Muttiah Muralidaran's 10 top batsmen

[Jono]

I don't agree with that. That would be true if you knew he made the list for the right reasons (i.e. because he found them genuinely hard to bowl to). But I think a fair few of those selections have been made for disingenuous reasons.

Its not just Murali though, I think most of those player-selected lists are prone to the same limitations. For example, you might select a player to be in the list because the match happened to be memorable, or one instance of bowling to a certain player may have been particularly devastating etc. and has stuck in your mind.

I know this is cynical, but I really think the true reason why there aren't any Aussies in that list is because of his repressed feelings about Australia. He doesn't want to give Australians the satisfaction of knowing he considers some of their batsman amongst the toughest he has faced.

Except that he gave a massive shout out to Warne in that article.

Additionally, maybe he felt that whenever they were getting runs against him, it was due to the poor bowlers around him, maybe he felt they were lucky, maybe he felt Ponting was #11 and couldn't fit him in the top ten. I don't know, but the fact is he isn't saying that Crawley > Ponting or Sehwag. He's saying he felt when bowling to Sidhu, Cronje etc. that they played him better.

It's not the same as Warne making his list of who he thought were better cricketers. This is simply "best batsmen that played my bowling" list.

 

[Jono]

Anyway I don't read Murali's list as Crawley > Ponting - not even I'd suggest that

Indeed. You have to read the list for what it is.

 

[GotSpin]

Needs more in depth analysis - CW style

 

[Ruckus]

Except that he gave a massive shout out to Warne in that article.

Additionally, maybe he felt that whenever they were getting runs against him, it was due to the poor bowlers around him. I don't know, but the fact is he isn't saying that Crawley > Ponting or Sehwag. He's saying he felt when bowling to them that they played him better.

It's not the same as Warne making his list of who he thought were better cricketers. This is simply "best batsmen that played my bowling" list.

The praise of Warne is completely different. For one he isn't a batsman, but most importantly him and Warne have been close rivals for their entire careers, so that could transcend any general negativity he may have.

Well I would have thought a large part of determining who has played you better would be how many times you have dismissed them. If you have got someone out many times, how can they have played you better than someone who you haven't got out many times?

 

[Matt79]

I'm fairly confident at some stage some Australian user with 37 odd posts will complain about no Australians being on the list and start the chucking debate and complain about two English players they've never heard of being on there and that's when it turns into crap. Of course quick and sensible moderation can stop that.

Nah, will give people more credit than that.

That said, any posts seeking to argue with Murali's selections by citing objections to his bowling action, or dragging in other massive irrelevancies will probably be deleted.

 

[Matt79]

Interesting that he included a few match fixing cheats in his list.

Says a lot about the man.

I agree. It says that the man thinks that Cronje played his batting particularly well, but nothing more really.

 

[Jono]

The praise of Warne is completely different. For one he isn't a batsman, but most importantly him and Warne have been close rivals for their entire careers, so that could transcend any general negativity he may have.

Well I would have thought a large part of determining who has played you better would be how many times you have dismissed them. If you have got someone out many times, how can they have played you better than someone who you haven't got out many times?

Because firstly, I may think my teammate plays me better than an opponent, which I reckon was likely the case with Crawley.

Secondly, I may feel that I've gotten lucky against players, or alternatively I have dominated this player but he's gotten lucky and been dropped/LBW not given, or I was all over him and then my teammate got him out.

There is no way of studying this because it's a subjective opinion.

If I rated the best batsman that has played my bowling in my time playing club cricket in my local area, and someone said "nah you're wrong, this guy played you better" I'd be pretty damn confused as to how he thinks he knows who played my bowling better.

It'd be different if I said "this guy is the best batsman overall" and someone disagreed. Because you can argue that.

 

[smash84]

Indeed. You have to read the list for what it is.

Agreed.

 

[Burgey]

Someone needs to make a Warne's list vs Murali's list thread

 

[Ruckus]

Because firstly, I may think my teammate plays me better than an opponent, which I reckon was likely the case with Crawley.

Secondly, I may feel that I've gotten lucky against players, or alternatively I have dominated this player but he's gotten lucky and been dropped/LBW not given, or I was all over him and then my teammate got him out.

There is no way of studying this because it's a subjective opinion.

If I rated the best batsman that has played my bowling in my time playing club cricket in my local area, and someone said "nah you're wrong, this guy played you better" I'd be pretty damn confused as to how he thinks he knows who played my bowling better.

It'd be different if I said "this guy is the best batsman overall" and someone disagreed. Because you can argue that.

Considering players probably don't put a lot of time and effort into these lists, I really doubt their reasons for selection would be particularly complicated. Given that, I think most selections would be made soley from moments in the game which happen to have been particularly memorable for the players. I really don't think Murali would be sitting down thinking about all the times a players has got lucky against him etc. If over a MASSIVE career like Murali's if someone came up to me and said "nah you're wrong, this guy played you better", frankly I would probably reconsider (providing he gave me some compelling evidence etc).

 

[kingkallis]

Murali dont rate the Aussies

Anyways thats his choice!

 

[BoyBrumby]

Oh yeah I completely agree, but I'm fairly confident at some stage some Australian user with 37 odd posts will complain about no Australians being on the list and start the chucking debate and complain about two English players they've never heard of being on there and that's when it turns into crap. Of course quick and sensible moderation can stop that.

It's a shame Murali hasn't really given any anecdotes about the more surprising selections.

I could see Crawley flying under the casual fan's radar, but even the most one-eyed Aussie would at least be aware of Thorpey's existence? Chap was our best batsman for a decade.

Would've liked some reasoning behind the choices tho. Lehmann & Martyn the most egregious exclusions IMHO. Were both amazing on the 03/04 tour. IIRC Oz came from first innings deficeits in each test to win three-zip.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

This will sound biased but I'm a bit surprised not to see Fleming on the list. In test cricket Fleming pwnd Sri Lanka.

Agreed. Fleming vs. World XI one of my favourite one day knocks ever. He was just swatting Murali off one knee over and over. Shame it didn't count and I can't find highlights anywhere.

 

[Top_Cat]

To be honest, Crawley would have actually been quite tough to bowl to......until you bowled one outside off and figured out he's all about the leg-sieed, mufugga.

 

[Smudge]

As Harsha said on Twitter, you can't argue with the list because it's his friggin list and he's the one that bowled to them.

This is CW - of course people are going to argue with the list.


Unfortunately.

 

[Ruckus]

To be honest, Crawley would have actually been quite tough to bowl to......until you bowled one outside off and figured out he's all about the leg-sieed, mufugga.

Why didn't you just write tbh? What the ****?

 

[BoyBrumby]

This is CW - of course people are going to argue with the list.


Unfortunately.

Be a pretty short thread if we didn't, tbf.

Like I said, the lack of Murali's reasoning behind the list in the article means we're all guessing as to his ideas. I imagine he has a book coming out, hence the list? Hopefully we'll find out more on its publication.

 

[Top_Cat]

Why do you give a **** how I post?

 

[Flem274*]

Be a pretty short thread if we didn't, tbf.

Like I said, the lack of Murali's reasoning behind the list in the article means we're all guessing as to his ideas. I imagine he has a book coming out, hence the list? Hopefully we'll find out more on its publication.

Pretty sure he'll throw some reasons out there soon enough.

 

[Ruckus]

Why do you give a **** how I post?

Kidding, just kidding...

Btw talking about kidding, I wonder if this might be beneficial to this thread:

P.S - Kidding.