***best Bowlers***

[jot1]

What about Pollock? PWC has him tops for test and ODI, and he scores consistantly higher than McGrath on the other ratings lists.

 

[chaminda_00]

The fact that Murali has played less test then McGarth is irrelvent as Murali bowls more overs. CC your probably right when it comes to average aganist each batsmen, i thought it was the other way around, but i guess it isn't. On the bases of watching Murali bowling to better batsmen compared to McGarth, i still think he is a better bowler, marginally though. Stats may say a different thing, but their are many things that effect stats. with their stats being fairly simliar, i don't think they provide a conclusive case. It is down to ur own view.

 

[C_C]

The fact that Murali has played less test then McGarth is irrelvent as Murali bowls more overs. CC your probably right when it comes to average aganist each batsmen, i thought it was the other way around, but i guess it isn't. On the bases of watching Murali bowling to better batsmen compared to McGarth, i still think he is a better bowler, marginally though. Stats may say a different thing, but their are many things that effect stats. with their stats being fairly simliar, i don't think they provide a conclusive case. It is down to ur own view.

hey i am not arguing that McGrath is a great bowler and a fair match for Murali overall.....what i am arguing is over the last couple of years, murali has been more successful......he didnt have a single dodgy series while McGrath had a dodgy windian campaign.

 

[Top_Cat]

.he didnt have a single dodgy series while McGrath had a dodgy windian campaign.

Not the only one in the period, either.

 

[social]

Firstly, it's almost impossible to split hairs.

Secondly, McGrath sustained and recovered from a career-threatening injury during the period in question so it's understandable that his form might have wavered during this period.

Thirdly, what discount have you applied to Murali's record for wickets taken with the doosra

 

[Black Thunder]

Leading bowling averages for the last two years excluding matches againts Zimbabwe and Bangladesh

Shows why Australia is so good - McGrath (2nd best average), Kasprowicz (4th), Warne (5th) and Gillespie (6th).

 

[chaminda_00]

Leading bowling averages for the last two years excluding matches againts Zimbabwe and Bangladesh

Shows why Australia is so good - McGrath (2nd best average), Kasprowicz (4th), Warne (5th) and Gillespie (6th).

Firstly is that Tests and ODI or just Test.

Secondly notice that McGarth has a better S/R 52 compared to 55 for Murali

Thirdly why in hell haven't South Africa pick Nel more often his bloody 8th on the list.

Lastly Vettori has an average of 57.3 and S/R of 123.7, looking at this i can see why people don't rate him, that pathetic

 

[Black Thunder]

Firstly is that Tests and ODI or just Test.

just tests

 

[SJS]

Leading bowling averages for the last two years excluding matches againts Zimbabwe and Bangladesh

Shows why Australia is so good - McGrath (2nd best average), Kasprowicz (4th), Warne (5th) and Gillespie (6th).

Just leaving out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is not enough. What needs to be done is to leave out the teams of the players being compared. eg if Indians are being compared with Aussies, their performances against each other should also be left out since they dont play their own teams. Aussie batsmen are never tested by McGrath Gillespie etc.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Interesting site that. I had a look around a few things there, and found the top batsmen against Australia over the last decade quite interesting. Most people know that India have been Australia's bogey side in recent times, with all of their 5 series losses since 1993 coming in the subcontinent, and three of them in India. What surprised me though is the fact that no less than SIX of the ten batsmen who have averaged over 50 against Australia in the last 10 years were Indian. The likely suspects in Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman and Sehwag were there, with Azharuddin and Sidhu also doing very well in slightly fewer matches. The only non-Indians who have managed to average 50+ against Australia recently are Saeed Anwar (63.56), Michael Vaughan (63.30), Ijaz Ahmed (61.73) and Brian Lara (50.10). There's some pretty impressive names missing from that list.

Two Indians make the list of 7 who have averaged under 30 with the ball against Australia in the same period, in Harbhajan (24.18) and Kumble (27.17). The others are Ambrose (22.06), Headley (24.77), Walsh (26.96), Pollock (27.64) and Muralitharan (29.26). The notable absences here are Wasim and Waqar, who both averaged well into the mid 30s in the same period.

 

[C_C]

Firstly, it's almost impossible to split hairs.

Secondly, McGrath sustained and recovered from a career-threatening injury during the period in question so it's understandable that his form might have wavered during this period.

Thirdly, what discount have you applied to Murali's record for wickets taken with the doosra

I will not debate the doosra issue. because legally, McGrath,Gillespie and co. are chuckers just like Murali till March 1st.

