View Full Version : Murali sets out his retirement plan
jakethesnake
31 Jul 2009, 19:08
http://www.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/current/story/417016.html
"I am not going to play for a long time. Next year's West Indies series will be the last two Test matches I will be playing," Muralitharan said. "That's the right time for me because I will be 38 years old. The 2011 World Cup is my aim, but I will enjoy playing Twenty20 cricket for a few more years."
Massive announcement from one of the best spin bowlers of all time (if not the best). Going out on top, in grand style, so kudos to Murali.
mansize rooster
31 Jul 2009, 19:41
spin bowler?
http://www.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/current/story/417016.html
Massive announcement from one of the best spin bowlers of all time (if not the best). Going out on top, in grand style, so kudos to Murali.
No, not the best.
Great spin bowler but nobody is a better spinner than Shane Warne.
DeadlyAkkuret
31 Jul 2009, 20:13
He's finally decided to chuck in the towel?
Selective Retention
31 Jul 2009, 20:16
Back in my day players retired from one day cricket to concentrate on tests. IPL :thumbsd:
jakethesnake
31 Jul 2009, 20:17
spin bowler?
yah
No, not the best.
Great spin bowler but nobody is a better spinner than Shane Warne.
highly debatable
He's finally decided to chuck in the towel?
what
Cooldude
31 Jul 2009, 20:29
highly debatable
Not really, let Warnie play 70% of his Tests on pitches specifically doctored to suit him and he would've gotten far more wickets than Murali.
Murali's one of the best at what he does but he's been favoured a lot in all areas on and off the field.
King Elvis
31 Jul 2009, 20:39
I like the guy as a person, but as a Cricket fan; thank christ he's finishing up.
His legacy will be a generation of spinners with extremely suspect actions - vale cricket.
Statistically speaking, the greatest spin bowler ever (even if the stats do lie, factoring in the location & teams he gained a lot of wickets against).
Not buying into the chucking debate.
Test cricket will be all the better for his passing.
Sad day for test cricket when he retires. The best spinner of the modern era hands-down. One of the all-time greats of cricket internationally too. Would make the all-time XI in a canter.
Team Mo'
2 Aug 2009, 18:30
Retirement plan? Baseball....
You will be sorely missed champ...
http://www.everyjoe.com/files/82/2008/01/murali.jpg
Team Mo'
2 Aug 2009, 18:48
Sad day for test cricket when he retires. The best spinner of the modern era hands-down. One of the all-time greats of cricket internationally too. Would make the all-time XI in a canter.
Genuine LOL's were had.
jakethesnake
2 Aug 2009, 18:54
Pretty fair comments. Debatable, but certainly believable.
Team Mo'
2 Aug 2009, 19:21
Pretty fair comments. Debatable, but certainly believable.
This doesn't make sense.
How can they be debatable when one says "hands down?" This leaves to no discussion and only one supposed "clear" answer that everyone is assumed to believe. Pretty unfair you'd think with the quality we've witnessed in recent times...
Sure, there's been quality in recent times.
But Murali is still hands-down the best of the modern (post-war) era.
I could soften "hands-down" to "obviously" or "clearly", but it wouldn't alter his place at the top.
Can't think of anyone who was a more talented spinner than he is.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39894000/jpg/_39894326_murali_gi300x300.jpg
Sure, there's been quality in recent times.
But Murali is still hands-down the best of the modern (post-war) era.
I could soften "hands-down" to "obviously" or "clearly", but it wouldn't alter his place at the top.
Can't think of anyone who was a more talented spinner than he is.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39894000/jpg/_39894326_murali_gi300x300.jpg
S.K Warne.
Warne, yeah he was "ok".
But you gotta remember a few things...
If you wanna talk about "debatable", McGill was arguably better than he was.
So Warne wasn't a one in a million type talent, just really good, like McGill, and McGill arguably even better.
Secondly, Warne had the benefit of McGrath, Gillepsie, etc, holding down an end for extended periods of time, or ripping thru top order, or early break-thru, exposing the middle-order to Warne often/early....who could really tee-off and be an aggressive bowler.
If there was such a thing as "assisted wickets", most of Warne's would have been credited "assisted wickets" to McGrath/Gillepsie.
Whereas Muralithuran had to constantly be both his team's 'mcgrath' and his team's 'warne'.
Vaas did help a bit, but Vaas is nowhere near the talent that McGrath was, and there wasnt much else behind Vaas.
Another thing...
Australia a dominant nation at the time bat and ball, so in that golden era of constant winning, always 20 wickets up for grabs and beating down on opponents for cheap wickets or collapses.
While, Sri Lanka was always still a bit of a minnow, or mediocre team, and there wasnt a lot of wickets on offer, or beating down opponents series after series.
All that stuff further increases the percentages of bowlers collecting bags of wickets (australia).
legend166
2 Aug 2009, 20:00
Warne, yeah he was "ok".
But you gotta remember a few things...
If you wanna talk about "debatable", McGill was arguably better than he was.
So Warne wasn't a one in a million type talent, just really good, like McGill, and McGill arguably even better.
Secondly, Warne had the benefit of McGrath, Gillepsie, etc, holding down an end for extended periods of time, or ripping thru top order, or early break-thru, exposing the middle-order to Warne often/early.
If there was such a thing as "assisted wickets", most of Warne's would have been credited "assisted wickets" to McGrath/Gillepsie.
Whereas Muralithuran had to constantly be both his team's 'mcgrath' and his team's 'warne'.
Vaas did help a bit, but Vaas is nowhere near the talent that McGrath was, and there wasnt much else behind Vaas.
Another thing...
