Special Poll 1: McGrath or Murali?

[bagapath]

Choose either McGrath or Murali as the last bowling option for Post Packer XI

Their stats minus minnows are...

M Muralitharan (SL) 1992-2009 101 170 34263 14267 589 9/65 16/220 24.22 2.49 58.1 49 16
GD McGrath (Aus) 1993-2007 120 235 28485 11930 549 8/24 10/27 21.73 2.51 51.8 29 3

FYI

The bowling attack of the selected Post Packer XI is

Imran Khan
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Shane warne

 

[chaminda_00]

LOL you took out Murali stats against the pre 2003 Zimbabwe side, a Test standard team. Says it all for mine.

 

[Evermind]

Unfortunately, because the team already has Warne, I don't see the point of having Murali in it, although I'd rate Murali > McGrath in terms of overall bowling capability.

 

[Ikki]

LOL you took out Murali stats against the pre 2003 Zimbabwe side, a Test standard team. Says it all for mine.

It's arguable that they were Test standard, depending on the definition given to that, but what's not arguable is that they were by far the minnows of the time. Murali has many more matches against them than someone like McGrath. Don't you think it's unequal?

Personally, I think we have enough bowlers and would rather a batsman to either of these gentlemen, but if we must choose then McGrath it is.

 

[bagapath]

LOL you took out Murali stats against the pre 2003 Zimbabwe side, a Test standard team. Says it all for mine.

those stats were removed for all players in all the polls. it is not something new for this poll alone.

I've voted for murali. imran, hadlee and marshall can handle the new ball splendidly. warne and murali will set shop on the last two days. good luck to the opponents.

 

[chaminda_00]

It's arguable that they were Test standard, depending on the definition given to that, but what's not arguable is that they were by far the minnows of the time. Murali has many more matches against them than someone like McGrath. Don't you think it's unequal?

Personally, I think we have enough bowlers and would rather a batsman to either of these gentlemen, but if we must choose then McGrath it is.

If you look at purely from a team's ability to play spin. That Zimbabean side were better players of spin then the English side of that era. Therefore you might as well take away the stats from matches against England. Bowling wise they were still slightly minnow. But batting wise there were on par, if not better then other sides. So it is unequal.

Anyway personally I think whole thing is joke, he won fair and square at the start and really you should be picking two spinners anyway. You pick two quicks at the start of the draft, why not two spinners.

Not going to vote, as the whole thing is joke really. He already won.

 

[Son Of Coco]

McGrath, mainly because Warne's already in there and I loved watching McGrath bowl. I didn't see Murali bowling enough (only saw him in Australia) to enjoy it as much as these two.

 

[The Sean]

I voted Murali - I consider McGrath to be the (very slightly) better bowler, but Murali won the poll for this and in fairness deserves to go into the team.

 

[Ikki]

If you look at purely from a team's ability to play spin. That Zimbabean side were better players of spin then the English side of that era. Therefore you might as well take away the stats from matches against England. Bowling wise they were still slightly minnow. But batting wise there were on par, if not better then other sides. So it is unequal.

Anyway personally I think whole thing is joke, he won fair and square at the start and really you should be picking two spinners anyway. You pick two quicks at the start of the draft, why not two spinners.

Not going to vote, as the whole thing is joke really. He already won.

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).



Well, if he won because everyone wanted him he'll do so again. The problem with the first poll was that it split people between a few seamers and one spinner. The quality of both is high enough that the preference of having a spinner or seamer is probably greater than the preference of having a specific player.

 

[chaminda_00]

Do that pre 2003 and looks at the stats. There was nothing wrong with the first poll. If people wanted McGarth, they would have picked him then or at the start in the openers poll.

It just a joke to go through it all again. There is always going to be preference for your average fan for 4th seamer, even if it 4th right arm seamer, over any spinner. Reckon Waqar Younis would win over Warne or Murali if there was already one spinner in the squad.

Basically this poll is <insert 4th seamer> v <2nd spinner>

The last poll was far better as it allowed the best bowler to win. This poll will never do that. You might as well just have a poll at the start. Did you want 4-1 attack ot 3-2?

 

[bagapath]

chaminda, i think you should vote for murali and not hurt his chances by abstaining

 

[archie mac]

I just can't

One bored me to tears, and the other.......

 

[chaminda_00]

chaminda, i think you should vote for murali and not hurt his chances by abstaining

I have principles I don't vote in pointless polls.

 

[adharcric]

Don't understand this poll - Murali already won it fair and square.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Don't understand this poll - Murali already won it fair and square.

This

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Basically this poll is <insert 4th seamer> v <2nd spinner>

Not true. If it wasn't a spinner specifically of Murali's calibre it highly unlikely that many would choose the two spinners just because they're spinners.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Murali.

*crowd gasps*

 

[stephen]

I voted Murali. I think the side is far more balanced with him in.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I just can't

One bored me to tears, and the other.......

I take it you're not a bowler if McGrath bored you...

 

[subshakerz]

Unfortunately, because the team already has Warne, I don't see the point of having Murali in it, although I'd rate Murali > McGrath in terms of overall bowling capability.

I have the exact opposite view. I consider McGrath a better bowler than both Warne and Murali, but given than the team already has a similar bowler in Hadlee and two other world class pacers, I feel Murali would add more variety to the attack.