But as far as career threatening injury and that, yes i agree...McGrath had a tumultous time in the past few years and came back with guns blazing.....but i am not debating who is the better overall-McGrath or Murali...it is inherent folly to compare spinners to pacers as spinners usually take more wickets but go for more runs....Murali though i feel can match up to ANY bowler in the history of professional cricket.....but anyways..the question is over the past two years....
and McGrath missed quiete a few matches and has a more uneven record in the past few years compared to Murali, who has more wickets,more five fers and lower averages and strike rates
Over the last two years, Murali IMO is clearly the best performing bowler.
If murali makes a successful comeback, i think Murali will set records that will not be broken probably for another 30 years or so- i can see him finish with 700-750 wickets at 22-23 average and close to 50 five fers.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Like i said, wickets have been flatter everywhere in the world as of late.

Erm no, they've merely been flatter in places like Australia, West Indies and South Afirca.

 

[C_C]

Erm no, they've merely been flatter in places like Australia, West Indies and South Afirca.

I think NZ is the only exception to this but even then the wickets in NZ are generally flatter than what they were 10 years ago.
And ENG definately is flatter as well....IND has stayed more or less the same barring a few venues and Pakistan has a considerably flatter lahore and multan wicket than before.....

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yes, mysteriously there haven't been any places that have stopped spinning in Sri Lanka though.

 

[Black Thunder]

Just leaving out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is not enough. What needs to be done is to leave out the teams of the players being compared. eg if Indians are being compared with Aussies, their performances against each other should also be left out since they dont play their own teams. Aussie batsmen are never tested by McGrath Gillespie etc.

true, but you can't do that with that filter. (At least i haven't figured it out)

 

[chaminda_00]

Yes, mysteriously there haven't been any places that have stopped spinning in Sri Lanka though.

Some pitches don't spin as much as they have in the past. Kandy in particular doesn't spin as much as it has in the past. maybe u have be mislead, by the fact that Murali could spin the ball on anything, even the WACA.

 

[chaminda_00]

Erm no, they've merely been flatter in places like Australia, West Indies and South Afirca.

Overall around the world pitches are flatter then they have been in the past. Out of the 19 scores of 300 plus that have been score in test cricket 8 have come in the last 15 years. This clearly shows how pitches arte flatter then they have been in the past. Also if u look at current batting and bowling averages, generally these averages are higher then in previous eras.

Top Ten Current Batsmen (Averages)
Tendulkar 55.4
Ponting 54.8
Dravid 54.1
Sehwag 53.0
Lara 52.4
Gilchrist 51.8
Hayden 51.0
Smith 50.4
Martyn 50.4
Kallis 50.0

Ten Ten Bowlers (Averages)
mcgarth 21.4
Pollock 22.3
Murali 24.7
Warne 25.7
Ahktar 25.8
Gillespie 25.9
Harbhjan 28.3
Kumble 28.8
Ntini 30.3
Vaas 30.3

*All these averages don't include matches aganist BD or Zimbabwe

As u can see overall batting and bowling averages are higher then in most previous eras. Has their been another era where u had ten batsmen all average over 50 and only 8 bowlers average under 30 and only 3 bowlers under 25. I think this shows that pitches around the world are generally flatter then in the past.

This also shows why i think McGarth is slightly a better bowler then Murali. When u take matches aganist BD and Zim out McGarth average is 3 runs better, which is a significant amount. I hate to admitt this but if u take Murali 107 wicket aganist (BD=20, ZIM=87) and Warne's and McGarth wickets from BD and ZIM then their wicket totals would look like this:
Warne 560 (119 Test)
McGarth 470 (103 Test)
Murali 425 (75 Test)

one thing in Murali favor is that if u take the matches aganist BD and ZIM out he has played played a allot his Test then the other two and his wicket/test is still better:
Warne 4.7
McGarth 4.6
Murali 5.7

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

This also shows why i think McGarth is slightly a better bowler then Murali. When u take matches aganist BD and Zim out McGarth average is 3 runs better, which is a significant amount.

While I agree that insofar as pace bowlers and spin bowlers can be compared McGrath is a slightly better bowler than Murali, I don't think career averages are a particularly good form of comparison under any circumstances. McGrath is such a brilliant bowler because he performs so astonishingly consistently in all conditions and against all opposition, and is along with Warne the basis of Australia's success over the last decade. His average is pretty much irrelevant as far as I am concerned, and if he had been belted in his first dozen tests and it was 25 instead of 21 it wouldn't diminish him in the slightest as a bowler.

 

[chaminda_00]

His average is pretty much irrelevant as far as I am concerned, and if he had been belted in his first dozen tests and it was 25 instead of 21 it wouldn't diminish him in the slightest as a bowler.

Who are u talking about their Murali or Warne as they both got smacked in their first dozen test,as most bowlers do. Even McGarth record wasn't that great until the 94/95 WIndies tour.

 

[twctopcat]

Seems everyone has given up with the murali vs warne debate and realise the only viable option is mcgrath vs murali. Thought something like this might happen .