Special Poll 1: McGrath or Murali?

[shankar]

The Sri Lankan, Indian and Pakistani series occur before such exodus IIRC. I am not sure you can just write it off. They had an atrocious series against Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan and were clearly troubled with regards to spin. And continued so for a few years. In their 2nd to last series against Murali they had their players and were really poor and in the last seies, they lost players, and were poor (ironically, better than what they were in the 2nd to last series) But let's move on, really, as I said it doesn't change a whole lot.

What's there to write off in the Indian and Pakistani series? Like I stated earlier Harbhajan averaged better against the all-time great Aus team of 2001 which happened a few months earlier. Kumble also had similar figures against England who toured India during this period. What's so terribly different about Zimbabwe's performance agianst them which tells you they were minnows? Similarly Saqlain averaging 21 vs a decent but not terribly strong side at home is hardly a surprise. I'd say the 0.5 difference to a career average is significant.

 

[Ikki]

What's there to write off in the Indian and Pakistani series? Like I stated earlier Harbhajan averaged better against the all-time great Aus team of 2001 which happened a few months earlier. Kumble also had similar figures against England who toured India during this period. What's so terribly different about Zimbabwe's performance agianst them which tells you they were minnows? Similarly Saqlain averaging 21 vs a decent but not terribly strong side at home is hardly a surprise. I'd say the 0.5 difference to a career average is significant.

Apart from the fact that they played Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan one after another? Their batsmen failed consistently against the 3 teams they faced within a year - all with notable spinners. Forget about just Saqlain (who was also nearing the end of his career and hitting poor form); Kumble averaged 18, Harbhajan averaged 19, Jayasuria averaged 14, Murali averaged 10.

Kumble after the Zimbabwe series averaged 58 against the Windies, 36 in the return English series. And the similar figures you talk of? He averaged 23 against England at home and 18 against Zimbabwe at home - the English series right before the Zimbabwean one. The Australian series Harbhajan had was a year earlier, not a couple months. In fact, right before the Zimbabwe series in question, he faced England and like Kumble averaged a worse figure; 25.

I think we can safely write them off. Through that year and continuing for the rest of their Test history, Zimbabwe were very very poor players of spin.

 

[bagapath]

i've been trying to follow this exchange. and i cant figure out what you both are talking about. believe me, i've read the posts twice. may be i am sleepy. or may be you guys are discussing something so complicated that i would need subtitles.

 

[Ikki]

i've been trying to follow this exchange. and i cant figure out what you both are talking about. believe me, i've read the posts twice. may be i am sleepy. or may be you guys are discussing something so complicated that i would need subtitles.

Shankar is saying Zimbabwe should count because for a time they were no worse than the English at playing spin. I think he brings a convincing case, but only for prior 2000. After that, as I showed, the series in which Murali plays them in 2001/2 and 2004 they were garbage.

 

[shankar]

Apart from the fact that they played Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan one after another? Their batsmen failed consistently against the 3 teams they faced within a year - all with notable spinners. Forget about just Saqlain (who was also nearing the end of his career and hitting poor form); Kumble averaged 18, Harbhajan averaged 19, Jayasuria averaged 14, Murali averaged 10.

Kumble after the Zimbabwe series averaged 58 against the Windies, 36 in the return English series. And the similar figures you talk of? He averaged 23 against England at home and 18 against Zimbabwe at home - the English series right before the Zimbabwean one. The Australian series Harbhajan had was a year earlier, not a couple months. In fact, right before the Zimbabwe series in question, he faced England and like Kumble averaged a worse figure; 25.

I think we can safely write them off. Through that year and continuing for the rest of their Test history, Zimbabwe were very very poor players of spin.

Not convincing. Regarding Jayasuriya's figures, he averaged the same 14 against England earlier that year picking up nearly twice as many wickets.

Kumble and Harbhajan have never been very good outside India. So their overseas figures don't say anything about their form. Kumble has had similiar figures against many teams at home with his average ranging anywhere from 15-25. For example he averaged 18.7 against SL in India during 05/06 and 29 against Eng right after. Is this evidence that SL were minnows then? Simply the evidence is not there to decide that Zim magically became minnows then. If such evidence were enough one could find several teams throughout the nineties who should then be declared minnows.

