Zimbabwe Tour - Off

[DKA]

Your Quote: If you actually watched them play, you'd know that Zoysa, Lokuarachi, Vaas and Dharmasema can all actually bat like specialist batsmen. Whereas on the other hand, Kasper's a dummy, Macgill's a dummy, Gillespie (who can only block) is a dummy.

Please, Sri Lanka's tail doesn't fold for next to nothing, if those guys are specialist batsmen. Oh, and if you STILL regard them as specialist batsmen, then players like Warne/Symonds/Lehmann/Katich, which were in the bottom 5 can also bat a bit. Making my argument, and murali's wickets, look even better.

Yes, I do watch the games thanks, but if you don't have stats, what exactly do you go by?

 

[Cooldude]

Originally posted by DKA

Please, Sri Lanka's tail doesn't fold for next to nothing, if those guys are specialist batsmen. Oh, and if you STILL regard them as specialist batsmen, then players like Warne/Symonds/Lehmann/Katich, which were in the bottom 5 can also bat a bit. Making my argument, and murali's wickets, look even better.

Yes, I do watch the games thanks, but if you don't have stats, what exactly do you go by?

I never said they are specialist batsmen, I said they can bat like one. Zoysa just batted Sri Lanka to victory in one of the ODIs against Aus, so yeah, he can't bat. Lokuarachi from what I saw certainly has a nice technique and has a lot of shots, he made a few when Sri Lanka needed it, so yeah, he can't bat.

You still don't get it, do ya, the position in which they come in from the order does not mean sh*te. Symonds, Gilly and Katich are all from around the bottom 5 but they're all top notch batsmen, yet you count them in the B5. Your stats are flawed and you've gotta face it. If you go by that sentiment, the likes of Tillikeratne, Dilshan, Chanada, Vaas are all bottom 5, yet they're all very good batsmen.

You seem to want to ignore the fact that lots of hundreds were scored on Murali and the fact that he got a lot of dead wickets. Stats are nice and of course you need them, but they are not a bible, nor are they the be-all and end-all, there are stuff beyond the stats that determines whether one is a good batsman/bowler.

If anyone has more than one eye and actually watched the matches, they would've known that Murali did not bowl well at all in that series, he got a lot of cheap wickets and did not have impact on matches that we expect him to have, and in contrast, Warne stamped himself on all 3 matches. Tell me, which stat shows those facts?

 

[DKA]

Originally posted by Cooldude
I never said they are specialist batsmen, I said they can bat like one. Zoysa just batted Sri Lanka to victory in one of the ODIs against Aus, so yeah, he can't bat. Lokuarachi from what I saw certainly has a nice technique and has a lot of shots, he made a few when Sri Lanka needed it, so yeah, he can't bat.

You still don't get it, do ya, the position in which they come in from the order does not mean sh*te. Symonds, Gilly and Katich are all from around the bottom 5 but they're all top notch batsmen, yet you count them in the B5. Your stats are flawed and you've gotta face it. If you go by that sentiment, the likes of Tillikeratne, Dilshan, Chanada, Vaas are all bottom 5, yet they're all very good batsmen.

You seem to want to ignore the fact that lots of hundreds were scored on Murali and the fact that he got a lot of dead wickets. Stats are nice and of course you need them, but they are not a bible, nor are they the be-all and end-all, there are stuff beyond the stats that determines whether one is a good batsman/bowler.

If anyone has more than one eye and actually watched the matches, they would've known that Murali did not bowl well at all in that series, he got a lot of cheap wickets and did not have impact on matches that we expect him to have, and in contrast, Warne stamped himself on all 3 matches. Tell me, which stat shows those facts?

Your stats show that, but unfortunately, they are stats that do not count.

You continue to make the push that I didn't watch the matches, I did.

I know 10 of the 11 aussie team can bat, I also know 7 of the 11 lankans can bat.

What is it that you do not understand, that the aussies have better bats than the lankans, and murali took quite a few wickets of those aussies bats.

