Muttiah Muralitharan gets 605 Test wickets

[Richard]

Well, that's what I'd clock it as, anyway - I have a different definition of Test to some.

Sadly, I$C$C recognise that nonsense of a Aus-vs-WorldXI game as a Test, plus Bangladesh, plus that abomination of a team put out by Zimbabwe in 2004. So, in their books, he now has 700.

Let the tributes begin.

 

[Sanz]

Dire(and I am not talking about Murali's feat). Just your post where you had to whine about ICC in this thread and make a mockery of Murali's name.

Murali is a Champion and no one deserves this more than him. Congratulations to Murali and I hope he takes 1000 test wickets.

 

[short shorts]

Wasn't there an article on cricinfo that showed that if Murali had played the other teams instead of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, his tally would still have been only 17 short of what it is now? Not his fault teams like Australia only host Sri Lanka for 2 tests.

 

[Sanz]

Wasn't there an article on cricinfo that showed that if Murali had played the other teams instead of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, his tally would still have been only 17 short of what it is now? Not his fault teams like Australia only host Sri Lanka for 2 tests.

Too true, but some people dont understand that. Also for his last 100 wickets he got wickets pretty much at the same rate against the minnows and non-minnows.

 

[andyc]

Wasn't there an article on cricinfo that showed that if Murali had played the other teams instead of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, his tally would still have been only 17 short of what it is now? Not his fault teams like Australia only host Sri Lanka for 2 tests.

Agreed. People complain that his stats are boosted by Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but take them out and he still ****s all over everyone else. Gun of a bowler, fair play to him for 700.

 

[Richard]

Dire(and I am not talking about Murali's feat). Just your post where you had to whine about ICC in this thread and make a mockery of Murali's name.

Haha, WTF? This thread is intended as nothing other than congratulations to a magnificent bowler. Someone can edit the title if it's really neccessary, but to suggest I'm attempting to make a mockery of Murali's name is, frankly, so ludicrous that only a tiny proportion of people would suggest it.

 

[Dasa]

Why not just use his actual name? I don't know why you decided to spell it that way, it makes no sense.

 

[Prince EWS]

I still legitimately don't see why you changed his name in the title. The wickets - yes I get it, well played. But the name... I'm stumped tbh.

 

[R_D]

Haha, WTF? This thread is intended as nothing other than congratulations to a magnificent bowler. Someone can edit the title if it's really neccessary, but to suggest I'm attempting to make a mockery of Murali's name is, frankly, so ludicrous that only a tiny proportion of people would suggest it.

This thread is childish imho... nice way to congratulate someone... i might try that next time Richard lets see what the response will be like in real life.

 

[Richard]

I still legitimately don't see why you changed his name in the title. The wickets - yes I get it, well played. But the name... I'm stumped tbh.

Change it to the proper spelling, FFS.

 

[Richard]

Why not just use his actual name? I don't know why you decided to spell it that way, it makes no sense.

It's to do with David Lloyd's pronunciation of it, nothing more. His pronunciation of Muralitharan's name is the one that sticks in my mind more than anything else.

Yet again, it's a piece of jest from me that people take the wrong way.

 

[GIMH]

damned if you do, damned if you don't

 

[Prince EWS]

Change it to the proper spelling, FFS.

Okay then. Just asking.

It's to do with David Lloyd's pronunciation of it, nothing more. His pronunciation of Muralitharan's name is the one that sticks in my mind more than anything else.

Yet again, it's a piece of jest from me that people take the wrong way.

Fair enough. Makes sense.

 

[Richard]

Okay then. Just asking.

Sorry, the FFS wasn't aimed at you, was just a general expression of dissatisfaction at the whole sorry affair.

 

[JASON]

I know Richard very well in this forum and I know honestly he would not be ridiculing Murali at all.

His intentions as I see it is purely to congratulate the guy, but unfortunately its got perceived the wrong way.

As it has been said above - Murali would still have had nearly the same number of wickets if he had played SA or NZ instead of Zim and Bang and definitely more than the current number if he played England every two years in a 5 Test Ashes like series because England are well known dummies when it comes to playing ordinary spin let alone the highest calibre of the kind of Murali's .

At the end of the day he has exceeded any other bowler in Test Cricket history by taking more Front line Batsman than any other in the game and in fewer Tests than any other . That should be enough to shut anyone up who has questions on his ability and calibre.

He is the greatest spinner. Learn to live with it.

 

[Prince EWS]

definitely more than the current number if he played England every two years in a 5 Test Ashes

Lol, debatable at best.

Murali v Bangladesh: 8.44 wickets per test @ 11.94
Murali v England: 7.15 wickets per test @ 19.74

He is the greatest spinner. Learn to live with it.

People don't have to live with your criteria though, is the point. People may have a different criteria for judging the greatest spinner other than your simplistic number of top order wickets one - ranging from the statsmen of the world who are bound to have a different mathematic equation for it than that to the average Joes who'd rather just - heaven forbid - watch each bowler bowl for extended periods and base an opinion on their observations.

 

[JASON]

Ok , so you have struggled with your numbers to show that Murali gets 1 wicket less a Test against England than Bangladesh.

So what it proves, is that if he had played the large number of Tests against England like Warne he would have got 36 Tests x 7 .15 = 257 Test Wickets (Warne by the way v Bang 2 tests 11 wickets , v Zim 1 Test 6 wickets ) instead of 13 Tests and 93 wickets v England and 9 tests 76 wickets v Bang and 14 Tests v Zim with 87 wickets.

Or

Warne 36 tests v England only took 195 wickets .
Murali had he played 36 Tests v England would have taken 36 x 7.15 = 257 wickets.

And would still have gotten more wickets than Warne

 

[Prince EWS]

Ok , so you have struggled with your numbers to show that Murali gets 1 wicket less a Test against England than Bangladesh.

So what it proves, is that if he had played the large number of Tests against England like Warne he would have got 36 Tests x 7 .15 = 257 Test Wickets (Warne by the way v Bang 2 tests 11 wickets , v Zim 1 Test 6 wickets ) instead of 13 Tests and 93 wickets v England and 9 tests 76 wickets v Bang and 14 Tests v Zim with 87 wickets.

Or

Warne 36 tests v England only took 195 wickets .
Murali had he played 36 Tests v England would have taken 36 x 7.15 = 257 wickets.

And would still have gotten more wickets than Warne

When did Warne become relevant though? The argument was over whether Murali would have taken as many wickets (or more, as you stated!) had he played against England instead of Bangladesh, which isn't the case as he takes them as a slower rate. I really don't care if he has more wickets than Warne or not.

 

[JASON]

And no people don't have to live with my criteria, but the most sensible and intelligent criteria to use is winning matches.

And the person who singlehandedly wins more matches than any other - thats simple criteria even for the dumbest people to follow .

And there is only one winner there . Murali .

 

[JASON]

When did Warne become relevant though? The argument was over whether Murali would have taken as many wickets (or more, as you stated!) had he played against England instead of Bangladesh, which isn't the case as he takes them as a slower rate. I really don't care if he has more wickets than Warne or not.

Ok, so you are now arguing about 9 more wickets he got against Bangladesh , because he gets 1 more wicket per Test against Bangladesh than against England ?

How ridiculous is that ?