Murali The Greatest Asian Cricketer Ever

[honestbharani]

Muralitharan was a good catcher, and like many good catchers he pulled off some stunning catches. His ground-fielding was merely good, nowhere close to Chandana and particularly Dilshan. Dilshan is a world-class alround fielder, can field anywhere in the field, catches well, throws well. Muralitharan was not a natural athlete, but he did well due to good reflexes and his high confidence-level (which has always been a great quality of him). If anything, Murali was a good catcher; but he was not exceptional in ground fielding (fielding technique-wise) by any means. Anybody who thinks so is either being particularly foolish or simply stubbornly lying.

Anyways, firstly I'm not a multi-quote war specialist like Ikki and secondly fielding is not something where I can show some stat-points to prove my point. Just like judging wicketkeeping or captaincy, judging fielding is highly subjective. So, let's agree to disagree here.

Nah.. A LOT of ground fielding has to do with how quick you are across the turf and before the series of injuries circa 2000, Murali was just lightning quick across the turf. He did not have a great arm but he was quick and he stopped lots of twos just by getting to the ball fast. He was a good diver as well and I recall a no. of times in the 90s in sharjah games and other ODIs against India when it was almost impossible to beat him inside the circle near mid off or wherever... He was just brilliant in the field in the 90s, period. He was among the fab 4 that Sri Lanka had inside the ring at certain times, others being Chandana, Mahanama and Jayasuriya.. I would rank him joint 3 among that 4 with Jayasuriya.

 

[bagapath]

Let's hope for the best. She could be:

I love you smalishah84.

 

[Xuhaib]

Iman Ali is overrated

 

[Himannv]

Let's hope for the best. She could be:

Nice..

 

[smash84]

I love you smalishah84.

Doesn't everybody

Iman Ali is overrated

Your mere existence is over rated

 

[Uppercut]

Imran Khan's definitely better but I don't think Tendulkar's close to Murali, personally.

 

[smash84]

Tendy not close to Murali? Why do you say that? There isn't exactly daylight between the two

 

[centurymaker]

Tendy not close to Murali? Why do you say that? There isn't exactly daylight between the two

maybe he rates bowlers a lot higher than batsmen. (since they're the ones who win games)

 

[Uppercut]

A Murali is worth at least one and a half Tendulkars, and I would argue, more than two. And if that sounds a bit crazy, bear in mind that Murali's tangible worth is about one and a half Lillees. He'll bowl one and a half times as many overs of comparable quality. Tendulkar accounts for 1/11th of the team's batting, and in actuality, probably about 1/6th of the runs they're likely to score. Murali generally accounts for around 1/3 of the team's bowling, and in actuality, somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the wickets they'll take.

I don't mean to sound abrasive, but there's just no comparison. Tendulkar is a little bit better than every other weapon in the game, and Murali is a cheat code. He might even be better than Imran, now that I give it more thought.

 

[Uppercut]

But people don't realise it because:

1. There's a bizarre insistence on equal importance between batting and bowling. Which is incongruous with equal importance between batsmen and bowlers, since bowlers account for much more of their team's bowling than batsmen do their team's batting. But people do still manage to maintain both as being true, when that's impossible and in reality there's no real reason why either would be the case.

2. Everyone loves the aesthetics of watching Tendulkar bat, especially traditionalists, and no one much loves the aesthetics of watching Murali bowl, least of all the traditionalists. Mentioning Murali's name in a bar invokes painful debates about his action, mentioning Tendulkar's name in a bar invokes painful gushing about his ***iness.

3. There are far more Indians than Sri Lankans, and they have much louder voices. With the knock-on effect that games involving Sri Lanka aren't half as memorable and fans of other countries care less about games involving them.

 

[Bun]

A Murali is worth at least one and a half Tendulkars, and I would argue, more than two. And if that sounds a bit crazy, bear in mind that Murali's tangible worth is about one and a half Lillees. He'll bowl one and a half times as many overs of comparable quality. Tendulkar accounts for 1/11th of the team's batting, and in actuality, probably about 1/6th of the runs they're likely to score. Murali generally accounts for around 1/3 of the team's bowling, and in actuality, somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the wickets they'll take.

