FaaipDeOiad said:Kumble's poorer reputation is based almost entirely on his abysmal record outside of India. It is extremely difficult for a bowler to gain a massive reputation similar to Warne or Murali when they do not perform often in front of the eyes of the rest of the cricketing world.
For those who don't know them:
Kumble in India
52 tests, 302 wickets @ 23.38, 22 5-fors, 7 10-fors, strike rate: 56.24, economy rate: 2.49.
Kumble outside of India
47 tests, 176 wickets @ 36.00, 8 5-fors, 1 10-for, strike rate: 80.40, economy rate: 2.69.
Kumble in Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies (excluding Zimbabwe and the sub-continent)
32 tests, 115 wickets @ 38.75, 6 5-fors, 1 10-for, strike rate: 87.90, economy rate: 2.64.
It's not too hard to see why he isn't considered by the worldwide cricket public to be in the same bracket as the others mentioned. There's also the point that Warne's stats look the worst of his career as a whole after around 100 tests, because that was at the height of his 1998-2001 form slump.
No doubt Kumble is a great bowler, of course, and I am not attempting to discredit him, simply to explain his inferior reputation.
Yes, he isnt as good as Warney and Murali i agree - but why dont you use precisely the same reasoning when you evaluate Lillee, given that Lillee's stuff is pretty similar - he played mostly on pitches taylor made for his type of bowling ( England and Australia) - much like Kumble's bowling is tailormade for the subcontinent and like Kumble, he failed massively out of his 'tailormade pitches' , though he played overseas far less than Kumble has and thus had the chance to protect his overall figures ??