 

[Ikki]

Not convincing. Regarding Jayasuriya's figures, he averaged the same 14 against England earlier that year picking up nearly twice as many wickets.

Kumble and Harbhajan have never been very good outside India. So their overseas figures don't say anything about their form. Kumble has had similiar figures against many teams at home with his average ranging anywhere from 15-25. For example he averaged 18.7 against SL in India during 05/06 and 29 against Eng right after. Is this evidence that SL were minnows then? Simply the evidence is not there to decide that Zim magically became minnows then. If such evidence were enough one could find several teams throughout the nineties who should then be declared minnows.

Jayasuria's series against England was a year before the Zimbabwe series, not as close as you make it sound.. I've already conceded that prior to that point Zimbabwe should count. He also averaged 31 a year later against England.

This is clutching. Kumble and Harbhajan both played England right before they played Zimbabwe and weren't even near as successful. They played England, averaged 23 and 25; played Zimbabwe right after and averaged 18-19. Then Zimbabwe play SL after that; Jayasuria and Murali average 14 and 10, respectively, and Saqlain plays them later on that year (the very next Zimbabwean series) and averages 21, then he pretty much loses it and retires.

Zimbabwe played all these teams one after another in the same year. 5 spinners doing much much better than their records usually are in all the same short time-frame is not a coincidence. If it happened one this year, the other next year and the others even further than that, ok, I'd buy it. But not like this.

It doesn't seem you're going to concede this point to me and I don't buy your evaluation either. Either way, I, personally, don't find much of a difference to squabble over about - it doesn't affect his record to demean the perception about him as bowler. Peace.

 

[shankar]

Jayasuria's series against England was a year before the Zimbabwe series, not as close as you make it sound.. I've already conceded that prior to that point Zimbabwe should count. He also averaged 31 a year later against England.

This is clutching. Kumble and Harbhajan both played England right before they played Zimbabwe and weren't even near as successful. They played England, averaged 23 and 25; played Zimbabwe right after and averaged 18-19. Then Zimbabwe play SL after that; Jayasuria and Murali average 14 and 10, respectively, and Saqlain plays them later on that year (the very next Zimbabwean series) and averages 21, then he pretty much loses it and retires.

Zimbabwe played all these teams one after another in the same year. 5 spinners doing much much better than their records usually are in all the same short time-frame is not a coincidence. If it happened one this year, the other next year and the others even further than that, ok, I'd buy it. But not like this.

It doesn't seem you're going to concede this point to me and I don't buy your evaluation either. Either way, I, personally, don't find much of a difference to squabble over about - it doesn't affect his record to demean the perception about him as bowler. Peace.

I just think letting Kumble and Harbhajan average 18-19 is something many sides have done and isn't any sign of a minnow. But yeah doesn't look like we'll convince each other, no point arguing further.

 

[ret]

Murali

 

[JBH001]

There is no other fast bowler that's been like Hadlee either, really. I don't think that makes him anymore special than Lillee TBH.

Spinners of that caliber have appeared less times than the number of fingers you have on one hand. Regardless of what team they were in. What makes Murali different is that his wicket-hauls are more because he has less support. It's not especially because of another reason IMO.

I am not talking about wicket hauls, comparisons, or anything like atm. I am simply pointing out that Murali is a special bowler/spinner for (the additional reason) that he, afaik, is the only lone spinner in cricket history to consistently carry his side's bowling attack.

It makes him different, because a spinners job and a quicks job is different. For example, Murali usually having to bowl against settled batsmen, and having to keep things tight and take wickets, and so on. It also marks out Murali from bowlers like Hadlee (not to say that Hadlee was better or worse) and others of a similar ilk (McKenzie, Bedser, Dev, Imran) because he performed the same role with, arguably, the less effective and more difficult art. In more than 130 years of test cricket I cant think of a single other spinner who has had the responsibility of carrying most of their side's bowling burden on their shoulders alone, and doing it for so long, and so well. I find that remarkable.

Its also good to see Murali ahead in this poll, and by a reasonable margin too.

 

[bagapath]

that settles it guys. murali has emerged the clear winner. we dont have to change the post packer team's bowling line-up.

this poll has been decisive on two counts.

murali is regarded as the better bowler of the two and the majority is not averse to choosing a 3+2 bowling attack.