Who is Sri Lanka's best ever cricketer?

[Red]

McGrath is better than Murali because McGrath averaged 31 or under against all opponents in all conditions over his whole careers. Murali didn't.

 

[viriya]

Just to be clear, that period is Bradmanesque not just because his average is so low, but have took 7 wkts/match as well. No one comes close to doing both for a 50 test period.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You must have missed the part where I answer the question on why I consider Murali the GOAT.

He had a period of time equivalent to a Bradman career where he completely dominated by any measure (7 wkts/mat @ 19)

You're free to have different criteria to pick the best - I just gave mine.

But he doesn't dominate as I showed you. McGrath in the stretch I showed was just as good, considering he's a quick bowler with a naturally lower WPM. I can pick out equally impressive stats for Hadlee, AMbrose, Imran, Steyn etc too. But i'm not going to because it'll be tiresome.

 

[Pratters]

You must have missed the part where I answer the question on why I consider Murali the GOAT.

He had a period of time equivalent to a Bradman career where he completely dominated by any measure (7 wkts/mat @ 19)

You're free to have different criteria to pick the best - I just gave mine.

Younis Khan and a few other players have had bradmanesque averages for 6 years and they played 52 tests. What does that mean in context of reality?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Of course McGrath consistently had a lower average.. The point is that a fast bowler is supposed to. But he didn't have a 6 year period where he averaged 19 - ignoring the 7 wickets/test part.

Just to be clear, that period is Bradmanesque not just because his average is so low, but have took 7 wkts/match as well. No one comes close to doing both for a 50 test period.

Nice. Only took a couple of posts for you to backtrack.

 

[viriya]

McGrath is better than Murali because McGrath averaged 31 or under against all opponents in all conditions over his whole careers. Murali didn't.

I guess that's your criteria.. All I would say to that is average isn't the whole story since he only took 4 wickets a match, and he never had to bowl to the best batting line-up of all-time so his figures are slightly inflated.

 

[viriya]

Nice. Only took a couple of posts for you to backtrack.

I didn't backtrack.. I said he didn't even do the 19 part. 19.4 is not 19.

 

[Red]

You must have missed the part where I answer the question on why I consider Murali the GOAT.

He had a period of time equivalent to a Bradman career where he completely dominated by any measure (7 wkts/mat @ 19)

You're free to have different criteria to pick the best - I just gave mine.

Who were the tests against when he managed to do this? I'm guessing this period doesn't include his disastrous 5 tests in Australia (averaging over 70 at less than 3 wickets per test), or his ordinary 11 tests in India.

It does, however, probably include at least some of 7 tests at home (or 11 overall) against Bangladesh, or his 7 tests at home (or 14 overall) vs Zimbabwe. Doesn't it?

So, Murali played 25 tests against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe. Guess how many McGrath played against them?

And how many of Bradman's 52 tests were against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe?

 

[Red]

I guess that's your criteria.. All I would say to that is average isn't the whole story since he only took 4 wickets a match, and he never had to bowl to the best batting line-up of all-time so his figures are slightly inflated.

He also didn't get to bowl against Zim/Bang for 25 of his tests either

 

[viriya]

But he doesn't dominate as I showed you. McGrath in the stretch I showed was just as good, considering he's a quick bowler with a naturally lower WPM. I can pick out equally impressive stats for Hadlee, AMbrose, Imran, Steyn etc too. But i'm not going to because it'll be tiresome.

How does he not dominate? None of those fast bowlers even managed 6 wkts/mat @ 19 for 50 tests.

 

[OverratedSanity]

How does he not dominate? None of those fast bowlers even managed 6 wkts/mat @ 19 for 50 tests.

But he's a quick bowler in a strong attack. How's he supposed to take 7 wpm. It's literally impossible.

 

[Pratters]

 

[viriya]

Who were the tests against when he managed to do this? I'm guessing this period doesn't include his disastrous 5 tests in Australia (averaging over 70 at less than 3 wickets per test), or his ordinary 11 tests in India.

It does, however, probably include at least some of 7 tests at home (or 11 overall) against Bangladesh, or his 7 tests at home (or 14 overall) vs Zimbabwe. Doesn't it?

So, Murali played 25 tests against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe. Guess how many McGrath played against them?

And how many of Bradman's 52 tests were against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe?

He also didn't get to bowl against Zim/Bang for 25 of his tests either

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

4 tests vs Aus
6 tests vs Ind
6 tests vs Ban
5 tests vs Zim

<25 average vs every single opponent.

Bradman played 5 tests vs India and 5 tests vs SA - the minnows of his time (he averaged 190+ vs them).

 

[OverratedSanity]

I guess that's your criteria.. All I would say to that is average isn't the whole story since he only took 4 wickets a match, and he never had to bowl to the best batting line-up of all-time so his figures are slightly inflated.

Right, and at the same time Murali's stats in that period you picked out where 94 of his 447 wickets came against the two worst sides in cricket aren't inflated? This is some fine delusional posting right here.

Atleast be consistent in your trolling.

 

[viriya]

But he's a quick bowler in a strong attack. How's he supposed to take 7 wpm. It's literally impossible.

So he should average lower than 19 then (for 52 tests). And I said 6 not 7. I'm pretty sure he didn't even manage 5.5.

 

[viriya]

Right, and at the same time Murali's stats in that period you picked out where 94 of his 447 wickets came against the two worst sides in cricket aren't inflated? This is some fine delusional posting right here.

Atleast be consistent in your trolling.

Murali played 11 tests of his 61 vs Ban + Zim.
Bradman played 10 tests of his 52 vs Ind + SA.

Both of them cashed in. The point is they dominated the rest as well.

 

[OverratedSanity]

So he should average lower than 19 then (for 52 tests). And I said 6 not 7. I'm pretty sure he didn't even manage 5.5.

He would average lower than 19 if he played B/Zim a bit more. I don't know why this even needs to be pointed out.

 

[viriya]

Keep in mind that I am arguing that no one other than Murali had a Bradman-esque period in bowling. That is the criteria I started with because I was asked what my GOAT criteria was.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Murali played 11 tests of his 61 vs Ban + Zim.
Bradman played 10 tests of his 52 vs Ind + SA.

Both of them cashed in. The point is they dominated the rest as well.

Don't ****ing bring in Bradman into this. You're being ridiculous. We're comparing Murali and McGrath and you're blindly comparing their averages and wpm without taking into account that Murali played the minnows and McGrath didn't. This affects your average. This. is. a. fact. It doesn't mean Murali is somehow a worse bowler than McGrath because he bashed B/Z, but you're rather conveniently ignoring that entirely in a direct comparison.

In conclusion, your analysis sucks. As usual.

 

[Red]

Murali played 11 tests of his 61 vs Ban + Zim.
Bradman played 10 tests of his 52 vs Ind + SA.

Both of them cashed in. The point is they dominated the rest as well.

Nah, the comparison between Bradman and Murali is flawed, still. Just because they both cashed in on minnows means nothing. Murali is not the bowling equivalent of Bradman, no matter how you try to portray him.