Even for me too.Boring poll....I just can't
One bored me to tears, and the other.......
I think this argument is fair. Initially I was in favor of having this poll, as a I prefer a 4 + 1 balance in the team. However, I think the “balance” of the team should’ve been decided beforehand. Murali won the last poll fair and square. So therefore, even though I prefer a fourth seamer, I will vote for Murali.
As above.
Of course, but much as McGrath is special in what he was and his statistics given when and where he bowled, Murali will go down as one of the greatest bowlers of all time without doubt, and so is 'more special' than McGrath IMO.
Really? At the end of the day, McGrath was just a fast bowler. He may have been one of the greatest that ever lived, and for much of his career the best in the world, but he didn't smash records or revolutionise cricket like Murali has. On the other hand, Murali has re-written all the bowling records and caused all kinds of controversy along the way, and that is why he will be remembered moreso.
You put a good case forth for Murali, but thinking McGrath was "just another fast bowler" undersells him to say the least.
It pained me to write it but its true. If you can give me something which seperates McGrath from every other fast bowler in history then I will accept it, but I would struggle to think of one thing which makes McGrath greater than everyone else.
Erm, I very much doubt anybody was as bad against anything as much as Zimbabwe were at the time. Even Murali's own record reflects this - how he does against England and Zimbabwe.
For your interest (spin bowlers vs other teams, during Murali's career (the lower the average the easier it was).
Interesting, up to the end of 2001, one gets the following figures!
Opposition Players Span AveAscending Econ SR 5 10
v Bangladesh 28 2000-2001 [B]19.16[/B] 2.59 44.2 5 2
v England 80 1993-2001 [B]28.92[/B] 2.21 78.2 22 5
v New Zealand 92 1992-2001 [B]29.94[/B] 2.45 73.2 20 5
v Zimbabwe 93 1992-2001 [B]32.29[/B] 2.37 81.4 8 1
v West Indies 84 1992-2001 [B]34.66[/B] 2.76 75.3 17 4
v South Africa 92 1992-2001 [B]34.89[/B] 2.46 84.8 20 4
v Pakistan 80 1993-2001 [B]35.04[/B] 2.82 74.4 16 3
v Sri Lanka 95 1992-2001 [B]37.09[/B] 2.67 83.2 13 2
v Australia 87 1992-2001 [B]40.77[/B] 2.83 86.1 20 4
v India 86 1992-2001 [B]43.40[/B] 2.93 88.6 15 3Just as Murali broke records so did McGrath. The only thing that seems to separate them is the controversy. I mean, where does one start? The fact that there are more great fast bowlers to compare with than spinners doesn't detract from his legacy. IMO If anything it adds to it: that in a pool of so many greats, you can rightly (although arguably) say he is the greatest. His record is simply incredible when you look at the toughness of bowling in this past decade.
Zimbabwe is still poorer, although not as much as before it should be said. Actually, I probably should have removed Bangladesh because Zimbabwe would have played them more than others.
And if you do it in 1999, you come up with these.
For me, this is the key point. It does. It shouldn't, McGrath should be looked at for his record given all of the factors that went against him in the era he bowled, but the fact is, it will.
Well, think about this, in 2001 when they were creating the ESPN's Legends of Cricket series, McGrath was voted in at 41 and Murali wasn't even in the top 50. McGrath has probably enhanced his legacy double since then.
And if you choose up to the end of 2000 or 2001 then either England or New Zealand come out with worse figures than Zim. There doesn't seem to have been much difference between the three.
You mean besides 2-4 average points. Until 1999 Murali plays 3 series against Zimbabwe, if I am correct. In 2001, he plays another and again in 2004. In the period that you put forth that Zimbabwe were better players of spin, he plays 1 series. When we encompass all these series, we get the original stats I put. When we encompass all but the 2004 series, we get the 2nd one I put.