Muttiah Muralitharan vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Burgey]

England had a dud 90s but have at least over a 30 year stretch threatened to do something. NZ was close to, if not number two for a time in the 80s. Honestly, SL has achieved three fifths of five eighths at test level. Everyone laments how the zimbobs haven't kicked on, but fmd SL are a joke by comparison. They've had longer in the game and they've had far more exposure to top opposition in order to develop their game. It's a joke.

 

[subshakerz]

Voted Tendulkar because I find the fact that he, at some point did well against virtually every great bowler he faced during his career. Name any great 90s era bowler, odds on he scored atleast one good hundred against them. He's the most versatile player I've seen.He was capable of tearing into the attack and go on a burst of quick scoring. 155 against Warne and the hundred against SA at Bloemfentein also incidentally 155, (in which he scored 8 fours in 15 balls IIRC at one point). He could also buckle down like Gavaskar and Dravid in tough situations and see out the best bowlers. Pacy, seaming, swinging, spinning conditions, he's done well across all possible conditions. That's the reason I'd pit him slightly above Murali, the fact that he was never consistently found out by any opponent he faced ( bar Anderson ). Murali did have his problems against Australia, Lara, Sehwag, Sidhu, Azharuddin and indeed, Tendulkar himself. Then of course there's the longevity. He spans era like ko other cricketer and apart from a few bad years at the end, which happens to everyone, he played at a world class level in a manner that was exciting, beautiful and virtually flawless in terms of aesthetics for 20+ years

Personally think he's the best Indian cricketer and batsman ahead of Gavaskar and Dravid by a considerable distance. That would probably be a better topic to discuss right now... Greatest indian batsman/cricketer

Yes, i agree with this. To me the difference is that Tendulkar has pretty much a flawless record, averaging 40 plus everywhere and against everyone, and has maintained this standard for a very long period, and distinguished himself against the best attack of his time. Murali struggled in India and Australia, which were his biggest challenges, and has he done better I would have place him over Tendulkar.

 

[Migara]

England had a dud 90s but have at least over a 30 year stretch threatened to do something. NZ was close to, if not number two for a time in the 80s. Honestly, SL has achieved three fifths of five eighths at test level. Everyone laments how the zimbobs haven't kicked on, but fmd SL are a joke by comparison. They've had longer in the game and they've had far more exposure to top opposition in order to develop their game. It's a joke.

Even with a century of cricket exposure, England in 90s was miles behind what Sri Lanka is today. Same could be said about NZ and WI post 2000 as well. But no one had been a bigger joke for a established test nation as England in subcontinet in 90s,

 

[Daemon]

Even with a century of cricket exposure, England in 90s was miles behind what Sri Lanka is today. Same could be said about NZ and WI post 2000 as well. But no one had been a bigger joke for a established test nation as England in subcontinet in 90s,

Burgey's definitely going to take offence to this belittling of English cricket.

 

[Burgey]

Even with a century of cricket exposure, England in 90s was miles behind what Sri Lanka is today. Same could be said about NZ and WI post 2000 as well. But no one had been a bigger joke for a established test nation as England in subcontinet in 90s,

Look, when SL tour here for a test series it's an automatic 30% write down in receipts and viewing audiences. It's not because they aren't nice blokes, it's because they're consistently uncompetitive and for the most part dead boring. 30 years they've been at the caper. 30 years! They haven't won a test here. Not a series, a test.

While the mighty Lions have won tests in other countries, they don't do it that often. This is why I said in an earlier post that no serious cricket fan from an established country would see an ad for an upcoming home series against SL and sweat a single bullet.

Everyone has their ups and downs, but 30 years is a hell of a long down time.

 

[benchmark00]

Poor little Sri Lankans.

 

[JontyPanesar]

While I don't think Sachin is the best batsman ever, I think there's a fairly solid case to be made (did well everywhere, did well versus the best bowlers).

