Muttiah Muralidaran's 10 top batsmen

[BoyBrumby]

Apparently, both played for the same county.

Not always, no. Crawley moved to Hants later in his career so would guess he faced he great man in FC cricket too.

No idea how he went tho.

 

[Jono]

You might go back and edit it so I would like to quote this as evidence for your dumb posts

GI Joe takes no prisoners!

 

[Ikki]

In the end, it's Murali's list and he knows why. Personally, if I were interviewing him it'd be a no-brainer to ask him why there are no Aussies. Regardless the answer, it would be interesting.

 

[BoyBrumby]

In the end, it's Murali's list and he knows why. Personally, if I were interviewing him it'd be a no-brainer to ask him why there are no Aussies. Regardless the answer, it would be interesting.

Yup. Best not to speculate too much, but one has one's suspicions.

 

[G.I.Joe]

GI Joe takes no prisoners!

I eatz the Geneva convention with ketchup

 

[silentstriker]

Welp, Ponting averages 50.11 (10 innings) against Murali in Sri Lanka and Tendulkar averages 45.66 (12 innings) against him there.

That point would be valid if Murali bowled 100% of balls to those batsmen. Collective average against a side says little about how comfortable you were playing a specific bowler.

 

[Furball]

I agree, but in the case of Murali perhaps Tendulkar just shouldn't be that high up in the list, if there are others like Ponting who seems to have done equally well (or even better).

But I know what you are going to say - it's Murali's list! And I agree these debates are pretty damn pointless...

The stats will only show who's scored most runs, they don't show the context of the innings.

In terms of the impressions Murali has of batsmen, an innings of 70-odd on a minefield where all around you are falling is going to stick longer in the memory than an innings of 120 on a track offering no assistance where 2 other batsmen have already tonned up, although the latter is more impressive statistically.

In lists like this, you cannot simply say "batsman A on the list averages 45, batsman B who isn't on the list averages 50, therefore Murali is wrong to rate batsman A higher."

 

[Ruckus]

In the end, it's Murali's list and he knows why. Personally, if I were interviewing him it'd be a no-brainer to ask him why there are no Aussies. Regardless the answer, it would be interesting.

I'm suprised John Howard isn't his no. 1 tbh.

 

[Ruckus]

The stats will only show who's scored most runs, they don't show the context of the innings.

In terms of the impressions Murali has of batsmen, an innings of 70-odd on a minefield where all around you are falling is going to stick longer in the memory than an innings of 120 on a track offering no assistance where 2 other batsmen have already tonned up, although the latter is more impressive statistically.

In lists like this, you cannot simply say "batsman A on the list averages 45, batsman B who isn't on the list averages 50, therefore Murali is wrong to rate batsman A higher."

Yeh thats all true, but over 17 and 26 innings you would expect things like that would even out somewhat between the players (i.e. I'm sure both players would have put up some good scores on minefields, and some when the conditions were easier etc.). Also using how many times he dismissed players is a better indicator (albeit its not perfect either), and Ponting wins in that regard too.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeh thats all true, but over 17 and 26 innings you would expect things like that would even out somewhat between the playe

No, you wouldn't.

Unless other factors were controlled (like location, strength of other players, match situations, how well murali is feeling that day, etc). Which in Test cricket, they clearly are not.

 

[Ruckus]

No, you wouldn't.

Fair enough

 

[Black_Warrior]

You might go back and edit it so I would like to quote this as evidence for your dumb posts

There are two kinds of men in this world buddy...those who go back and edit..and those who dont.

 

[Furball]

Yeh thats all true, but over 17 and 26 innings you would expect things like that would even out somewhat between the players (i.e. I'm sure both players would have put up some good scores on minefields, and some when the conditions were easier etc.). Also using how many times he dismissed players is a better indicator (albeit its not perfect either), and Ponting wins in that regard too.

Not really, Tendulkar and Ponting don't play Murali in identical home conditions and pitch conditions won't correlate exactly when the two teams tour Sri Lanka.

 

[Black_Warrior]

It was inevitable I guess..that Murali's top 10 batsmen's list would end up being Tendulkar vs Ponting

 

[marc71178]

Yeh but that should have nothing to do with the construction of the list. It is how Ponting has played Murali, not spin in general.

Yes, and seeing as Murali is the only person who's seen all the batsmen he's bowled to, surely he knows better than anyone else who has played him best.

 

[Ruckus]

Not really, Tendulkar and Ponting don't play Murali in identical home conditions and pitch conditions won't correlate exactly when the two teams tour Sri Lanka.

There is absolutely no reason to assume all the times Tendulkar has played the pitches have been 'minefields' and when Ponting has played they have been roads. The only thing you are going off is Murali's inclusion of Tendulkar and not Ponting in the list, which there are far better, and more likely, explanations for.

 

[Ruckus]

Yes, and seeing as Murali is the only person who's seen all the batsmen he's bowled to, surely he knows better than anyone else who has played him best.

Ideally, yes. However, as I have said about a million times now, I really doubt much effort is put into these lists, but rather they are constructed in a somewhat capricious manner and are based on isolated 'moments' which have stuck in the players mind (for whatever reason). I.e. the lists are not likely to be a true gauge of how batsmen have performed overall against Murali.

 

[Furball]

There is absolutely no reason to assume all the times Tendulkar has played the pitches have been 'minefields' and when Ponting has played they have been roads. The only thing you are going off is Murali's inclusion of Tendulkar and not Ponting in the list, which there are far better, and more likely, explanations for.

I'm not making that assumption at all.

 

[Ruckus]

I'm not making that assumption at all.

Whatever dude, I don't give a **** anymore.

The bottom line is lists like the one made by Murali shouldn't be taken as a serious analysis, but rather just as a whimsical selection of players. Given that, debating them is a pointless and (as I've come to learn) an extremely annoying exercise.

 

[silentstriker]

Then stop debating them.