Murali The Greatest Asian Cricketer Ever

[smash84]

Will rate Tendulkar above Murali once Tendulkar breaks the 900 ICC rating point barrier and gets somewhere close to the Murali's peak in terms of ICC rating points. It's a good indicator of the fact that Tendulkar did not totally set cricket ablaze for a considerable length of time, which is just about the reason why he might not make it to my all time world XI. Ref

Your ratings say that "Players make the all-time list by sustaining excellent form over a prolonged period."

Imran edges out Murali in that

 

[ankitj]

lol.........I thought you will post a link to your analysis of value ratings thread for bowlers and batsmen :P........

Haha. Never did anything for batsmen, and can't be done either I think.

 

[ankitj]

Your ratings say that "Players make the all-time list by sustaining excellent form over a prolonged period."

Imran edges out Murali in that

It's like a moving average, so yes players do have to sustain for some length of time. And Imran does edge out Murali and every other post WWI bowler. But over entire careers, I am not so sure.

 

[smash84]

It's like a moving average, so yes players do have to sustain for some length of time. And Imran does edge out Murali and every other post WWI bowler. But over entire careers, I am not so sure.

wow.......I thought the gap would be much greater than this over the length of their careers tbh....

btw you post some fantastic analyses/graphs/websites

 

[abmk]

I think it's hard to compare in that sense. In my first rating, I take into consideration that Murali is a once in several generations bowler whereas there is more or less a Sachin every generation.

Really? A 200 test and 500 ODI player?

Oh you meant Sachin has been there for quite some generations now

Couldn't have given a better reply

 

[TumTum]

Bun is a dire poster but that was quality

 

[cnerd123]

Imran > Murali > Sachin

Based purely on the cricket.

Sachin > Murali > Imran otherwise.

 

[smash84]

Imran > Murali > Sachin

Based purely on the cricket.

Sachin > Murali > Imran otherwise.

what does otherwise mean????

 

[cnerd123]

If we take into context how much they meant to Cricket as a sport and to their respective nations.

Sachin and Murali are fare ahead to Imran in that record. Sachin and Murali both broke all sorts of records, were absolute icons in the world, beacons of hope for their country.

I just put Sachin a little higher because India's population is no only larger, but more aggressive and passionate that Sri Lanka's. Both Sachin and Murali are equally great IMO, but because Sachin had to keep up to so many expectations and was under constant pressure from the horrible Indian media...I rank him just a little higher in terms of greatness.

 

[Xuhaib]

He wasn't as good in tests tbh. Although his motm performances are second to no other bowler.

Wasim 89-96 has as awesome a record as you get, a 7 year peak period is pretty good fr a fast bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Wasim 89-96 has as awesome a record as you get, a 7 year peak period is pretty good fr a fast bowler.

Wasim definitely underachieved in his career, he deserved at least 100 more wickets. Imran, Murali and Sachin did not.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

A player ends up with exactly the amount of wickets they "deserved". Whether they probably should've taken more is a different statement entirely, probably closer to what you meant?

 

[smash84]

Wasim definitely underachieved in his career, he deserved at least 100 more wickets. Imran, Murali and Sachin did not.

Wouldn't say that tbh. Imran lost 2-3 years of bowling at his absolute peak. Immediately after the 1982-83 series so another case of what could have been. As things stand he didn't achieve that so no point in moving him up the rank on potential.

 

[smash84]

If we take into context how much they meant to Cricket as a sport and to their respective nations.

Sachin and Murali are fare ahead to Imran in that record. Sachin and Murali both broke all sorts of records, were absolute icons in the world, beacons of hope for their country.

TBF to Imran he was a pretty iconic figure and not just in Pakistan.

I think you are the justin beiber generation so you probably did not see him play at all or how much of an icon Imran was :P

 

[subshakerz]

If we take into context how much they meant to Cricket as a sport and to their respective nations.

Sachin and Murali are fare ahead to Imran in that record. Sachin and Murali both broke all sorts of records, were absolute icons in the world, beacons of hope for their country.

I just put Sachin a little higher because India's population is no only larger, but more aggressive and passionate that Sri Lanka's. Both Sachin and Murali are equally great IMO, but because Sachin had to keep up to so many expectations and was under constant pressure from the horrible Indian media...I rank him just a little higher in terms of greatness.

I disagree with using fan attachment as a criteria for how highly a cricketer should be rated. Otherwise Afridi should be rated higher than Dravid.

 

[subshakerz]

A player ends up with exactly the amount of wickets they "deserved". Whether they probably should've taken more is a different statement entirely, probably closer to what you meant?

Yes, Wasim underachieved given the sort of talent he had.

 

[centurymaker]

wasim definitely underachieved in his career, he deserved at least 100 more wickets. Imran, murali and sachin did not.

noo!!

 

[subshakerz]

Wouldn't say that tbh. Imran lost 2-3 years of bowling at his absolute peak. Immediately after the 1982-83 series so another case of what could have been. As things stand he didn't achieve that so no point in moving him up the rank on potential.

That's not exactly what I'm getting at. I'm saying that if you look at Wasim's bowling record (414 wickets in 104 tests at 23), and match that with his incomparable talent and skill, you get the sense that he did not maximize his opportunities. He should have got many more wickets, and he does not have the excuse like Imran that he played purely as a batsman. There are many reasons. He let off field issues get in the way of his game. He rarely ran straight through batting lineups with a 6-for/7-for or win big matches the way Imran did. Batsmen towards the end of his career often found him an awkward proposition and were content to play him out. Wasim also failed to justify his talent with the bat.

With Imran, you can tell that he used every bit of his cricket talent at his disposal. When you look at his overall record, its reflective of sheer determination to utilize his talents. His bowling record, while it could have been even better if he had played those extra two years, is still comfortably all-time great material and notably superior to Wasim's. His batting kept improving and he was one of the best bats in the team by the end of his career. He used every drop of his ability and ended up with better figures than Wasim as a result.

Ditto with Murali and Sachin, their deeds are impressive enough to match their ability.

 

[centurymaker]

That's not exactly what I'm getting at. I'm saying that if you look at Wasim's bowling record (414 wickets in 104 tests at 23), and match that with his incomparable talent and skill, you get the sense that he did not maximize his opportunities. He should have got many more wickets, and he does not have the excuse like Imran that he played purely as a batsman. There are many reasons. He let off field issues get in the way of his game. He rarely ran straight through batting lineups with a 6-for/7-for or win big matches the way Imran did. Batsmen towards the end of his career often found him an awkward proposition and were content to play him out. Wasim also failed to justify his talent with the bat.

With Imran, you can tell that he used every bit of his cricket talent at his disposal. When you look at his overall record, its reflective of sheer determination to utilize his talents. His bowling record, while it could have been even better if he had played those extra two years, is still comfortably all-time great material and notably superior to Wasim's. His batting kept improving and he was one of the best bats in the team by the end of his career. He used every drop of his ability and ended up with better figures than Wasim as a result.

Ditto with Murali and Sachin, their deeds are impressive enough to match their ability.

I still can't understand why the cricinfo jury picked Wasim ahead of Imran in the All Time Xi.
Imran was better in both the primary departments.
You can't really pick someone just on their level of skill.

 

[smash84]

I still can't understand why the cricinfo jury picked Wasim ahead of Imran in the All Time Xi.
Imran was better in both the primary departments.
You can't really pick someone just on their level of skill.

Imran was being only seen as an all rounder and there was only a single spot for an allrounder in the side which went to Gary Sobers.

Yeah but even then Imran was a better test match bowler than Wasim. Skill alone doesn't make you a better bowler.