I don't think the case is quite as airtight for Murali as best bowler. He didn't do well in India or Australia (not saying that doing well in those countries is some cakewalk). Lara made mincemeat of him. Even KP worked him pretty good though that's a smaller sample size. Even if you think Murali is 1 and Warne is 1a among spinners, of his era McGrath is on another plane altogether. McGrath was dominant in all conditions and against the top batsmen too. I think the same could be said for bowlers in past eras who dominated the best batsmen in all conditions.

 

[ankitj]

While I don't think Sachin is the best batsman ever, I think there's a fairly solid case to be made (did well everywhere, did well versus the best bowlers).

I don't think the case is quite as airtight for Murali as best bowler.

Most people will tell you the exact opposite actually.

 

[Jono]

Most people will tell you the exact opposite actually.

Hah, rightly or wrongly this is true.

 

[JontyPanesar]

Most people will tell you the exact opposite actually.

Most people here? maybe.... because forums are a fun place to be contrarian. But in the greater population of cricket fans, child please.

Murali as the greatest bowler ever is only if you get a hard-on looking at cricket stats and not bothering to fully place them into context. He's an awesome bowler who gets way too much crap about his action, but after everyone stops masturbating to his bowling average, there are some pretty clear-cut ways in which he was not as good of a bowler as McGrath. It's also just harder for a spin bowler to have the same impact as a seamer assuming equal skills.

Taking Sachin down a couple of notches is also the hipster thing, which I understand, cuz his fans are bloody annoying, but they are stupid and do not matter.

 

[ankitj]

Well, mainly because of that flat track bully who averaged 99.94.

 

[benchmark00]

The majority of cricket fans are uneducated on the game. So I, and so should you, take their opinions with a grain of salt.

 

[Maximas]

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

Entree served as main course is always disappointing.

We got 2 really good games of cricket out of 3 IMO, and if SL weren't down to their 4th, 5th and 6th choice seamer and their 3rd choice keeper they may well have won at Sydney,

I think you're being a bit harsh on them tbh. Also worth considering that they are very much a short form specialist country, they have provided some excellent cricket over the last few seasons in Aus in ODI cricket and made the semis of the CT.

 

[uvelocity]

The majority of cricket fans are uneducated on the game. So I, and so should you, take their opinions with a grain of salt.

you're ugly so i take you with a grain of get the **** out if my eyesight ****

 

[Esperance]

One shouldn't compare between different players in the same era.

 

[hendrix]

While I don't think Sachin is the best batsman ever, I think there's a fairly solid case to be made (did well everywhere, did well versus the best bowlers).

I don't think the case is quite as airtight for Murali as best bowler. He didn't do well in India or Australia (not saying that doing well in those countries is some cakewalk). Lara made mincemeat of him. Even KP worked him pretty good though that's a smaller sample size. Even if you think Murali is 1 and Warne is 1a among spinners, of his era McGrath is on another plane altogether. McGrath was dominant in all conditions and against the top batsmen too. I think the same could be said for bowlers in past eras who dominated the best batsmen in all conditions.

I think you have to take a spin bowler as a separate commodity to a pace bowler.

Whereas there are quite a few pace bowlers with comparable records to McGrath, there are very, very few spin bowlers in the history of the game who have dominated to the extent that Warne and Murali have. They are quite clearly the best spin bowlers of all time

Bradman is clearly the best batsman of all time, and there may be arguments that Sachin could be second, but these are by no means unanimous.

 

[JontyPanesar]

I think you have to take a spin bowler as a separate commodity to a pace bowler.

Whereas there are quite a few pace bowlers with comparable records to McGrath, there are very, very few spin bowlers in the history of the game who have dominated to the extent that Warne and Murali have. They are quite clearly the best spin bowlers of all time

Bradman is clearly the best batsman of all time, and there may be arguments that Sachin could be second, but these are by no means unanimous.

Murali is closer to the claim of best in his class when going through spin bowlers than Sachin is to best in his class among batsman; no arguments from me there. But that's apples and oranges for me.

