Why was Murali a really bad bowler in Australia?

[fredfertang]

Haha, I actually deliberately caused an argument during a meeting today because I was so bored.

Typical behaviour pattern for academic lawyers, in my experience

 

[sledger]

Typical behaviour pattern for academic lawyers, in my experience

It was a meeting about good practices in learning and teaching. I mentioned that students often say to me that they prefer to be taught by staff who are active researchers, as opposed to practitioners. This did not go down well with people in the latter category. I knew well in advance that it would go down like a sack of **** though, which was one of the main reasons why I said it. Hopefully no bad will come of this.

 

[Burgey]

Scg had stopped being the big turning ground it once was by te 2000s. I recall the ICC match. I went to day two or three and saw that spell where Murali bowled brilliantly. Certainly better than viriya's posts suggest (ie, that he was creating a chance every 10 overs or so). I think he was all over Katich in particular like a fat kid on cake.

 

[Burgey]

Given Murali's record here is so bad, like a factor of 2.5:1 over even Warne's terrible record in India which everyone throws a bucket of **** at him over, it's hard to really find any justification for ranking Murali the higher of the two tbh.

 

[the big bambino]

You could review his ODI record and get an overall picture of his Australian record. Against Aus in Aus he played 28 odis and averaged 35. Again high when set against his overall record but the difference is in an acceptable range. Whereas the difference in his test record is a blow out.

Murali played 41 odis in Aus so that's another 13 games against non Aus opposition. His average in these games is in the 20s - same conditions but against opponents not familiar with exploiting them.

Murali's record here is a reflection of the strength of opponent he had to face and a consequence of the way Australia chose to play him as much as the conditions. I think Ponting said the strategy was to deny him wickets and you could say the methods they used to play him succeeded. In tests they were able to bleed runs from him but in odis they had to be more attacking and he was more successful.

So all up yeah, tough conditions but also strong opponents and a tactic that successfully isolated him rendering him ineffective.

 

[Burgey]

There should be a thread made to discuss the relative merits of the two bowlers imo.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

didn't sledge enough

Great post.

 

[cnerd123]

There should be a thread made to discuss the relative merits of the two bowlers imo.

I for one am shocked that a hard-hitting forum like CW has yet to discuss the real questions, like Warne vs Murali or whether or not Cricket needs a strong West Indies.

 

[Dan]

iirc Australia were also pretty happy just to play Murali out -- give him his 1/35 (10), back yourself to get to 250 against the rest, back your bowlers to knock them over or restrict them comfortably.

 

[Burgey]

Who cares about the ODI record? It's about tests here.

 

[Spikey]

except for that one OD game at the SCG when he went for 99 runs. that counts.

 

[watson]

I put Murali's mediocre performances down to the psychological stress that he must have been under due to the media scrutiny re his action. Also, it must have been difficult to focus during a game with Darrell Bruce Hair and co. breathing down his neck.

 

[Burgey]

I don't blame Darrel Hair for calling him one bit. It was completely the right thing for him to do under the laws as they were at the time. There was no system for sending bowlers off to be checked when he called Murali, it was in the umpire's hands.

 

[the big bambino]

Nup. Thread says why was murali a really bad bowler in oz. No qualification on format. So odi comparison is fair.

 

[Burgey]

The OP also noted how he'd read in another thread he'd averaged Triple M in Australia. He did that in tests. I know, because I posted it.

There's so many excuses being put up - he was young, he was old, he was worried about the crowds, he was nervous about an umpire. No one else gets cut this slack, and the bloke already had a genetic advantage over everyone else anyway. Just front up and admit he was a brilliant bowler but his record here was the worst of virtually any ATG bowler in a single country who played over multiple series. It's horrendous. I can't believe it's been allowed to sail through to the keeper (unlike virtually any of his deliveries here) for so long. The collective amnesia of the Murali Cabal on here has been Trump-like in its audacity in letting such a gaping hole have no effect on their Murali love-in.

Terrible analysis.

 

[the big bambino]

Ok - didn't see the thread. I looked at odis as a bit of a comparison as I was thinking judging his ability here on 5 tests is a bit skinny. I mean Holding averaged 60 here on his first visit though I'm not saying Murali would have done anywhere near as well if he played here as often. I think he would have done better than 75 though and I'm just trying to find a way to put some matches into that belief, even if they are odis.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah but I mean Holding averaging 60 in his first visit here is like nearly twice as good as Murali's record anyway. It's just diabolical.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

There's a difference between excuses and explanations.

 

[the big bambino]

Explain them.

 

[sledger]

I agree that there are differences between excuses and explanations, but "He was worried about an umpire" is piss weak, regardless of which category it falls into.