Australia a dominant nation at the time bat and ball, so in that golden era of constant winning, always 20 wickets up for grabs and beating down on opponents for cheap wickets or collapses.
While, Sri Lanka was always still a bit of a minnow, or mediocre team, and there wasnt a lot of wickets on offer, or beating down opponents series after series.
All that stuff further increases the percentages of bowlers collecting bags of wickets (australia).
Are you drunk?
Murali also had the help of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and other minnows that Sri Lanka constantly played over the years.
I can't say he's the best when what he has accomplished has been very heavily enhanced by playing minnows.
Murali is a great spinner but Warne is a greater spinner.
I will be drunk when Murali formerly retires, in celebration of the greatest spinner bar none in the post-war era.
McGill would have collected 700 wickets if he had played thru behind McGrath/Gillepsie in that dominant Australian era. That highlights both McGill and Warne were just really good, good enough to perform to a high standard consistently enough to reap the rewards of McGrath/Gillepsie and the pressure the Australian batting team was able to apply to oppositions.
Sri Lanka and other sub-continent nations have had billions of spinners come thru the first class system or test teams and none of them could ever match the prodigiousness that is Muralithuran. That also highlights how rare a talent he is.
Geez, even Dutchie Holland playing 10 years under that 90's Aussie team could've bagged 500 wickets. That a nation like ours could pretty much slot any 'good enough' first class spinner in (from the very few that we even have) and see them do well is more indicative of the strenght of talent of our pace attack (mcgrath/etc) and our batting lineup than the talent level of our stocks of spinners, compared to the far more heavily competitive spin-stocks in the sub-continent.
Cooldude
2 Aug 2009, 20:26
Someone's trying very hard to be on the wind up
I backed it all up with excellent argument.
It's a bit saddening that Australian fans cant be fair dinkum and acknowledge a superior talent from overseas, especially from the subcontinent that seems to annoy most people more.
But everyone is so quick to pronounce, for instance, Hayden the greatest opening bat of the modern era. Which is a lol.
Cooldude
2 Aug 2009, 21:07
"Excellent" being the word that's extremely stretching it, the complete opposite can be argued.
Anyway, I won't respond to wind up merchants, it's a waste of time
SriLankanCat
2 Aug 2009, 21:21
Not really, let Warnie play 70% of his Tests on pitches specifically doctored to suit him and he would've gotten far more wickets than Murali.
Murali's one of the best at what he does but he's been favoured a lot in all areas on and off the field.
I assume u think the same way when u compare Mcgrath to say Vaas, AKram, Waqar??? Mcgrath played mostly on pace friednly wikcets. Vaas, Akram and Waqar didnt.
Mcgrath will always be one of the best bowlers ever.
Murali may have had wickets prepared to suit him but he has been good enough to takle advantage. Many others werent.
Also i ask anyone out there to go and chuck and tell me if u have the skill to take the number of wicjkets murali has
Wind up merchant? So whenever someone's opinion may differ but they put in a genuine load of good reasons to support his arguement, he's a wind up merchant?
I genuinely believe what i argued, and instead i think it's more of a shock that fair dinkum minded cricket lovers would NOT see the validity in the supporting points. One can easily step back and say "hmmm, he/she DOES have a point there".
Btw, im not even Sri Lankan! Im Aussie and can see the truth that Muralithuran was clearly the most prodigious spinning talent of recent decades, and that Warne/McGill are more products of the stuff i said in previous posts.
That's the thing i dont like....how one is supposed to as an aussie to just put bias and pride before truth/objectivity. Youre not an aussie supposedly if you dont proclaim every single aussie sportstar the greatest in everything and the code of AR the best in the world.
Wind up merchant? So whenever someone's opinion may differ but they put in a genuine load of good reasons to support his arguement, he's a wind up merchant?
I genuinely believe what i argued, and instead i think it's more of a shock that fair dinkum minded cricket lovers would NOT see the validity in the supporting points. One can easily step back and say "hmmm, he/she DOES have a point there".
Btw, im not even Sri Lankan! Im Aussie and can see the truth that Muralithuran was clearly the most prodigious spinning talent of recent decades, and that Warne/McGill are more products of the stuff i said in previous posts.
That's the thing i dont like....how one is supposed to as an aussie to just put bias and pride before truth/objectivity. Youre not an aussie supposedly if you dont proclaim every single aussie sportstar the greatest in everything and the code of AR the best in the world.
you're always arguing your crackpot opinions are genuine and honest. but what they rarely do is ever reference facts. going against the grain is only interesting when a relevant alternative viewpoint is presented, not just an attention grabbing attempt at being controversial. if you can present evidence and argue coherently the earth is flat you'd be really interesting, but all too often, on a 100 different subjects, its "the earth is flat, ooooh look at me, I am soooo controversial, I am always thinking out the box" and that's it.
what is true is that
Murali has long been accused of chucking
Murali has been shunned by the opinion of crickets intelligentsia (look how often he is neglected in conversations about greatest ever, richie benaud;s recently was a prime case in point)
the rules were changed to remove doubt about his action
a high proportion of wickets have been taken at home, and against lower tier oppositions (bangladesh for example)
Murali is not accepted by other cricketers, past and present, and that alone calls into doubt his status as one of the greats.
Best spinner I've seen.
He averages 26 away from home and Warne averages 25. Not much difference.
SriLankanCat
2 Aug 2009, 21:42
donno why people waste their time trying to argue about Warne and Murali., they are both legends. Cant compare them at all.
One of the best things is we were privileged to see to guys who made the art of spin bowling come back to cricket. We were lucky they showed the ball spin both ways...warne being a leggie and murali an offie.
