Muttiah Muralitharan vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Furball]

In fact, I'd be very surprised if the exploits of the just retired generation are bettered. I reckon 1990-2010 was the optimal time for setting cricketing records.

 

[kyear2]

No-one will beat Murali's record IMO.

Agreed, Test cricket seems to be declining in importance and sadly, popularity vs T20 and the likelihood that anyone (and it would also have to be a spinner with little competition for wickets and helpful home wickets) will get to play as much test matches as Muralitharan is remote if not non existent. That record is as safe as 99.94.

 

[akilana]

And above all must be once in a life time talent like Murali.

 

[smash84]

Agreed, Test cricket seems to be declining in importance and sadly, popularity vs T20 and the likelihood that anyone (and it would also have to be a spinner with little competition for wickets and helpful home wickets) will get to play as much test matches as Muralitharan is remote if not non existent. That record is as safe as 99.94.

Can you belittle Murali's achievements a little more please

 

[OverratedSanity]

Eh, it's a legitimate point. Obviously Murali's record is amazing but it's amazing primarily because :
1) He's one of the greatest bowlers ever, and arguably the greatest spinners ever
2)As he said, it's getting obvious now that tests won't be as frequent as they once we're.
3) Murali did have plenty of factors in his favor in terms of pure quantity of wickets. Being the only world class ATG bowler in a weak attack is a huge benefit (look at Hadlee) and imo I don't see how anyone can argue against it.


And am I the only one who doesn't find Murali and Tendulkar's records THAT remarkable in terms of pure number of runs/wickets. Tendulkar got so many runs because he debuted incredibly early and played at a world class level for longer than anyone in test cricket, not necessarily that he was better than everyone else. Murali while he was a wicket taking machine if seen in proper context his stats are incredibly brilliant instead of "omg best bowler ever he's unbeatable", because of the aforementioned factors in his favour. You may take this post as belittling their achievements, but that wasn't the intention. If their records don't get beaten I don't think it shows they were better than ever one else. If Lara/Ponting had been spotted and drafted into the national team at 16 they probably would have 16000 runs. Similarly if Warne had played for Sri Lanka instead of Murali I'm sure he would've got 800 wickets

 

[kyear2]

Can you belittle Murali's achievements a little more please

How am I belittling his achievements. It takes more than just talent (even as great as Murali's) to average 6 WPM, Murali benefited in that regard by not having much competition for wickets and having favorable pitch conditions at home. It's a fact not a slight.

Being a spinner also helps as it allowed him and Warne to bowl longer spells and also benefit from longer careers.

 

[akilana]

Eh, it's a legitimate point. Obviously Murali's record is amazing but it's amazing primarily because :
1) He's one of the greatest bowlers ever, and arguably the greatest spinners ever
2)As he said, it's getting obvious now that tests won't be as frequent as they once we're.
3) Murali did have plenty of factors in his favor in terms of pure quantity of wickets. Being the only world class ATG bowler in a weak attack is a huge benefit (look at Hadlee) and imo I don't see how anyone can argue against it.


And am I the only one who doesn't find Murali and Tendulkar's records THAT remarkable in terms of pure number of runs/wickets. Tendulkar got so many runs because he debuted incredibly early and played at a world class level for longer than anyone in test cricket, not necessarily that he was better than everyone else. Murali while he was a wicket taking machine if seen in proper context his stats are incredibly brilliant instead of "omg best bowler ever he's unbeatable", because of the aforementioned factors in his favour. You may take this post as belittling their achievements, but that wasn't the intention. If their records don't get beaten I don't think it shows they were better than ever one else. If Lara/Ponting had been spotted and drafted into the national team at 16 they probably would have 16000 runs. Similarly if Warne had played for Sri Lanka instead of Murali I'm sure he would've got 800 wickets

On other hand, they would have been exposed and battered at the age of 16 and might not have developped properly in to world class players.

 

[akilana]

How am I belittling his achievements. It takes more than just talent (even as great as Murali's) to average 6 WPM, Murali benefited in that regard by not having much competition for wickets and having favorable pitch conditions at home. It's a fact not a slight.

