Murali The Greatest Asian Cricketer Ever

[centurymaker]

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.

disagree. i wouldn't really call it a hole given the circumstances he was under most of the time when he played australia - being called a chucker etc...

if i had to pick one of them in my team

i'd would go for murali 9 times out of 10.

 

[smash84]

If you were consistently playing the best team of the Murali era you would still go with Murali 9/10 times?

 

[centurymaker]

If you were consistently playing the best team of the Murali era you would still go with Murali 9/10 times?

thats why i said 9 out of 10

i'd take murali against every team except australia.

 

[Jono]

being called a chucker etc...

Those fans were filth, but FFS you're playing international cricket. You cop it and do your best.

I doubt Murali will use that as as excuse as to why his record in Australia is poor.

 

[weldone]

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.

I don't agree. For example, are you saying that scoring 1/4th of the runs and taking 1/4th of the wickets of a team are equally important? Yes, they are, for the team. But fielders and wicketkeepers can't claim any credit for the first one, while it's the combined effort of the bowler, fielders and wicketkeeper that's required for the second one.

 

[smash84]

I don't agree. For example, are you saying that scoring 1/4th of the runs and taking 1/4th of the wickets of a team are equally important? Yes, they are, for the team. But fielders and wicketkeepers can't claim any credit for the first one, while it's the combined effort of the bowler, fielders and wicketkeeper that's required for the second one.

What if you have more than half your wickets as bowled or LBWs?

 

[weldone]

What if you have more than half your wickets as bowled or LBWs?

Wicketkeeper and fielders can claim a little less credit in that case.

And that's only talking about wickets taken. Imagine the economy rates of the bowlers if there were no fielders in the park!!!

 

[GIMH]

That's an absolutely ridiculous analogy.

Imagine how many runs batsmen would score if they weren't allowed to use their bat! Or if there were 29 stumps (granted Sree and Ishant would probably still miss).

Or if you want me to make it a bit closer to what you said - imagine if a batsman was on his own, and had to run 2 each time

 

[smash84]

That's an absolutely ridiculous analogy.

Imagine how many runs batsmen would score if they weren't allowed to use their bat! Or if there were 29 stumps (granted Sree and Ishant would probably still miss).

Or if you want me to make it a bit closer to what you said - imagine if a batsman was on his own, and had to run 2 each time

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Yeah, I was debating the overall theory rather than the specific Murali v Tendulkar discussion. Should've made that clearer.

 

[Jono]

Yeah fair enough.

My above post also was supposed to say "if bowlers are of higher value, thats only if they are of equal record" but I think you got that.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah fair enough.

My above post also was supposed to say "if bowlers are of higher value, thats only if they are of equal record" but I think you got that.

Yeah. Obviously Bradman is more valuable than Unadkat, and once you admit that you automatically admit that you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah fair enough.

My above post also was supposed to say "if bowlers are of higher value, thats only if they are of equal record" but I think you got that.

It's also the case that the better quality of player you look at, the larger the gap between value added by a bowler and value added by a batsman is.

Another way to look at it conceptually is that if the average score for a wicket is (say) 33 runs, a Tendulkar means that two of your twenty wickets will go down for 55 runs instead but a Murali means that just over six of the opposition's twenty wickets will go down for 22 instead. A world-class batsmen can perform their role better, but a world-class bowler can perform their role better and make their own role in deciding the game much bigger.

 

[centurymaker]

It's also the case that the better quality of player you look at, the larger the gap between value added by a bowler and value added by a batsman is.

Another way to look at it conceptually is that if the average score for a wicket is (say) 33 runs, a Tendulkar means that two of your twenty wickets will go down for 55 runs instead but a Murali means that just over six of the opposition's twenty wickets will go down for 22 instead. A world-class batsmen can perform their role better, but a world-class bowler can perform their role better and make their own role in deciding the game much bigger.

nice post

have to agree.

 

[smash84]

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).

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

uppercut I had answered with this to your initial post. Can you reply to the above?

It's also the case that the better quality of player you look at, the larger the gap between value added by a bowler and value added by a batsman is.

Another way to look at it conceptually is that if the average score for a wicket is (say) 33 runs, a Tendulkar means that two of your twenty wickets will go down for 55 runs instead but a Murali means that just over six of the opposition's twenty wickets will go down for 22 instead. A world-class batsmen can perform their role better, but a world-class bowler can perform their role better and make their own role in deciding the game much bigger.