Both showed amazing skill and intelligence and it was magic watching them bowl!
I for one am not gonna waste time arguing over who is better cause they are both legemds :D
Murali has long been accused of chucking
Murali has been shunned by the opinion of crickets intelligentsia (look how often he is neglected in conversations about greatest ever, richie benaud;s recently was a prime case in point)
the rules were changed to remove doubt about his action
a high proportion of wickets have been taken at home, and against lower tier oppositions (bangladesh for example)
Murali is not accepted by other cricketers, past and present, and that alone calls into doubt his status as one of the greats.
Talk about running off a bunch of opinion as fact. lol.
Accused of chucking is relevant how?
Shunned by "intellegentsia"? You mean EVERYONE? Or just a few opinions of former cricketers? What about all the other former cricketers who DONT shun him? Not important?
Richie Benaud = 1 opinion, big deal.
Rules were changed, but not BECAUSE OF him. In fact, a lot of world bowlers were found to bend the arm 15 degrees....including McGrath, Lee, Donald, etc etc. Rules were changed for ALL.
Not accepted by other cricketers? You mean EVERYONE? Or just a bunch of opinions of current cricketers? What about all the other current cricketers who DO ACCEPT him? Not important?
Typical "aussie" bias. I say "aussie" because i dont think that's what a REAL fair dinkum pov of a real Australian is.
delirious1
2 Aug 2009, 22:23
Am i going to be killed in saying both were freaks and you couldnt split them?
I see the merit in Saying Murali was better, Throwing in arguments like "chucking" is just lowering the argument, Warne did play in a very good team, but you could say that having Mcgrath/Gillespie in the team possibly hindered him taking as many wickets, because he wasnt always the main weapon in Australia's bowling line-up, while Murali has always had first crack
I can appreciate your post, delirious1, because at least you're fair dinkum and can acknowledge greatness and have respect. Same as Sri LankanCat, jakethesnake, CrazyQ, and others who can applaud the likes of McGrath as one of the best ever without bias, and who can laud both Warne and Murali without bias.
Anyway, this was supposed to be a thread celebrating the great man, not attacks and defenses made on him.
Congratulations on a magnificent career...
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43998000/jpg/_43998651_520_getty416.jpg
legitimatic
3 Aug 2009, 03:47
Good riddance, disgrace to the game of cricket, I assumed mods knew better than to troll GG :confused:
TorresIsGod
3 Aug 2009, 13:28
I thought so to legitimatic.
How can he get away with it? It's an obvious troll.
Murali chucked it, Warne was a legitimate bowler.
Therefore, Warne is far greater than Murali, that's not even taking into consideration than Murali played a lot of tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and had all the pitches on the sub continent doctored to his liking.
MaccaKnowsBest
3 Aug 2009, 13:41
Murali also had the help of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and other minnows that Sri Lanka constantly played over the years.
I can't say he's the best when what he has accomplished has been very heavily enhanced by playing minnows.
Murali is a great spinner but Warne is a greater spinner.
I did a comparison a while back showing that Murali was just as successful as Warne when excluding the minnows.
I think it's sad and a shame that people can rubbish a player like this. Rubbish him entirely. And think that if anyone might disagree to that, if thousands of fans out there genuinely believe Murali the best, and/or Murali deserves accolades, and/or wants to celebrate Murali's achievements, that they must be a troll.
Ie, "warne is the greatest and cos he's an aussie, anyone who thinks otherwise is a troll". Imo, THATS a troll. Because with this thread being started to celebrate Murali's retirement and career, and people going to come in and say "congrats well done Murali, you're one of the best (or the best)" then people coming in to rubbish him IS the trolling! Not the other way around.
There are thousands of fans and former cricketers in Australia/abroad who think this way. But it doesnt make all those opinions right. Meanwhile, there are thousands of international/aussie fans and former cricketers who do think Murali is the best, or equal with Warne, or deserving of accolades and respect as a great bowler of our generation.
How come THEIR opinion is somehow supposed to not count for anything? If you added up all the 'nay' vs 'yay' i bet there'd be millions more who dont rubbish Murali as a chucker and say he is one of the all-time greats (or him and warne equal best). Why would millions of sub-continent or international fans opinions (being the most popular and the consensus) be considered unimportant, and "only what aussies think has to be right"?
I did a comparison a while back showing that Murali was just as successful as Warne when excluding the minnows.
Exactly, the stats are there to support it. It's not the amount of wickets, it's things like strike rates and averages (a per wicket way). Against common opponents, and also against the minnows.
And this is while Murali had very little to no bowling support. He had to do it all himself (tie players down AND attack them). Plus all those other things.....how Sri Lanka was always a mediocre team, so was never dominant like Australia during Warne's time (bat and ball), able to BEAT DOWN opponents series after series for cheap wickets and cheap batting collapses. The pressure the Aussie batting team places on the opposition batsmen, and how McGrath being one of the all-time best pace bowlers has greatly assisted Warne/McGill/whoever's-bowling-at-the-other-end's wicket taking ability.
Also, how in the sub-continent there are thousands of spinners always coming thru first-class and tests, the competition far higher to 'make it' to the international level. Yet Murali's talent rose above them all is an achievement and indication of how much more talented he was. Whereas in Australia, during the "McGrath era" we only had like Warne/McGill and far less competition to rise to the Aussie team, anyone who could show first class skill enough to make the Aussie team as a leg-spinner and remain in the team for 10 years was always going to reap hundreds of wickets. It's saying somehow that both McGill and Warne were one-in-a-million types somehow, both at the same time, and both the best spinners in the world, better than all the millions of them in the sub-continent where the competition is much tougher. McGill is arguably better than Warne, and HIS stats (strike-rate/ave) are there to support that debate.