Being a spinner also helps as it allowed him and Warne to bowl longer spells and also benefit from longer careers.

Actually Murali has fantastic record in England, SA, Pakistan,WI and NZ. They weren't prepared to suit Murali.

 

[OverratedSanity]

On other hand, they would have been exposed and battered at the age of 16 and might not have developped properly in to world class players.

Of course that's possible. But they didn't have the chance, did they? Tendulkar definitely deserves credit for performing at that age but that's the primary reason he has the record. Think about it... Cook is being tipped to break his record because he's consistent, he's debuted quite early and England play more tests than anyone else. Those are the kind of factors that come into play here in such records rather than simply how good the player is

 

[Furball]

Actually Murali has fantastic record in England, SA, Pakistan,WI and NZ. They weren't prepared to suit Murali.

The Oval 1998 pitch might as well have been.

 

[akilana]

Exactly. They didn't have the chance. So please stop saying Ponting/Lara would have amassed 16000 runs. We would never know. It's not like I get excited after seeing so many runs besides Sachin's name but having most numbers is an incredible achievent. Sachin is one of those players that I least like. If Cook can surpass Sachin in terms of numbers, it's not because he played for so long but because he played so well for so long.
Lara's 400 wasn't the best innings played by him or anyone else but it's still an incredible record. You don't put it down because if anyone can stay in the middle for so long, they are going to have scored so many runs.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Exactly. They didn't have the chance. So please stop saying Ponting/Lara would have amassed 16000 runs. We would never know.

I think they would have. You don't. Let's just agree to disagree.
And I never said it's not an incredible achievement. But Tendulkar's and Murali's records are not something that shows them to be better than their peers, unlike 99.94. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[akilana]

I think they would have. You don't. Let's just agree to disagree.
And I never said it's not an incredible achievement. But Tendulkar's and Murali's records are not something that shows them to be better than their peers, unlike 99.94. Why is this so hard to understand?

Lol I think you are over-reacting. Nobody was here arguing whether if Murali and Sachin were the best in their category

 

[kyear2]

Eh, it's a legitimate point. Obviously Murali's record is amazing but it's amazing primarily because :
1) He's one of the greatest bowlers ever, and arguably the greatest spinners ever
2)As he said, it's getting obvious now that tests won't be as frequent as they once we're.
3) Murali did have plenty of factors in his favor in terms of pure quantity of wickets. Being the only world class ATG bowler in a weak attack is a huge benefit (look at Hadlee) and imo I don't see how anyone can argue against it.


And am I the only one who doesn't find Murali and Tendulkar's records THAT remarkable in terms of pure number of runs/wickets. Tendulkar got so many runs because he debuted incredibly early and played at a world class level for longer than anyone in test cricket, not necessarily that he was better than everyone else. Murali while he was a wicket taking machine if seen in proper context his stats are incredibly brilliant instead of "omg best bowler ever he's unbeatable", because of the aforementioned factors in his favour. You may take this post as belittling their achievements, but that wasn't the intention. If their records don't get beaten I don't think it shows they were better than ever one else. If Lara/Ponting had been spotted and drafted into the national team at 16 they probably would have 16000 runs. Similarly if Warne had played for Sri Lanka instead of Murali I'm sure he would've got 800 wickets

Fully agree with everything in your first paragraph, the second one is more interesting.

The reason that Sachin and McGrath gets into my first team over Lara and Lillee/ Ambrose/ Hadlee respectively is because of the length of their careers and their consistency over their entire careers. The sheer volume of their numbers just can't be totally over looked and the fact that they succeed every where is an added bonus.

But for me personally Lara was the better batsman, especially at his best and the fact that he was left handed and an ATG (and under rated) slip fielder means that he brings more to the table for an ATG team. Similarly with McGrath, Ambrose was at his best more explosive and potentially destructive and always more economical (though I still give McGrath the edge), Lillee was more aggressive and was the more complete and versatile bowler and seen by most of their country men to be the better of the two. Hadlee for me was almost as good a bowler as Lillee and McGrath but also brought the advantage of his superior batting to the equation.