Why will 2 wickets go down for 55?

 

[Prince EWS]

uppercut I had answered with this to your initial post. Can you reply to the above?



Why will 2 wickets go down for 55?

He meant 55 each - ie. if Sachin averages 55, one wicket in each innings (his wicket) will go down for 55 runs on average.

 

[honestbharani]

It's also the case that the better quality of player you look at, the larger the gap between value added by a bowler and value added by a batsman is.

Another way to look at it conceptually is that if the average score for a wicket is (say) 33 runs, a Tendulkar means that two of your twenty wickets will go down for 55 runs instead but a Murali means that just over six of the opposition's twenty wickets will go down for 22 instead. A world-class batsmen can perform their role better, but a world-class bowler can perform their role better and make their own role in deciding the game much bigger.

The issue with that, of course, is the fact that in most test matches, over two innings from a batting side, 6 wickets or so DO tend to go down for less than 22 anyways... When you consider tailenders and such...


Also, the whole thing about there are less bowlers than batsman in any side and so they are more valuable coz they contribute more comes down to opportunity as well.. If you got 5 bowlers in your side who bowl regularly and assuming an innings lasts 100 overs, a bowler gets 20% of share to make his contribution... With a batsman, it is not that simple to work out something like this. So while the pure stats make it look great with Murali averaging 6 wickets per match at about 22 runs and Sachin averaging 55 with the bat, the reality is that since Murali's 6 wickets include tailenders and stuff who generally do get out for low scores, it is not as if he is easily more valuable than Sachin.



Of course, I do rate Murali > Sachin and even though I used their names here, I am more generally just making a point about batsmen Vs bowlers...

 

[Migara]

The issue with that, of course, is the fact that in most test matches, over two innings from a batting side, 6 wickets or so DO tend to go down for less than 22 anyways... When you consider tailenders and such...


Also, the whole thing about there are less bowlers than batsman in any side and so they are more valuable coz they contribute more comes down to opportunity as well.. If you got 5 bowlers in your side who bowl regularly and assuming an innings lasts 100 overs, a bowler gets 20% of share to make his contribution... With a batsman, it is not that simple to work out something like this. So while the pure stats make it look great with Murali averaging 6 wickets per match at about 22 runs and Sachin averaging 55 with the bat, the reality is that since Murali's 6 wickets include tailenders and stuff who generally do get out for low scores, it is not as if he is easily more valuable than Sachin.



Of course, I do rate Murali > Sachin and even though I used their names here, I am more generally just making a point about batsmen Vs bowlers...

On the other side of the coin, the top order and middle order wickets will be valuable than 33 runs. The average of 33 comes due to tail enders wickets it self. Let's say Murali takes 4 top+middle order wickets at 35, then same would apply for SRT as well. You have to use (SRT's average - average of top+middle order batsmen) in the equation. The latter parameter will be more than 33 for sure.

 

[honestbharani]

On the other side of the coin, the top order and middle order wickets will be valuable than 33 runs. The average of 33 comes due to tail enders wickets it self. Let's say Murali takes 4 top+middle order wickets at 35, then same would apply for SRT as well. You have to use (SRT's average - average of top+middle order batsmen) in the equation. The latter parameter will be more than 33 for sure.

yes it does and that is why I said stats alone will not make it clear at all, or at least "conceptually" as UC put it... Cricket is a little more complex than what you just read from statsguru...

 

[Jono]

It's also the case that the better quality of player you look at, the larger the gap between value added by a bowler and value added by a batsman is.

Another way to look at it conceptually is that if the average score for a wicket is (say) 33 runs, a Tendulkar means that two of your twenty wickets will go down for 55 runs instead but a Murali means that just over six of the opposition's twenty wickets will go down for 22 instead. A world-class batsmen can perform their role better, but a world-class bowler can perform their role better and make their own role in deciding the game much bigger.

Not sure if you were replying to my point, or just sort of continuing from your own, because my point was that a bowler overall is only more valuable to a batsman if they are of equal quality and record.

In my (humble) opinion when comparing Tendulkar to Murali, the fact that Tendulkar performed extremely well against the best and Murali didn't completely overwrites the fact that Murali, as a bowler, is generally more valuable than Tendulkar, a batsman.