Nasser played 3, the one he didn't play, Thorpe was there. Atherton made a 50 in the first inning of the series, clearly could do something. Weak team, but 4 times the good batsmen to Murali's game.
And in 2006 Murali took 24 wickets @ 16.87 against a much better batting line up than McGrath faced in 2001.
Warne got 40 in 5 games against the same lineup a year earlier, McGrath in 2005 before injury got 9 in one against the same lineup.
There you go picking and choosing games again.
I probably can, considering Murali have 5 games against front line English lineups while McGrath and Warne have like 20, sample size and volume of work matters, there's a reason Chris Broad isn't the greatest touring batsman to Australia in the last 50 years.
Far from a certainty. Hell, Warne took 10/162 and 8/133 in those matches. Australia’s batting was so underwhelming that series.
Australia lost effectively by England running away at 4RPO in the first innings for over 400 in the 2nd 3rd and 4th test. With fit McGrath in top form, very unlikely they do that.
In one breath you talk sample size and in the next breath you talk about Murali having a bad series, when he missed 1/3 of the series..
Warne was comfortably the best player in the 2005 Ashes, and the fact he produced that sort of series with bat and ball at the fag end of his career is pretty astonishing tbh.
Duh, If a series is great with 5 innings, a series can also be poor with 3 innings, obviously has a sample size issue.
A tad overrated. Still an ATG series. Because he wasn't at his most effective when Australia needed it most in setting the game up for them.
Murali is the most over rated cricketer on this website by so far it isn't even funny. FMD I used to hope he would bowl at both ends when he played Australia. He lost a leg when they merely announced a series against us, let alone play one. Mentally not up to it. Second rate.
What about Alderman?
If you think Shane Warne's 2005 Ashes series is over rated then you have your head up your own arse.
Yeah fine bowler in England for sure, but missed 85 through being a traitor to his people and humanity, so that and the consequential small sample size counts against him. What he did in 89 was ****ing hilarious though.
You're right it's not overrated since he bowled them to victory that series. Oh wait, he didn't. But I guess bowlers actually winning games doesn't matter as much in rating things.