When we're judging who is the 'better cricketer', I view it as a player's ability to enjoy success in the widest variety of conditions and skills against the highest level of players, regardless of whether that's seam bowling, spin bowling, batting v seam, batting v. pace. Sachin had the skills to succeed everywhere and against players of the highest caliber, seam or spin. I don't deny that I view this question in a way that is inherently biased against spinners. Spinners require conditions to be somewhat suitable before they can do major damage. Murali has some gaping holes in his resume, unfortunately for him. I guess I wouldn't fixate too much on getting creamed by Lara, but his performances in India and Australia are the gaping holes I'd always point to. Put it another way, I view Sachin as closer to being a complete batsman than I view Murali as being a complete bowler. I view McGrath and Marshall as more complete bowlers than Murali given their abilities to perform in pace-unfriendly conditions.

[Now is it possible for a bowler to still do some amazing things on a spin-unfriendly pitch? Sure, through dip, drift, and tons of revs, a spinner can always extract something, but we have yet to see it. I'm a huge fan of spin bowling, watching batsmen play spin, and dustbowls, but I have to be honest about a spinner's impact on a cricket match]

 

[hendrix]

pretty decent argument that.

 

[the big bambino]

Murali failed against Australia bcos our batsmen could target him as the only threat in an otherwise pedestrian attack; Vaas notwithstanding. Our bats were good enough then to deny him their wicket and take runs at the other end. This must have had some impact on the way he then had to bowl at us. Point is given even only a modicum of support McGrath or Marshall enjoyed Australia would've had to change tactics against him and Murali would've enjoyed more success.

Note he had his problems against India too. They had similarly strong batting and perhaps adopted the same tactics. Even though I think Murali's figures against India are pretty good anyway they dropped significantly when Mendis went through his brief golden patch. So when Murali got his penny of support his average dropped markedly.

Pace bowlers dominate bowling stats bcos it seems an easier skill to master than spin. The game's rules and conditions generally favour them too. Sedate over rates tend to squeeze out spinners. Dustbowl pitches are pilloried whereas greentops almost considered the ideal. A pace bowler with adequate support, generally bowling in conditions that are favourable or atleast not downright hostile and only obliged to bowl his share of 90 overs are good odds to find the resources to bowl well in flat subcon conditions knowing that wont be their lot too often. Others like Lillee might fail on the few occasions they do or did.

For a spin bowler, bowling against the odds and conditions is the norm. Perhaps if games were played more often on dustbowls with a requirement for 110 overs a day we would see spinners dominate.

 

[JontyPanesar]

U

Murali failed against Australia bcos our batsmen could target him as the only threat in an otherwise pedestrian attack; Vaas notwithstanding. Our bats were good enough then to deny him their wicket and take runs at the other end. This must have had some impact on the way he then had to bowl at us. Point is given even only a modicum of support McGrath or Marshall enjoyed Australia would've had to change tactics against him and Murali would've enjoyed more success.

Note he had his problems against India too. They had similarly strong batting and perhaps adopted the same tactics. Even though I think Murali's figures against India are pretty good anyway they dropped significantly when Mendis went through his brief golden patch. So when Murali got his penny of support his average dropped markedly.

Pace bowlers dominate bowling stats bcos it seems an easier skill to master than spin. The game's rules and conditions generally favour them too. Sedate over rates tend to squeeze out spinners. Dustbowl pitches are pilloried whereas greentops almost considered the ideal. A pace bowler with adequate support, generally bowling in conditions that are favourable or atleast not downright hostile and only obliged to bowl his share of 90 overs are good odds to find the resources to bowl well in flat subcon conditions knowing that wont be their lot too often. Others like Lillee might fail on the few occasions they do or did.

For a spin bowler, bowling against the odds and conditions is the norm. Perhaps if games were played more often on dustbowls with a requirement for 110 overs a day we would see spinners dominate.

You're not doing justice to murali in your attempt to defend him. Were his stats in India and Aus not so great because he had or did not have adequate support from his fellow bowlers? Generally, I'd say murali would have had an even lower average if he bowled with a better attack

Besides, there's an easier explanation. Australia is a spin graveyard with the most unfriendly pitches for a spinner. The Indian batting lineups murali faced in the 90s and 00s featured all time great players of spin. No shame in Murali copping it to such high quality players.