In my opinion, no. But it doesn't matter who you think the world's best bowler is, he's bloody close to whoever is your choice. Stats mean very little when it comes to Murali for me. I've seen games where Murali has gotten five wickets and won the game for Sri Lanka, and I've seen games where he's bowled 90 overs and gotten more wickets, but took so long that it didn't impact the game. What I'm trying to say is, sometimes Murali's been more effective when statistically he hasn't lowered his average and strike-rate. And I've seen games where he's bowled marathon spells and gotten a load of wicket, but it took so incredibly long it didn't impact on the game enough.
I'm seen a hoard of games where Murali hasn't gotten wickets in the first 20 or even 30 overs, but when he's bowled 80 overs or so he may end up with nine wickets, which actually improves his strike-rate! I'm not knocking getting nine wickets, and bowling as long as he does is astonishing, but it's a long period of time for the opposition to take control and win the game.
It's just something ironic I've noticed. Murali has had great games, and more impacting performances when he's taken a simple fiver for over 100 runs than one of his long marathoon spells where get gets eight. It's something I think a lot of cricket fans should ponder: How much do stats really mean? They're just ratios. I find it rather silly when people say stuff like, "Ambrose is better than McGrath because he has a better average" when McGrath is one run behind Ambrose in average.
Murali's a mortal lock for me as one of the five best bowlers in cricket history. Where in that five? I don't quite know, but he's not number one for me. If he is for you, more power to you. I just hope you decision isn't based entirely on stats.
