Muttiah Muralitharan vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Furball]

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.

How many Sri Lankans not named Vaas or Murali have actually taken 100 Test wickets?

 

[Burgey]

Murali was a marginally better bowler, but Tendulkar was a lot better batsman.

 

[benchmark00]

I think we both know one of them will be remembered for their elbow. Tendulkar's got very high when driving, a pleasure to watch.

 

[Hurricane]

Sachin seems friendlier so I will go with that reason which seems as good as any other in this comparison.

 

[centurymaker]

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?

I wonder what would've happened to their avgs haha...

 

[Paul S]

It's a difficult comparison to make and say someone is better. Both outstanding cricketers. Tendulkar carried Indian batting for a few years in the 90s. Sri Lanka would be virtually non-existent in Test cricket without Muralidaran.

 

[Burgey]

Let's be honest, they still are virtually non-existent as a test country. Had some good players like Murali, Aravinda, Jaya and Sanga, but for the most part they've always been a joke, especially away from home.

I mean, hand on heart, when has any supporter from a decent test playing nation ever felt remotely threatened by the prospect of their side hosting Sri Lanka for a test series?

 

[Burgey]

Oh, and Vaas too.

 

[Burgey]

I mean, the last Australian summer was ruined by having Sri Lanka here after South Africa.

Entree served as main course is always disappointing.

 

[Adders]

Yeah, but I don't think it helped that it is was the 3rd time in 4 years (I think) that Sri Lanka had toured Aus.

I guess as harsh as it is there is some merit in your comment Burgey. But the top 3 or 4 can't keep playing each other over and over, the lower tier (and I'm not really sure SL deserve to be in that category, but anyway) need to be encouraged and supported.

I guess the best thing Sri Lanka have going for them now (post Murali) is that they are still competitive at home, and it is one of the best cricketing tours for any supporter to go on so they get decent crowds.

 

[Paul S]

Let's be honest, they still are virtually non-existent as a test country. Had some good players like Murali, Aravinda, Jaya and Sanga, but for the most part they've always been a joke, especially away from home.

I mean, hand on heart, when has any supporter from a decent test playing nation ever felt remotely threatened by the prospect of their side hosting Sri Lanka for a test series?

I meant they would be like Bangladesh if not for Muralidaran. Sure they haven't been a good team away apart from a few series, but they have won Test series against every Test playing nation. Managing to do that inside about 10 years (mid 90s to mid 2000s) was a good achievement for a country that first played Test cricket in the 80s.

No doubt that they are very poor now. Herath is the only Test quality bowler they have.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah fair dos to both of ye.

 

[Paul S]

Having said that, they did win a Test match in South Africa. I think they were the last team to win a Test against SA. Can't recall SA losing a match since that Boxing Day Test.

 

[Burgey]

I know what you're saying, but if we're still saying "yay, a test match country won *a* test against someone", then I kind of think it shows that country is a bit of a joke. You should be pissed off if you aren't winning series after 30 odd years as a test nation, surely.

It's like they're the Gold Coast Suns of cricket, without Gary Ablett.

 

[Paul S]

I know what you're saying, but if we're still saying "yay, a test match country won *a* test against someone", then I kind of think it shows that country is a bit of a joke. You should be pissed off if you aren't winning series after 30 odd years as a test nation, surely.

It's like they're the Gold Coast Suns of cricket, without Gary Ablett.

Wasn't replying to you or arguing that they were very good.

Was just adding that comment to this part

I meant they would be like Bangladesh if not for Muralidaran. Sure they haven't been a good team away apart from a few series, but they have won Test series against every Test playing nation. Managing to do that inside about 10 years (mid 90s to mid 2000s) was a good achievement for a country that first played Test cricket in the 80s.

No doubt that they are very poor now. Herath is the only Test quality bowler they have.

Should have edited the original post instead of posting as a separate comment.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, but I don't think it helped that it is was the 3rd time in 4 years (I think) that Sri Lanka had toured Aus.

Should have been used to the conditions then

 

[Burgey]

Should have been used to the conditions then

A rare gem from Jono, this.

 

[nightprowler10]

I'll always take Murali over Sachin due to some my bias towards Murali and against Sachin, but they really would be 2a and 2b for me. I'm firmly in the "Imran iz teh bestest" corner.

 

[hendrix]

Let's be honest, they still are virtually non-existent as a test country. Had some good players like Murali, Aravinda, Jaya and Sanga, but for the most part they've always been a joke, especially away from home.

I mean, hand on heart, when has any supporter from a decent test playing nation ever felt remotely threatened by the prospect of their side hosting Sri Lanka for a test series?

Could say the same thing about NZ, and England for most of the 90s and early 2000s.

But yeah, the worrying thing for Sri Lanka is that it's difficult to see how they're going to improve with the structure of their domestic game. Sorta like Bangladesh.

I mean, Angelo Mathews was considered their most exciting talent and is now their captain. There's a massive gap in class between the likes of Sangakkarra and Murali compared to Matthews and Karunaratne.

 

[Flem274*]

New Zealand are virtually non-existent as a test country in the eyes of the big nations, and deservedly so.

England got by due to being a big political player and a traditionally strong nation.