It's the same reason why Australia often produces the best pacemen, and batsmen, that level of competition for spots is so much higher. So the pace bowlers who DO come thru often end up among the best. Why the sub-continent often produce the best batters of spin in the world.
Also, if you want to talk about "cheap" wickets Murali got against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh. The AMOUNT of cheap wickets are there. But the same also counts for how often Australia played a crappy NZ/WI teams during that era, both those teams were crap. And collectively, NZ, WI, SA on very seaming-friendly bouncy fast wickets, were always gonna be sitting ducks for anyone with proficient spinning ability.
Warne, McGill, Murali, and other excellent spinners around the world, all had their way with those team's batters for the same reason.
Belnakor
3 Aug 2009, 14:29
The best way to compare people is to look how they performed head to head, in the same conditions. In that case, such as the Sri Lankan series after Warne's comeback showed they were very close on the same type of pitches ie: Murali at home. Murali has taken almost 500 wickets there at 19 a wicket, which obviously skews his stats.
Here is a simple stat:
Against non minnows, away from home, Murali averages 27.41, taking 243 wickets. Not a bad performance, but hardly excellent.
Warne on the other hand averages 24.56, with 372 wickets, at a better strike rate, 54.9 vs 61.2
Murali:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/49636.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition =1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;oppos ition=6;opposition=7;orderby=default;template=results;type=b owling
Warne:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/8166.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;home_or_awa y=3;opposition=1;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;oppo sition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=default;template= results;type=bowling
At least that's an excellent and unbiased post, Belnakor. Someone to put in the time/effort to look at things impartially (stats) and THEN have some kind of judgment/opinion is always appreciated and respected.
Id look also at Stats vs common opponents, the better nations (like WI, NZ, ENG, SA, IND, PAK) both home and away. Warne (and McGill) versus those nations home and away (strike rates, averages). And then Murali versus those nations home and away (strike rates, averages).
Also, stats still only tell a paper-story. Those things i mentioned about McGrath/Gillepsie and aussie batting dominance, and also how Aust. played a lot of tests against spin-noobs like NZ/WI/SA that they were always fish being shot in a barrel (in terms of Warne's strike rates/aves versus those).
What about Murali's stats on the sub-continent versus India/Pakistan. Much tougher assignment. And compare to Warne's and McGill's efforts there.
Just saying, all those things being weighed up stat-wise and observation-wise would be interesting to analyze.
courtjester
3 Aug 2009, 14:37
If you set aside the fact that Murali was a chucker, Warne and Murali are about on par.
I'd take Warne in my team anyday though.
If you were taking a leg-spinner, youd take Warne (or McGill), probably ahead of Kumble. If you were taking an off-spinner, you'd take Murali. Tho he's special because he's a wrist-spinning 'offy' who can proficiently turn it both ways.
It's for that reason that if there was some World XI team, where they were playing on various pitches around the world, to suit conditions, and a need for 1 spinner only and 3 pace bowlers, id take Murali. But if they were playing two spinners, I'd take both Murali and Warne (with McGill and Kumble next in line pending injury).
There isnt another off-spinner type who would compete or back-up Murali in that hypothetical world XI.
Harbhajan Singh maybe.
King Elvis
3 Aug 2009, 15:26
Sure, there's been quality in recent times.
But Murali is still hands-down the best of the modern (post-war) era.
I could soften "hands-down" to "obviously" or "clearly", but it wouldn't alter his place at the top.
Can't think of anyone who was a more talented spinner than he is.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39894000/jpg/_39894326_murali_gi300x300.jpg
Nice trolling.
He's a chucker and a blight on the game, and, as I said, his legacy will be a generation of young spinners with questionable actions. Goodbye Cricket as we know it, thanks for the memories.
Abba Lonie
3 Aug 2009, 15:39
Murali has been the 2nd-most rubbished cricketer in this thread.
McGill the most rubbished?
I'd say Murali has been the most rubbished in this thread.
Belnakor
3 Aug 2009, 15:53
Id look also at Stats vs common opponents, the better nations (like WI, NZ, ENG, SA, IND, PAK) both home and away. Warne (and McGill) versus those nations home and away (strike rates, averages). And then Murali versus those nations home and away (strike rates, averages).
Measuring Muralis/Warnes records at home i think is a waste of time. Its undenyable that most Sri Lankan pitches are doctored to take spin. That is simply a fact.
Warne's record in Sri Lanka is very good - 48 wickets at 20.45 with an awesome SR of 39.6.
Murali's record in Sri Lanka vs non minnows is actually worse than Warne's.
Murali at home, against non minnows
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/49636.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2 ;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposit ion=7;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling
594 wickets @ 24.28 with a SR of 58.2. Great stats, but not leagues in front of Warne's comparible record in the same circumstances vs a Sri Lankan team strong vs spin.
What about Murali's stats on the sub-continent versus India/Pakistan. Much tougher assignment. And compare to Warne's and McGill's efforts there.
Its hard to compare Warne and Murali in Pakistan, Warne only played 3 tests there in 1994.
Neither Murali or Warne went that crash hot in India, Warne got his wickets at 43.11 and Murali got his at 39.58.
BTW I was looking at Mcgrath's stats. People talk about how good Warne and Murali are: Mcgrath's stats are incomparible, he averaged 21 and the worst stats were 27 vs South Africa. Simply brilliant, they say fast bowling was weak in the late 90s, but not when you played Australia.
No one can argue with McGrath being one of the all-time great pace bowlers.