I don't mean to sound abrasive, but there's just no comparison. Tendulkar is a little bit better than every other weapon in the game, and Murali is a cheat code. He might even be better than Imran, now that I give it more thought.

.....

 

[Uppercut]

Bun, no one cares what you think. But if you don't have the courtesy to **** off you could at least have the courtesy to try to tackle my post on logical grounds rather than laughing at it for no other reason than because it's unorthodox.

 

[smash84]

A Murali is worth at least one and a half Tendulkars, and I would argue, more than two. And if that sounds a bit crazy, bear in mind that Murali's tangible worth is about one and a half Lillees. He'll bowl one and a half times as many overs of comparable quality. Tendulkar accounts for 1/11th of the team's batting, and in actuality, probably about 1/6th of the runs they're likely to score. Murali generally accounts for around 1/3 of the team's bowling, and in actuality, somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the wickets they'll take.

I don't mean to sound abrasive, but there's just no comparison. Tendulkar is a little bit better than every other weapon in the game, and Murali is a cheat code. He might even be better than Imran, now that I give it more thought.

Emmm.....I don't really quite understand this? If Murali is striking at the same average and SR how does he equal one and half times Lillee? The reason that some bowlers have a higher wpm is that they are the lone wolves in their bowling attacks not necessarily that they are better bowlers. So this argument doesn't really make much sense to me. In a team with better bowlers Murali just will not get the chance to bowl so much but it is fair to assume that he will be equally effective (i.e. his SR and avg won't be affected).

I probably wouldn't rate him higher Imran because Imran's batting >>>> Murali's and the intangibles of his captaincy far outweigh Murali's fielding. Plus Imran was a fast bowler and an argument can be made that he was equal to Murali as a bowler if not better.

Also as far as importance of bowlers and batsmen are concerned you are essentially making the argument that good bowlers are essentially twice as good as valuable as batsmen. In fact this argument is not about Tendy or Murali then, you might even say that Bradman is possibly the only batsman whose value is comparable to an ATG bowler since Bradman is essentially like having 2 batsmen in your team

 

[Bun]

Bun, no one cares what you think. But if you don't have the courtesy to **** off you could at least have the courtesy to try to tackle my post on logical grounds rather than laughing at it for no other reason than because it's unorthodox.

I'd imagine myself saying stuff like Murali = 2 Tendulkars, Imran = 1.5 Bradman etc, but to see you doing that somehow cracked me up. Apologies if it caused you discomfort. I have edited it.

 

[ankitj]

3. There are far more Indians than Sri Lankans, and they have much louder voices. With the knock-on effect that games involving Sri Lanka aren't half as memorable and fans of other countries care less about games involving them.

[can of worms]

That explains the Warne vs Murali scenario for mine.

[/can of worms]

 

[Migara]

If you can close, its not a can of worms.

 

[Furball]

[can of worms]

That explains the Warne vs Murali scenario for mine.

[/can of worms]

Nah, it's fair enough. The reason I rate Warne higher than Murali probably has everything to do with the fact that Murali didn't make me crap my pants in Ashes series.

 

[weldone]

1. There's a bizarre insistence on equal importance between batting and bowling. Which is incongruous with equal importance between batsmen and bowlers, since bowlers account for much more of their team's bowling than batsmen do their team's batting. But people do still manage to maintain both as being true, when that's impossible and in reality there's no real reason why either would be the case.

Tell a bowler to bowl without any fielder and wicketkeeper in the park.

In other words, when someone says batting and bowling are of equal importance they assume that fielding is of 'zero' importance which is a **** claim to make. One group requires help from the third group, while the other group doesn't.

I would say, the importance of batting is equal to the combined importance of bowling, fielding and wicketkeeping. Cricket is a rivalry between two equally important groups.

 

[Prince EWS]

I would say, the importance of batting is equal to the combined importance of bowling, fielding and wicketkeeping.

This is undoubtedly true, but one bowler has more much importance to the overall 'bowling' side of a team than one batsman does to the batting side. If a batsman and a bowler are of equal skill in their respective fields, the bowler is more valuable as one man makes up a great proportion of that field.

 

[Jono]

Provided that they actually perform equally though. One can argue that Sachin doesn't have a hole in his record that Murali has vs. Australia. Hence even if bowlers are of equal value, thats only if they are equal record.