Muttiah Muralitharan gets 605 Test wickets

[Prince EWS]

Ok, so you are now arguing about 9 more wickets he got against Bangladesh , because he gets 1 more wicket per Test against Bangladesh than against England ?

How ridiculous is that ?

I was arguing your statement, as it was wrong.

 

[JASON]

And by the way may I commend you for your great work in proving beyond any reasonable doubt now, that Murali would have taken 2 (let me repeat Just TWO) Tests more to get to 700 had he played the Tests against England instead of Bangladesh .(those 9 Tests I mean ) !!

 

[honestbharani]

And by the way may I commend you for your great work in proving beyond any reasonable doubt now, that Murali would have taken 2 (let me repeat Just TWO) Tests more to get to 700 had he played the Tests against England instead of Bangladesh .(those 9 Tests I mean ) !!

Honestly, I feel that, stats apart, he would have gotten to 700 quicker had he played NZ and England more often instead of Bangladesh and Zim in their sorry state.....



congrats to the man. He is a spin bowling and match winning machine.

 

[JASON]

And you shrewdly avoided highlighting the fact that against Zimbabwe , his wicket per Test is lower than against England.

13 Test for 87 wickets = 6.7 wickets per Test than 7.15 .

Had he played those 13 Tests against England instead of Zimbabwe , he would have reached 700 quicker .

 

[JASON]

Honestly, I feel that, stats apart, he would have gotten to 700 quicker had he played NZ and England more often instead of Bangladesh and Zim in their sorry state.....



congrats to the man. He is a spin bowling and match winning machine.

Another fact you try and hide is the fact he played most of his Tests against Zim when all their better players were playing. against the Sorry current lot he has only played just 2 tests.

 

[Fiery]

Well, that's what I'd clock it as, anyway - I have a different definition of Test to some.

Sadly, I$C$C recognise that nonsense of a Aus-vs-WorldXI game as a Test, plus Bangladesh, plus that abomination of a team put out by Zimbabwe in 2004. So, in their books, he now has 700.

Let the tributes begin.

meh

 

[honestbharani]

Another fact you try and hide is the fact he played most of his Tests against Zim when all their better players were playing. against the Sorry current lot he has only played just 2 tests.

yeah, that is what I meant.... I think he would have just as many, if not, more wickets had he played those 2 tests against say NZ or Zim.


I am not knocking him, I am actually praising him. I hope it was clear. Sorry if it wasn't.

 

[JASON]

yeah, that is what I meant.... I think he would have just as many, if not, more wickets had he played those 2 tests against say NZ or Zim.


I am not knocking him, I am actually praising him. I hope it was clear. Sorry if it wasn't.

Sorry mistook you for Prince ...Same avatar confused me.

 

[Craig]

Some people need to remove that pole from out of their backsides.

 

[honestbharani]

Sorry mistook you for Prince ...Same avatar confused me.

u can blame Richard for that.

 

[Craig]

u can blame Richard for that.

Your own fault really

 

[honestbharani]

Your own fault really

lol. But I still blame Richard. That way, I feel like a part of the CW family.

 

[pasag]

I know Richard very well in this forum and I know honestly he would not be ridiculing Murali at all.

His intentions as I see it is purely to congratulate the guy, but unfortunately its got perceived the wrong way.

As it has been said above - Murali would still have had nearly the same number of wickets if he had played SA or NZ instead of Zim and Bang and definitely more than the current number if he played England every two years in a 5 Test Ashes like series because England are well known dummies when it comes to playing ordinary spin let alone the highest calibre of the kind of Murali's .

At the end of the day he has exceeded any other bowler in Test Cricket history by taking more Front line Batsman than any other in the game and in fewer Tests than any other . That should be enough to shut anyone up who has questions on his ability and calibre.

He is the greatest spinner. Learn to live with it.

Meh, not sure why you have to make it about Murali > Warne to praise Murali. Seems rather silly to me.

 

[JASON]

Meh, not sure why you have to make it about Murali > Warne to praise Murali. Seems rather silly to me.

Responding to someone else's ridiculing him as having played too many Tests against Bang Zim...we all know where those sort of comments come from...

 

[Prince EWS]

Responding to someone else's ridiculing him as having played too many Tests against Bang Zim...we all know where those sort of comments come from...

Richard, actually.

 

[sohummisra]

Well done to Murali. He's set his sights on 1000 test wickets and I don't think anything short of injury will stop him. Also, it was heartening to see that Sri Lanka played a 3-test series against Bangladesh. Hopefully this will spurn them to host 3-match series and also visit for test series only greater than or equal to 3 matches. That way, Murali should be on his way at a much higher speed.

 

[Perm]

Jason, you're about the most biased member on here so I doubt your argument has much sway.

Well done to Murali, even though I consider Warne a better spinner, Murali is gun.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Ok , so you have struggled with your numbers to show that Murali gets 1 wicket less a Test against England than Bangladesh.

So what it proves, is that if he had played the large number of Tests against England like Warne he would have got 36 Tests x 7 .15 = 257 Test Wickets (Warne by the way v Bang 2 tests 11 wickets , v Zim 1 Test 6 wickets ) instead of 13 Tests and 93 wickets v England and 9 tests 76 wickets v Bang and 14 Tests v Zim with 87 wickets.

Or

Warne 36 tests v England only took 195 wickets .
Murali had he played 36 Tests v England would have taken 36 x 7.15 = 257 wickets.

And would still have gotten more wickets than Warne

Why does Warne always have to be dragged into this? I didn't see his name in the thread title.

 

[Richard]

Richard, actually.

Indeed. Let me clarify something: I am not for one second saying that Murali would not have taken those wickets had the Tests been against other teams. I am simply saying that, to me, Bangladesh and the Zimbabwe he played in 2004 were not teams worthy of Test status. Therefore, I presume, that had those games not been played then instead of playing someone else he'd simply have been sitting with his feet deservedly up in Kandy.

If things were down to me, I'd quite happily strip every Bangladesh and post-2003-Zimbabwe game of Test status. This would not, in the slightest, change the fact that Murali is a magnificent bowler.

As to the Warne argument, though, I've stated my stance there 1000 times. No point trying to separate them IMO.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And by the way may I commend you for your great work in proving beyond any reasonable doubt now, that Murali would have taken 2 (let me repeat Just TWO) Tests more to get to 700 had he played the Tests against England instead of Bangladesh .(those 9 Tests I mean ) !!

Fanaticism is somewhat dangerous...I think we should all relax