Imo, people underestimate or understate McGrath's worth/effect to that Aussie team and Warne, why I hold Murali higher than Warne, as he had only Vaas, and had to be his own team's mcgrath and warne.
Btw, if people think im being disingenious on this topic. My favorite players of recent times, in no order....
Gilchrist, Lara, Akram, McGrath, Ambrose, Muralitharan, S.Waugh, C.Cairns.
lions_den
3 Aug 2009, 16:29
Chucker of the highest order. Only allowed to play because his elbow is stuffed up or something which doesn't allow him to straighten it. I say tough titties, people in wheelchairs aren't allowed to play.
cats2rise
3 Aug 2009, 16:39
Nice trolling.
He's a chucker and a blight on the game, and, as I said, his legacy will be a generation of young spinners with questionable actions. Goodbye Cricket as we know it, thanks for the memories.
Yet I bet you anything that if he played for Australia you would defend him 100% and say he was better than Warne if he played for say New Zealand.
Yet I bet you anything that if he played for Australia you would defend him 100% and say he was better than Warne if he played for say New Zealand.
The whole chucking topic is hypocritical too, cos analysis on a lot of world bowlers at the time of the rule change showed that a lot of bowlers around the world were chucking too, their elbows bending beyond at the time the acceptable limit.....including McGrath.
Why it was good the rule was changed to a more acceptable degree.
Belnakor
3 Aug 2009, 17:12
why I hold Murali higher than Warne, as he had only Vaas, and had to be his own team's mcgrath and warne.
while Murali did have to do this, at the same time, Murali did bowl a hell of alot of overs - Murali had bowled the same amount of deliveries after 80 tests that warne did in 140. He basically was able to bowl unchanged, from one end on spin friendly pitches - i think we will see Mendis and other spinners from Sri Lanka have very very good records in Sri Lanka and at "test" level purely because of the pitches over there which simply take spin all 5 days, every test.
Murali doesn't stand out for me because he lacks an aura, his influence on the "team" is very low for someone who takes as many wickets and bowls something like 40% of his teams deliveries in any given test match. You just have to look at Warne, 99 World Cup to say that Murali doesn't have the kind of ability to turn an important match like that.
I will also add that Murali underperformed severely against the benchmark - against the Australians, and in Australia. In Australia he averages over 75 per wicket.
while Murali did have to do this, at the same time, Murali did bowl a hell of alot of overs - Murali had bowled the same amount of deliveries after 80 tests that warne did in 140. He basically was able to bowl unchanged, from one end on spin friendly pitches - i think we will see Mendis and other spinners from Sri Lanka have very very good records in Sri Lanka and at "test" level purely because of the pitches over there which simply take spin all 5 days, every test.
Murali doesn't stand out for me because he lacks an aura, his influence on the "team" is very low for someone who takes as many wickets and bowls something like 40% of his teams deliveries in any given test match. You just have to look at Warne, 99 World Cup to say that Murali doesn't have the kind of ability to turn an important match like that.
I will also add that Murali underperformed severely against the benchmark - against the Australians, and in Australia. In Australia he averages over 75 per wicket.
Good post.
Well, the amount of overs bowled isnt a slight on him tho. Traditionally spinners are used this way, bowling all day long. Warne was used in a far more aggressive manner (due to McGrath). Strike bowling Leg-Spinner. There were a number of times Warne, due to circumstance or injury to others, have to take on the "murali" kind of role of bowling all day in both a spoiling and strike-weapon fashion.
If SrL did have a great pace/swing bowler and SrL were a test cricket force too, Murali wouldve been used more aggressively.
Murali was adept at being a match-winner, or swinging a match around, just it's hard to be THE man 100% every day every game every year, and had to play various bowling roles.
Murali underperformed in Australia, imo, due to the BS he had to endure here with the witch-hunting. He never really got to play here properly, the off-field distractions and stuff would surely have gotten to him here cos he's a shy humble kind of guy. Not a social warrior like Warne or Botham were.
I thought so to legitimatic.
How can he get away with it? It's an obvious troll.
Murali chucked it, Warne was a legitimate bowler.
Therefore, Warne is far greater than Murali, that's not even taking into consideration than Murali played a lot of tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and had all the pitches on the sub continent doctored to his liking.
Murali chucks, Warne was a drug cheat. Who cares?
The fact is Murali plays within the rules because he was allowed to bowl.
How can he chuck if he's allowed to bowl?
As to whos better you can argue either way but in the end a 25% difference in average is too much.
If i was to say Gooch was a better player than Ponting because he had to bat more on greentops where is swings and the light is always bad, whereas Ponting played on fast bouncy flat tracks in sunshine. People would say im an idiot.
But that is no worse an argument than Warne being better than Murali im afraid.
Before the rule change on acceptable bend in the arm, McGrath was OVER the limit too. Same with many bowlers around the world.
So let it be said McGrath was nothing but a chucker, not a legitimate bowler....if people want to hang Murali.
Just watch McGrath's bowling action yourselves if you can get some footage.
That's why the whole "chucking" topic used to discredit bowlers is false. McGrath one of the best all-time pace bowlers ever, and Murali one of the best all-time spinners ever.
The whole "chucking" rule needed a new investigation and modern scientific analysis done, as it had been decades and decades without being properly tested and the old 'rule' redundant.
Belnakor
3 Aug 2009, 17:42
Good post.
Well, the amount of overs bowled isnt a slight on him tho. Traditionally spinners are used this way, bowling all day long. Warne was used in a far more aggressive manner (due to McGrath). Strike bowling Leg-Spinner. There were a number of times Warne, due to circumstance or injury to others, have to take on the "murali" kind of role of bowling all day in both a spoiling and strike-weapon fashion.
