Which countries predominantly favour spinners : IND, SL and PAK