500!

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Note that the 'brilliant' Murali has over 300 wickets at home.

Inflation to the extreme.

Is it his fault that he plays a lot of cricket at home? He doesn't decide the venues and he can only bowl on what he's given. That considered he's done a superb job.

Also, he takes all their wickets, because there is no-one else to take them.

Do you fault Lara for scoring so many runs? Is he not a great player because of that?

 

[Tom Halsey]

1) Is it his fault that he plays a lot of cricket at home? He doesn't decide the venues and he can only bowl on what he's given. That considered he's done a superb job.

2) Do you fault Lara for scoring so many runs? Is he not a great player because of that?

1) No, it isn't his fault, but it means he has a huge advantage.

2)What? Murali bowles alot more overs per match than Warne, because he does not have as good an nattack around him, he gets bowled more. Batting has nothng to do with that, as everyone bats.

 

[a massive zebra]

2)What? Murali bowles alot more overs per match than Warne, because he does not have as good an nattack around him, he gets bowled more.

So he bowls when he is tired, and it is not in his interest to do so. At such time Warne gets rested because they have other good bowls to turn to.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

2)What? Murali bowles alot more overs per match than Warne, because he does not have as good an nattack around him, he gets bowled more.

The point is that Murali has to carry the Sri Lankan bowling (don't even mention Vaas here - too inconsistent) and that's no easy task. It is therefore quite admirable that he's done so well. Number of overs has nothing to do with it, because he has a better SR than Warne which indicates that he's still quite potent and his wickets aren't as a result of the number of overs he bowls.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Not disputing the fact that it has more hindered than helped his average.

But it has helped his wickets per game ratio no end, which is what I was disputing.

They are both brilliant bowlers, but IMO Warne at his peak was better.

 

[Craig]

Well I can say a similar thing about G.Smith, Gibbs, Hayden, Jayawardene that they score runs or most of them tese days on flat wickets.

If you have to bowl so many overs you must be ok.

 

[a massive zebra]

Not disputing the fact that it has more hindered than helped his average.

But it has helped his wickets per game ratio no end, which is what I was disputing.

They are both brilliant bowlers, but IMO Warne at his peak was better.

Agree with the first 2 sentences.

If you look at Warne 1993-97 (his peak) and Murali 2000-Present (his peak), Murali wins yet again.

Warne 1993-97
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24

Murali 2000-Present
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
38 2425 697 5202 269 19.34 9-51 24 11 54.0 2.15

Warne's record at his peak is outstanding, but Murali's is just stunning.

Warne took 11 five wicket hauls and Murali took 11 ten wicket hauls in 19 less matches.

 

[marc71178]

Warne took 11 five wicket hauls and Murali took 11 ten wicket hauls in 19 less matches.

Yes, but put Warne in that side, and he'd do something similar.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Agree, Marc.

Warne took 11 five wicket hauls and Murali took 11 ten wicket hauls in 19 less matches.

This is my exact argument. Murali will get morw 5-fers and 10-fers, bec\use he bowls far more overs.

 

[Shane Warne]

On reflection i was, understandably over excited. of course it doesnt lay the spinner argument to rest, and anyway for the record, Murali is my second favorite cricketer of all time, not actually THAT far behind Warne. :wow:

 

[Craig]

Good to see yourself is your favourite cricketer off all-time.

Well I am my favourite all time cricketer :saint: :P 8D

 

[Tom Halsey]

Mine is myself, or Graham Napier.:P

 

[Craig]

Do you rate James Foster as a good 'keeper?

 

[Tom Halsey]

He is better than your average.

 

[Craig]

You reffering to me?

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, I was stating that he is better than your average 'keeper.

 

[Craig]

Ok, you didnt explain yourself more.

 

[Richard]

i think that argument has been laid to rest...two different types of bowler,who play in different conditions etc....leave it at them both being all time greats

Some people can't. Some people have to try and manufacture a difference between every single player.
That's the problem that's created the need - and belief in - the PwC system.
Some - many indeed - players are equal in ability to all intents and purposes.

 

[Rik]

Note that the 'brilliant' Murali has over 300 wickets at home.

Inflation to the extreme.

Also, he takes all their wickets, because there is no-one else to take them.

Just as Liam said, is it his fault he plays at home? Is it his fault he's the only one who can take wickets? He still has to earn them and he bowls more overs than any other bowler in the world and often plays with injuries, not to mention fighting fatigue most of the time. Doesn't that count for anything?

 

[Rik]

They are both brilliant bowlers, but IMO Warne at his peak was better.

Despite Murali's record in his peak eclipsing Warne's? Warne won a lot of games in that period but was mainly remembered for the distance he turned the ball. Murali, I estimate, has won anything up to 70-80% of the games Sri Lanka have won when he played, due to his bowling, in his peak of course.