Ponting or Murali: Who is the greater test cricketer?

[bagapath]

Here we go. I know it is a stupid stupid question. But looks like a lot of us would love to talk about this.

For me, Murali.

 

[Teja.]

Murali.

 

[pasag]

Murali > Ponting, Sachin & Lara

 

[vcs]

 

[Black_Warrior]

I have always been a complete failure when it comes to comparing bowlers with batsmen or bowling all rounders with batting all rounders.

 

[silentstriker]

If I had to pick players from a lineup, would I pick Murali first or Ponting first? The answer would be Murali since he is a bowler and at worst, the second best spinner in the covered wickets era.

 

[andyc]

Whoops. Meant to vote for Murali but I wasn't thinking and clicked Ponting instead.

But yeah, Murali every time.

 

[Jono]

So ****ing good.

 

[weldone]

Wait, some posts with multi-quotes coming.

Also remember always, (Statistics 1 + Bias) >> Statistics 2. Always.

 

[Cevno]

So Who's the Orange?

Murali or Ponting?

 

[silentstriker]

Murali > Ponting, Sachin & Lara

Yea I think you'd have to go that way pretty easily. In the end, by themselves, Murali will win you more Test matches than any of those three. Plus, most times outside of the subcontinent, you play one spinner only and with Murali you pretty much have to stop worrying about any selection issues in that department for the next 15 years.

 

[vcs]

Yea I think you'd have to go that way pretty easily. In the end, by themselves, Murali will win you more Test matches than any of those three. Plus, most times outside of the subcontinent, you play one spinner only and with Murali you pretty much have to stop worrying about any selection issues in that department for the next 15 years.

IMO, Kumble has also won India more Test matches than any of those three have done for their respective teams. Isn't it just another version of the old cliche "you have to take 20 wickets to win a Test match and only bowlers can do that for you"? The second point is a valid one - but one could say that Murali is not even the best spinner of his own generation outside the subcontinent (without wanting to spark a Warne-Murali war).

 

[honestbharani]

IMO, Kumble has also won India more Test matches than any of those three have done for their respective teams. Isn't it just another version of the old cliche "you have to take 20 wickets to win a Test match and only bowlers can do that for you"?

to answer this junk about "bowlers > batsmen" correctly, and in this specific instance, what we need to do is to take the no. of matches where the scores by Sachin or Lara or Ponting is > than the winning margin...

 

[silentstriker]

It's obvious though. You only have four, maybe five, bowlers to take most of the twenty wickets. You have six or seven batsmen to score most of the runs. So each of the bowlers must contribute a larger share of their team's bowling than each batsman contributes to their team's batting. So a great or a terrible bowler in a team has an amplified effect compared to a great or a terrible batsman.

 

[vcs]

So why hold up bowlers as superior/more valuable cricketers when the very nature of the game allows them to exert a more direct influence on results? I can understand it from a "picking an all-time XI" point of view but that's simply an amusing pastime.

 

[Flem274*]

Pakistan are proof that batsmen and bowlers are of equal value.

 

[weldone]

I believe in none of the following stereotypes

bowlers>batsmen
bowling alrounders>batting alrounders
alrounders>specialists
4th innings>1st innings
non-subcontinent pitches>subcontinent pitches
good players of bouncer>good players of leg spin
fast bowlers>spinners
football>cricket
cinema>literature
mosquitoes>flies
fire>water

etc etc and etc....

Still, Murali>Ponting, for me...

 

[vcs]

Mosquitoes >>>> flies, when it comes to being annoying little pests.

 

[silentstriker]

So why hold up bowlers as superior/more valuable cricketers

Because:

the very nature of the game allows them to exert a more direct influence on results.

 

[vcs]

Because:

The key phrase is direct influence. In a team, you cannot hold A as superior to B when both are contributing in their own way, directly or indirectly, by doing what they are picked for. The only argument in favour of doing that is if A is harder to replace than B, but in the case of Murali vs Ponting/Tendulkar/Lara, I'm not totally convinced that's true, unless you are picking an all-time XI. Even then, you could go with an all-pace attack, or pick Warne instead.