I disagree in some aspects. The reason why Warne was such a force in world cricket, was his ability to do both - both contain AND attack. Before Warne, going around the wicket as a leg spinner was considered to be a negative ploy - Warne changed the game by making it an offensive move that also stifled the runs. There is no doubt that Mcgrath helped somewhat, but on the occasions where Mcgrath was not firing or Warne needed to bowl alot of overs, he did do it, and did it well. Arguably better than Murali did. Though Murali did have the advantage of a more economical bowling action.
If SrL did have a great pace/swing bowler and SrL were a test cricket force too, Murali wouldve been used more aggressively.
Maybe, maybe not. Its a woulda coulda shoulda anyway.
Murali was adept at being a match-winner, or swinging a match around, just it's hard to be THE man 100% every day every game every year, and had to play various bowling roles.
He couldn't inspire his teammates, thats what it comes down to. A guy with his record should have played in more test wins than he did, particularly at home.
The 0-3 result when Australia came over to Sri Lanka when Murali was at the peak of his powers was probably the biggest blemish. An Australian lineup that was traditionally weak against spin, went into every 2nd innings behind (by up to 160 runs) and Murali's much vaunted powers in the 2nd innings meant nothing as Australia piled up 512, 442 and 375. Sure he took 13 wickets in those innings, but he went for 419 runs in those innings. The guy just didn't have the abillity to impose himself. In those matches the 2nd innings Warne took 14 wickets for 225 runs.
Murali underperformed in Australia, imo, due to the BS he had to endure here with the witch-hunting. He never really got to play here properly, the off-field distractions and stuff would surely have gotten to him here cos he's a shy humble kind of guy. Not a social warrior like Warne or Botham were.
Champions play their best against the best opposition. Warne did that in South Africa when they were the No.2 nation, Murali massively underperformed in a country he desperately wanted to perform well in.
Belnakor
3 Aug 2009, 17:45
So let it be said McGrath was nothing but a chucker, not a legitimate bowler....if people want to hang Murali.
I think you'll find Mcgrath's action was generally ok but sometimes hovered around the threshold. Certainly not every delivery. IIRC there was only one bowler in world cricket who didn't straighten his arm by some % which was Sarwan bowling his part-time leg spin - keeping in mind its nigh impossible to straighten your arm bowling proper leg spin - Warne wasn't playing when the testing was done.
People are entitled to call Murali a chucker because he was proven to be throwing his Doosra past the new tolerances. He modified his action after some work, but it is indisputable that he took some of his wickets with deliveries that were outside the tolerances. I still think his action on the doosra is dodgy when he is tired, but by and large his "stock delivery" is within the tolerances.
Belnakor....
Just on the comment about Murali couldn't inspire his teammates.
The mistake you're making is tarring him entirely as "one who could not inspire", like never. And you're relating that to test wins as being a direct sign of inspiring teammates. But SrL, in all their mediocrity as a cricketing nation, DID have many famous wins and has actually been quite a giant-killer as a minnow nation. Famous WC victories, test victories, series victories. All due to who?? To certain key players INSPIRING the victory---at times it was Murali, or Vaas, or De Silva, etc.
Australia were able to be so dominant because they always had many players able to inspire each other innings to innings. You're talking about generally far more talented batters and pace bowlers and fielders, and with hundreds of years of heritage and junior development.
But SrL youre talking about a situation where generally "you cant polish a ****" in terms of how less talented they were for many years. Look at Richard Hadlee....someone very similar in the Murali situation.....the only true star on his team, and had to do it all, and they didnt win many tests or series thru his career. Yet your argument would be the same there----Hadlee never inspired, could not inspire, his team to more wins, so he must be inferior or an unspirational player. But the NZ teams thru Hadlee's career were also a situation of not being able to polish a ****.....ie, inspire run of the mill below average players into somehow playing like Hall of Famers.
But it doesnt make Hadlee actually a non-inspirational player, or an inferior pace-bowler, etc.
I think you'll find Mcgrath's action was generally ok but sometimes hovered around the threshold. Certainly not every delivery. IIRC there was only one bowler in world cricket who didn't straighten his arm by some % which was Sarwan bowling his part-time leg spin - keeping in mind its nigh impossible to straighten your arm bowling proper leg spin - Warne wasn't playing when the testing was done.
People are entitled to call Murali a chucker because he was proven to be throwing his Doosra past the new tolerances. He modified his action after some work, but it is indisputable that he took some of his wickets with deliveries that were outside the tolerances. I still think his action on the doosra is dodgy when he is tired, but by and large his "stock delivery" is within the tolerances.
I think the findings showed that McGrath's (and many others) action was on or over the threshold just as often as Murali----the OLD rule i mean.
After they changed the rule to a higher threshold, Murali's doosra still needed modifying to keep it under the threshold. But the point is, many world bowlers (including people unsuspected of 'chucking') were on or over the OLD threshold as often as Murali.
That investigation was good to be done because that whole "chucking" rule needed an update, a modern scientific analysis and recommendation on what really was or wasnt acceptable. As it had never been properly done before.
It's like we now have hot spots and hawkeye and third umpires on stumpings and runouts, and challenges etc etc. Science and technology updating cricket in the modern era.
TheColeTrain
3 Aug 2009, 18:25
A great leg spinner is better then a great off spinner.
Warne>>Murali, both great bowlers, Warne mastered a much harder craft though and didnt have pitches heavily doctored to his advantage either
A great leg spinner is better then a great off spinner.
Warne>>Murali, both great bowlers, Warne mastered a much harder craft though and didnt have pitches heavily doctored to his advantage either
Why? do their wickets count as double? or a 6 is only 3 runs off a leggie?
