chaminda_00 said: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.
Not the only one in the period, either..he didnt have a single dodgy series while McGrath had a dodgy windian campaign.
Firstly is that Tests and ODI or just Test.Black Thunder said: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 testschaminda_00 said:Firstly is that Tests and ODI or just Test.
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.Black Thunder said: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).
I will not debate the doosra issue. because legally, McGrath,Gillespie and co. are chuckers just like Murali till March 1st.social said: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
Erm no, they've merely been flatter in places like Australia, West Indies and South Afirca.C_C said:Like i said, wickets have been flatter everywhere in the world as of late.
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.Erm no, they've merely been flatter in places like Australia, West Indies and South Afirca.
true, but you can't do that with that filter. (At least i haven't figured it out)SJS said: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.
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.Tom Halsey said:Yes, mysteriously there haven't been any places that have stopped spinning in Sri Lanka though.
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.Tom Halsey said:Erm no, they've merely been flatter in places like Australia, West Indies and South Afirca.
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 said: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.
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.FaaipDeOiad said: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.