-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Adieu Murali
- Thread starter ankitj
- Start date
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not absolutely convinced yet - I'd like to see his contract with Gloucestershire - wouldn't mind betting there is something in there about being released temporarily if Sri Lanka come calling
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Would be interesting to see.
To my eyes a thirty-eight year old, hamstrung and lame Murali is still the best slow bowling option available to them. He's patently a cricket nut and a patriot, so...
I suppose it depends how important his "legacy" (read: average) is to him. He's not the same bowler he was even 18 months ago, but can do a very decent job still.
To my eyes a thirty-eight year old, hamstrung and lame Murali is still the best slow bowling option available to them. He's patently a cricket nut and a patriot, so...
I suppose it depends how important his "legacy" (read: average) is to him. He's not the same bowler he was even 18 months ago, but can do a very decent job still.
Spark
Global Moderator
Unfortunately it's pretty obvious that his body simply isn't capable of holding up any more. He's had a more than decent finish to his career though. 800th test wicket with his last Test delivery, wicket with his last international delivery in SL, part of the first series win by SL in Aus...
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
But its surely only a matter of time before he loses 5 of those wickets - he's still more than good enough to get those back against England this summer
BoyBrumby
Englishman
He's not the specimen he was, no. Has signed up for two years T20 duties at Gloucestershire tho which isn't exactly a sinecure.
He's not the media whore Warne is, so can't see him enticingly flashing his stocking tops to keep the world looking at him like his fellow slow-bowling legend does, but if SL were in dire straits for the third test...
BoyBrumby
Englishman
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The ones he got in that "Supertest" in 2005 - I really can't see it keeping that status
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Why should the England v Rest of the World games in 1970 have subsequently lost their Test status?
Why should those involving Australia and RoW in 1971/72 never have had it in the first place?
Although I stress I wouldn't advocate that those older games should rank as Tests any more than I'd say the Packer "Supertests" should have Test status, though there is a perfectly reasonable argument that they all should.
Personally I just think a Test match should be between two sovereign nations and not involve scratch XI's where there is no national pride cementing the team together, but that's just a personal preference, but that abject performance of the World XI spoke volumes, imo
Why should those involving Australia and RoW in 1971/72 never have had it in the first place?
Although I stress I wouldn't advocate that those older games should rank as Tests any more than I'd say the Packer "Supertests" should have Test status, though there is a perfectly reasonable argument that they all should.
Personally I just think a Test match should be between two sovereign nations and not involve scratch XI's where there is no national pride cementing the team together, but that's just a personal preference, but that abject performance of the World XI spoke volumes, imo
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't really disagree with you Ikki- the World XI, as professional sportsmen, would've been doing their absolute best whatever the opposition, and they were playing an outstanding side, but as well as being a collection of talented individuals Australia were also a team which made the contest, for me, artificial - I'd have had more faith in it if there had perhaps been a series of three matches, or if it had been decreed at the outset that there would be an annual match between the number one ranked side and the best of the rest - in either case that would have gone some way to creating a means of dealing with my concern.
The 1970 matches in England were a fantastic series that the Rest deservedly won - at the time they were sold to everyone (sponsors included) as official Tests and while I believe their subsequently being downgraded was the correct decision I think they have a stronger case than that one-off game
The 1970 matches in England were a fantastic series that the Rest deservedly won - at the time they were sold to everyone (sponsors included) as official Tests and while I believe their subsequently being downgraded was the correct decision I think they have a stronger case than that one-off game
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Everyone knew the Test was getting Test status. Whether the series was 1, 3 or 5 tests matters little to me because it was competitive - teams consisting of comparable strength. I can see your point but think it is valid when the consideration of who was better (the World XI or Aus XI) is being argued - as more matches would be needed to see. But not the players' own contributions. Also, this is cricket we are talking about here. Not a sport like Football. Whilst team dynamics play a part; it is a 1v1 game in essence.
There are Tests against minnows and, frankly, pretty poor teams these days, that are far less deserving to be called Tests than that solitary one and if in my mind a series of them doesn't make them any more competitive. That's why, for me, quality or competitiveness of that match isn't an issue. Only the distinction you bring earlier about whether Test status should be limited to Test playing nations.
There are Tests against minnows and, frankly, pretty poor teams these days, that are far less deserving to be called Tests than that solitary one and if in my mind a series of them doesn't make them any more competitive. That's why, for me, quality or competitiveness of that match isn't an issue. Only the distinction you bring earlier about whether Test status should be limited to Test playing nations.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
McGrath.