Belnakor
3 Aug 2009, 18:38
I think the findings showed that McGrath's (and many others) action was on or over the threshold just as often as Murali----the OLD rule i mean.
After they changed the rule to a higher threshold, Murali's doosra still needed modifying to keep it under the threshold. But the point is, many world bowlers (including people unsuspected of 'chucking') were on or over the OLD threshold as often as Murali.
Incorrect. According to http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2004/may/15murali.htm
Murali's Doosra was at 14" in lab conditions - you are kidding yourself if a few mods in a lab are going to fix his action permenantly.
That investigation was good to be done because that whole "chucking" rule needed an update, a modern scientific analysis and recommendation on what really was or wasnt acceptable. As it had never been properly done before.
It's like we now have hot spots and hawkeye and third umpires on stumpings and runouts, and challenges etc etc. Science and technology updating cricket in the modern era.
they aren't that far off being able to tell if a bowler is throwing on the spot, though i believe they would need to wear a brace or some description.
Belnakor
3 Aug 2009, 18:39
Famous WC victories, test victories, series victories. All due to who?? To certain key players INSPIRING the victory---at times it was Murali, or Vaas, or De Silva, etc.
I can only think of 3-4 times that Murali has spun his team to victory against quality opposition. Feel free to quote some matches.
Belnakor
3 Aug 2009, 18:42
But SrL youre talking about a situation where generally "you cant polish a ****" in terms of how less talented they were for many years. Look at Richard Hadlee....someone very similar in the Murali situation.....the only true star on his team, and had to do it all, and they didnt win many tests or series thru his career. .
And yet when Australia came to Sri Lanka, Murali failed to guide his team to victory, even though the batsman had put them in a great position.
The Sri Lankan batting during Murali's time hasn't been that bad. Its actually been pretty reasonable, no longer the minnows they used to be.
On that link, that was just one of several studies.
But even in that study...
REVIEW: Coach's Perspective
Murali is now bowling the "doosra" with a more side-on action, which has reduced the amount of straightening of his bowling arm between horizontal and ball release to 10 degrees.
Ten degrees of straightening bowling the "doosra" is still 5 degrees above the tolerance limit set by the ICC for spin bowlers. However, the following should be taken into consideration.
ICC tolerance figures of 10 degrees, 7.5 degrees and 5 degrees for bowlers ranging from fast to spin are based on what information, studies or research?
Without knowing what the situation is with other spin bowlers, it would seem unrealistic to ban Murali's "doosra" without the benefit of proper research having been undertaken into "normal" spin bowlers.
Other off-spin bowlers, in particular Harbhajan, Saqlain and Shoaib Malik, all bowl the doosra delivery, which suggests for comparison purposes their "other one" should also be analysed.
Murali's arm velocity from horizontal to ball release is very similar to that of Shabbir Ahmed's, a fast bowler recently tested at the University of Western Australia. This raises the question of why 10 degrees of extension for a fast bowler is acceptable, with only 5 degrees of tolerance granted to a spin bowler whose arm speed is similar.
The question also has to be posed as to when does a bowler gain an advantage from "straightening". Marc Portus, in his latest research into fast bowling, suggests 15 degrees as being a point after which there may be some speed advantage gained by the fast bowler. However, no such research has been conducted into spin bowling. It may be that 15 degrees of extension be allowed to all types of bowlers no matter what speed they bowl at, beyond which it be termed an illegal delivery.
Marc Portus's fast bowling research investigated thirty-four deliveries bowled by twenty-one fast bowlers. Fourteen of these deliveries were in excess of the ICC Tolerance Level of 10 degrees. When the tolerance level was raised to 15 degrees there were still four illegal deliveries. This indicates there are fast bowlers who are regularly operating outside legal limits, whereas Murali only bowls his "doosra" approximately one in every twelve deliveries.
It is possible that the straightening of the elbow by all types of bowlers is a biomechanical reality. It is my contention that since fast bowlers have been operating with a front-on action, they have regularly extended their elbow more than the accepted limit, particularly when they bowl short-pitched deliveries.
The analysis of Murali's "doosra" conducted at the University of Western Australia's Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science used the most up-to-date technology and highly trained staff to determine the degrees of straightening of his bowling arm.
This process needs to be used earlier in a bowler's development so as to provide a factual base for future discussion of the laws pertaining to legitimate bowling actions.
In conclusion Murali, who has been tested more than any other bowler in the history of the game — 1995, 1999, and now 2004, possesses different physical characteristics which make him a unique bowler.
The results from these tests suggest that a straightening of 10 degrees when he bowls his doosra is not excessive and that should not therefore be deemed advantageous.
Belnakor
3 Aug 2009, 18:57
He tested at 14" the first round of testing. Just 1 degree off exceeding the new limit of 15. You are living in a fantasy land if you think every one of his deliveries that point onwards was delivered to those conditions.
"Murali is now bowling the "doosra" with a more side-on action, which has reduced the amount of straightening of his bowling arm between horizontal and ball release to 10 degrees."
So what happens if he doesn't bowl side-on? What happens when he is tired? He was *right* at the limit, and thats why there will always be a question mark over the guy.
the only way to clear him would be to go through with a computer program, view every one of his dismissals and work out if he went past 15 on them.
Do you not want to read what the Concluding Coach's Perspective says? There are many boldable points in there.
TheColeTrain
3 Aug 2009, 19:04
Why? do their wickets count as double? or a 6 is only 3 runs off a leggie?
