mendis and murali

[Ikki]

For me the pecking order will always be

1. M Muralitharan
2. Shane Warne
3. Anil Kumble.

The benchmark has been not wickets, but the way these bowlers been treated by the premier batsmen of their era. As to Differentiation between Murali and Warne, the way Sachin played them has been my criteria of judging them.. While he played Warne comfortable almost throughout his career, that's not been the case with Murali.

As regards Kumble, well, he's been always a distant third. And his stats are more than proof of that.

Conversely, Warne was much better against Lara whilst Murali was shellacked.

The funny thing is though that Warne considered Tendulkar harder to face but Murali thought Lara was.

 

[Dissector]

OK, no point arguing about this further. For me the idea that Warne is better than Murali is pretty silly. What Murali has achieved from 1998 onwards no bowler in this history of test cricket has come close to achieving.

 

[Ikki]

Jeez, well if you stick around long enough you'll inevitably get to 600.

The point is, the best spinners in the world during Kumble's career, Murali and Warne, were an indisputable class above him. Calling him world-class would imply that he's in the same class as those two, and he's not.

The problem is if you think world-class is restricted to Warne and Murali then you have a very very short list. Kumble is world-class. Whether he is an all-time great is debatable. IMO, not so much. The list of truly world-class spinners is short and Kumble should be there.

 

[Ikki]

OK, no point arguing about this further. For me the idea that Warne is better than Murali is pretty silly. What Murali has achieved from 1998 onwards no bowler in this history of test cricket has come close to achieving.

And what are these things?

 

[Dissector]

For example he has averaged almost 7 wickets per match for more than 10 years.

 

[Ikki]

For example he has averaged almost 7 wickets per match for more than 10 years.

He's also bowled about 60 overs a match and played B&Z a quite a bit. That's also something no one in history has done.

Don't want to get into this and demean his great record. But Murali has not been the phenomena you quite envisage and his distance with Warne, whatever way you wish to rank them is very small. I don't think it's "pretty silly' to think either is greater than the other. Murali, himself, thinks Warne is the greatest ever.

 

[Dissector]

Well, Murali is hardly going to say that he is the best ever is he? Anyway there is no point re-hashing the arguments from other threads. From your opinion of Miller as bowler I take it that you don't consider wickets/match as an important indicator. I OTOH consider it just as important as bowling average. Taking 5 wickets per match like Hadlee and Lillee did is a remarkable achievement which indicates their ability to shoulder the burden of leading the attack. Taking 7 per match over a period of 80 tests IMO ranks as one of the 3-4 greatest achievements in the history of cricket.

 

[Precambrian]

He's also bowled about 60 overs a match and played B&Z a quite a bit. That's also something no one in history has done.

That also takes some doing to do that for 10 years on the trot, when you know you are the only bowling spearhead as well as the stock option.

 

[Ikki]

Well, Murali is hardly going to say that he is the best ever is he? Anyway there is no point re-hashing the arguments from other threads. From your opinion of Miller as bowler I take it that you don't consider wickets/match as an important indicator. I OTOH consider it just as important as bowling average. Taking 5 wickets per match like Hadlee and Lillee did is a remarkable achievement which indicates their ability to shoulder the burden of leading the attack. Taking 7 per match over a period of 80 tests IMO ranks as one of the 3-4 greatest achievements in the history of cricket.

Murali is indeed a champ and very humble. But how many other people do you want me to name saying Warne is the greatest? I'm trying to illustrate that to call such an opinion "pretty silly" is stretching it.

And no, I don't devalue the wickets-per-match stat. It's just that on it's own it is relatively useless. It needs to be seen in conjunction with strike-rate and possibly a few things you touched on in the above and some other points.

The reason that for Miller it was relatively unimportant, for example, was because he played as a pure all-rounder - neither batting nor bowling. So he was restricted in the amount of overs he played. He also had a back injury and could bowl less and less towards the end of his career which will effect that wickets-per-match stat. Things like these should be taken into account. Whilst Murali's wicket-taking is great, his doing moreso than others has it's obvious reasons - apart from skill.

 

[Ikki]

That also takes some doing to do that for 10 years on the trot, when you know you are the only bowling spearhead as well as the stock option.

But if you are going to attribute that then you should talk about his stamina, rather than his wicket-taking per match. Furthermore, it's not a feat that others could not replicate due to their limited stamina/physical form - spinners can bowl long spells as it is not as physically intensive as pace bowling. Also, artificial barriers like having other great bowlers on your team to rely on has left other bowlers with less and less overs per match to bowl and less wickets to take per match. Hence a direct comparison based on wickets-per-test is sort of meaningless.

 

[zaremba]

This thread has degenerated into yet another quarrel about Murali v Warne (and both v Kumble). Aren't there other threads for those tired debates?

 

[Ikki]

This thread has degenerated into yet another quarrel about Murali v Warne (and both v Kumble). Aren't there other threads for those tired debates?

True. Got side-tracked. Although, it does give some insight as to what Mendis will have to do, with comparison to these gentlemen, to build his own following.

 

[Dissector]

OK fair enough that Warne is considered by quite a few to be the best spinner of his time. IMO Murali vs Warne isn't close but that is a minority view. While long spells are easier for spinners, it is still quite hard to maintain accuracy and turn for a long period. Bowling a lot of long spells also is long-term injury risk factor. Plus it means that Murali has often had to bowl very long spells in games with flat wickets. Maintaining an average in the low 20's despite that is an amazing achivement.

 

[zaremba]

Murali vs Warne

... and still it continues

 

[Dissector]

*Shrug* Discussions get side-tracked sometimes.

 

[zaremba]

I'm sorry for my irritability but the "Murali v Warne" horse has been exhaustively flogged, besides which there is an official thread for it.

 

[Richard]

And this guy's only been here a couple of months, too - he's sick of it already. Imagine how the longer-term types feel.

Petition to move the relevant above posts to Murali-vs-Warne thread.

 

[Napier16]

Hope you realize that your post looks far more like rubbish at the moment, given that you failed to actually make an argument. First of all, I'll agree that Kumble is a fair distance behind Warne and it's Murali > Warne >>> Kumble for me, although all three are world-class. That said, all the other arguments he made for Kumble are completely valid. Lack of support from the other bowlers, fielders and to a lesser degree batsmen in your team are one reason why Murali and Kumble go up somewhat and Warne comes down somewhat in my books (of course, it'll take a lot more than that to bridge the gap between Warne and Kumble).

There's no argument that needs to be made, I've seen them both bowl extensively and the evidence is abuntdantly clear to virtually all, on that alone.

And disagree that the whole "lack of support from other bowlers" type arguments are valid.

 

[adharcric]

There's no argument that needs to be made, I've seen them both bowl extensively and the evidence is abuntdantly clear to virtually all, on that alone.

And disagree that the whole "lack of support from other bowlers" type arguments are valid.

You don't think support from other bowlers and fielders plays any role in a bowler's success?

 

[Uppercut]

You don't think support from other bowlers and fielders plays any role in a bowler's success?

They do, but it's a bit of a random distribution. There's a good chance Warne benefited from better fielding than Kumble, but it's only a chance. You can only give a gentle nod in the direction of that factor, you can't use it to say "Kumble would have averaged 3 or 4 runs less...".

Far more important factors IMO would be:

1. Kumble never had to play against one of the greatest ever generations of players at batting against spin.
2. Kumble had far more helpful pitches to bowl on. Shown by his failings outside of India.