But in the end, the fact that Sachin played for 200 Test matches and scored 50 Test Hundreds and he was more consistent that Lara over the course of their careers (in addition to it being a World XI) means that Sachin takes the spot. McGrath played and succeeded every where and for so long and extended his dominance into the 2000's and had a knack for taking out the opposing teams best batsman. The fact that he played and dominated playing with Warne for most of those years who is also on the team, taking into account that the rest of the bowlers are decent batsmen and he will be batting at no. 11 and most importantly 563 Test wickets for a fast bowler at just over 21 is unprecedented.

So in the final analysis yes longevity is a huge factor, and even though Sachin was selected as a teenager, they have been lots of young prodigies who didn't make it far less played for so well for so long.

Apologies for the (in some places unrelated0 ramble.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Lol I think you are over-reacting. Nobody was here arguing whether if Murali and Sachin were the best in their category

No one was. Just pointing out why I don't find their records quite as remarkable as others do.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The reason that Sachin and McGrath gets into my first team over Lara and Lillee/ Ambrose/ Hadlee respectively is because of the length of their careers and their consistency over their entire careers. The sheer volume of their numbers just can't be totally over looked and the fact that they succeed every where is an added bonus.

But for me personally Lara was the better batsman

Exactly what I was saying... That such records show longevity, not necessarily quality.
On the other hand, longevity definitely adds to a player's greatness imo... Which is why for you Tendulkar makes your XI and Lara doesn't even though you think he's better

 

[Himannv]

I'm not a particularly big fan of either of these two but I think they both have their pros and cons and are undoubtedly the best players their respective countries produced. I'd probably have them neck and neck or perhaps Tendulkar slightly ahead due to the longevity factor. However, from a personal perspective I'd vote for Murali, purely because I shudder to think how the last two decades would have turned out without him in the team. I'm of the opinion that we are unlikely to have remained a test playing nation if he wasn't around to bring some measure of success for us and we'd have succumbed to lack of interest and corrupt boards long ago. There isn't much doubt in my mind that the role he played was so significant that it bordered on defining us, not only as a cricket team, but as a cricket playing nation as a whole.

 

[hendrix]

Out of curiosity, why does that affect who is greater though? You can use that to say Andy Flower > Tendulkar and Lara.

it doesn't. It was just one of the criteria that someone above my post listed.

Murali's record certainly stands out more amongs Sri Lankans than Tendulkar's does amongst Indians.

I think Gavaskar is quite underrated in terms of his achievements, btw. Before Tendulkar, it was Gavaskar who amassed all those records. And yes, I will say that Sachin did have Dravid and a better Indian team in general.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I'm not a particularly big fan of either of these two but I think they both have their pros and cons and are undoubtedly the best players their respective countries produced. I'd probably have them neck and neck or perhaps Tendulkar slightly ahead due to the longevity factor. However, from a personal perspective I'd vote for Murali, purely because I shudder to think how the last two decades would have turned out without him in the team. I'm of the opinion that we are unlikely to have remained a test playing nation if he wasn't around to bring some measure of success for us and we'd have succumbed to lack of interest and corrupt boards long ago. There isn't much doubt in my mind that the role he played was so significant that it bordered on defining us, not only as a cricket team, but as a cricket playing nation as a whole.

That's exactly as I think too for SL. I don't rate Muttiah as the greatest, but what he did for SL over the years, and the way in which he conducted himself. I mean I'd rather watch Sanga bat than Murali bowl, but he's not in the same class for what he's done for Sri Lankan cricket

 

[robelinda]

Its interesting how the longevity argument really only came after about 2008/09, before that and throughout the 90's etc Sachin wasnt always the best in the world, there were genuine contenders who were doing the business better than Sachin at many times in tests, but then they all retired. Sachin wasnt often officially ranked #1 in the world for long in his career, nor did he ever top 900 points on the batting rankings, and before you slay me i'm aware the rankings are not mega accurate, but they are somewhat accurate. I'm just putting it out there, not saying I agree or disagree.