No, its a pretty commonly held view that leg spin is a lot harder then off spin is to bowl, their is also more variation
THRILLHO
3 Aug 2009, 22:36
GG comparing New Zealand and the West Indies to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe? That's a stretch. Two of those four teams are genuine minnows of Test cricket and two are middle tier teams. One team also had one of the greatest ever batsman in Lara, so to compare the teams is bullshit and GG, you should know better.
I dont particularly care for Muraliduran. Good spinner, not the best. Warne could make grown men lose sleep. Muraliduran simply worried batsmen with his prodigious spin off the deck. The English are still haunted by the ghost of Warne. Warne was also a much more complete cricketer. Muraliduran resembles Edward Scissorhands in the field, Warne is one of the all-time slips fielders. Muraliduran was a genuine, out-and-out bunny. Warne was a very respectable number nine.
Took over two hundred wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Warne took twenty odd. Fair gap. Doesnt matter too much though, because if Warne had the same opportunities against the genuine minnows as Muraliduran did, I doubt Warne wouldve taken the same number of wickets. Seemed to not care for playing those kinds of teams.
Just because Muraliduran has the greatest number of wickets doesnt mean he's automatically the greatest spinner of all time. I have no doubt that Warne could still be playing today, if he so desired. But he doesnt, for two reasons. Has achieved everything possible in cricket and grew tired of all the training, team meetings and general time-wasting
King Elvis
4 Aug 2009, 01:48
Yet I bet you anything that if he played for Australia you would defend him 100% and say he was better than Warne if he played for say New Zealand.
Australian Cricketers will struggle to reach State level if they have a dubious action.
Really, I don't care what you think, the reality is, he's a chucker, the doosra is a throw (which is already becoming common place), and forgetting Murali individually (as I said earlier, he seems like a champion of a person), the next generation of spin bowlers will more than likely have a larger percentage of bowlers with suspect actions than without, that's a massive, massive problem, and in all reality will transform Cricket.
Abba Lonie
4 Aug 2009, 10:18
McGill the most rubbished?
I'd say Murali has been the most rubbished in this thread.
Warnie by a mile! You've basically called him a good, ordinary cricketer.
Nah, I said Warne was a very good world class player.
The rubbishing tho has been on Murali....being called a disgrace, chucker, illegitimate cricketer, uninspirational, limited, etc.
Talk about bias....
"Warne cannot be called a good world class player, he has to be called a god, otherwise he's being rubbished, but how dare anyone say the disgrace that is Murali was even a human being!"
Abba Lonie
4 Aug 2009, 11:17
I don't think you can put one clearly ahead of the other. Both are once-in-a-generation cricketers, we were lucky to get them both at the same time.
I don't think you can put one clearly ahead of the other. Both are once-in-a-generation cricketers, we were lucky to get them both at the same time.
That kind of objectivity will get you everywhere in life.
Belnakor
4 Aug 2009, 13:31
Murali is a great bowler. I would not call him a great cricketer. The stats show me that Warne was a superior bowler than Murali, but in the end that is no disgrace, Murali is a great bowler - Warne was one of the top 5 cricketers in a century.
You can talk all you want about Murali's wickets, but at the end of the day, his record against non-minnows away from home was inferior to Warne's, his record was essentially padded out by minnows and playing on doctored pitches, and that when Warne did play on those pitches, he performed better than Murali.
Murali still a great bowler, but not one of the all time greats of the game like Warne. I think Murali's legacy will be the amount of wickets he took, the chucking problems and his bags of wickets against sub par opposition. He will be soon forgotten, except in the stats books, whereas Warne was the kind of cricketer who raised the game up and will be remembered alongside guys like Grace, Bradman, Sobers and Hobbs.
Adelaide Hawk
5 Aug 2009, 06:40
Stand by for an announcement, some time early in 2011, by the ICC stating they are clamping down on suspect bowling actions. They've been waiting for Murali's retirement as keenly as I have. Sorry, but I have no regard for Murali's record, he's a chucker, and a blight on the game of cricket. The sooner he retires, the happier I will be.
courtjester
5 Aug 2009, 07:09
If you were taking a leg-spinner, youd take Warne (or McGill), probably ahead of Kumble. If you were taking an off-spinner, you'd take Murali. Tho he's special because he's a wrist-spinning 'offy' who can proficiently turn it both ways.
It's for that reason that if there was some World XI team, where they were playing on various pitches around the world, to suit conditions, and a need for 1 spinner only and 3 pace bowlers, id take Murali. But if they were playing two spinners, I'd take both Murali and Warne (with McGill and Kumble next in line pending injury).
There isnt another off-spinner type who would compete or back-up Murali in that hypothetical world XI.
Harbhajan Singh maybe.
He's not a wrist spinning offie. He's an elbow straightening chucker.
He'll certainly be rated as one of the great - and probably a better bowler than Warne.
Belnakor
6 Aug 2009, 18:28
He'll certainly be rated as one of the great - and probably a better bowler than Warne.
wow how insightful
wow how insightful
Don't like my opinion? Do everyone a favour and don't respond to it then with rpointless ubbish like that.
DeadlyAkkuret
6 Aug 2009, 19:31
Don't like my opinion? Do everyone a favour and don't respond to it then with rpointless ubbish like that.
Damn you really typed that r early.
Damn you really typed that r early.
Ha, talk about premature r-jaculation.
Belnakor
7 Aug 2009, 12:21
Don't like my opinion? Do everyone a favour and don't respond to it then with rpointless ubbish like that.
Was that an opinion? It was more like you were stating some kind of fact with nothing to back it up.
crownie
14 Aug 2009, 07:26
Why? do their wickets count as double? or a 6 is only 3 runs off a leggie?
its harder to bowl leg spin.