It's irrelevent of the "time" murali took his wickets, no one cares. It's the QUALITY OF THE BAT that you dismiss is what counts.

Warne did very well, but you cannot say Murali's wickets weren't of any signifcance.

 

[Cooldude]

Originally posted by DKA
Your stats show that, but unfortunately, they are stats that do not count.

You continue to make the push that I didn't watch the matches, I did.

I know 10 of the 11 aussie team can bat, I also know 7 of the 11 lankans can bat.

What is it that you do not understand, that the aussies have better bats than the lankans, and murali took quite a few wickets of those aussies bats.

It's irrelevent of the "time" murali took his wickets, no one cares. It's the QUALITY OF THE BAT that you dismiss is what counts.

Warne did very well, but you cannot say Murali's wickets weren't of any signifcance.

10 of 11 Aussies can bat? Macgill can't bat, Kasper can't bat, Williams can't bat. For Sri Lanka, the only bloke who can't bat is Murali himself.

What it is that you don't understand, is even if you got Sachin Tendulkar's wicket, but he already has a hundred, 700 is on the board, and he goes out playing a baseball slog at ya, that counts as a wicket, but you did not TAKE the wicket, the batsman gifted you the wicket.

Why is it irrelevant the time he's taken his wickets? The only thing that is irrelevant is some of his wickets. Even if I got Hayden out, I wouldn't take as much pride in it if he played the worst shot in the world to get out. Someone who sets standards as high as Murali's wouldn't be happy either.

As a bowler, you don't go out there and take wickets for yourself, you go and win matches. Warne's wickets resulted in 3 victories and Murali's resulted in none. He did take a few good wickets, but most of them were definitely insignifcant in the context of the match and the series. He had little impact on the 3 matches played.

Warne probably bowled way less overs as well and got around as many wickets, Murali bowled around 300 overs for the series, that's a crap load. (Let's take it as 30 ODIs of work in three matches). He certainly had his chances with the amount of overs he bowled to stamp himself on matches, but he didn't. He took wickets at times (you think time is irrelevant when time is a very important aspect in cricket) when the contest was dead.

 

[DKA]

Originally posted by Cooldude
10 of 11 Aussies can bat? Macgill can't bat, Kasper can't bat, Williams can't bat. For Sri Lanka, the only bloke who can't bat is Murali himself.

Which Sri Lankan team have you been watching? They are the kings of the collapse and have one of the weakest tails.

Originally posted by Cooldude
What it is that you don't understand, is even if you got Sachin Tendulkar's wicket, but he already has a hundred, 700 is on the board, and he goes out playing a baseball slog at ya, that counts as a wicket, but you did not TAKE the wicket, the batsman gifted you the wicket.

Why is it irrelevant the time he's taken his wickets? The only thing that is irrelevant is some of his wickets. Even if I got Hayden out, I wouldn't take as much pride in it if he played the worst shot in the world to get out. Someone who sets standards as high as Murali's wouldn't be happy either.

I can see your point, but stats won't show that "700 was on the board" therefore, it won't be recognised. What would be recognised is "Tendulkar: OUT, Bowled Murali" and I don't think even you can deny that.

Say Gillespie was battling on and on and batted for 3 hours for a paltry 25, Murali got his wicket at a crucial time where Gillespie was trying to make a lead. Would Gillespies wicket be more valuable, than say getting Hayden out at say 20? I think not. As everyone knows the quality of the batsmen that Hayden is.

How many of Murali's wickets were taken where there was no hope exactly? The aussies had a couple of collapses in that series, meaning that any wicket in a collapse would be vital.

Originally posted by Cooldude
As a bowler, you don't go out there and take wickets for yourself, you go and win matches. Warne's wickets resulted in 3 victories and Murali's resulted in none. He did take a few good wickets, but most of them were definitely insignifcant in the context of the match and the series. He had little impact on the 3 matches played.

So, say if Sri Lanka had won the series, and Murali had taken the exact same scalps as he did, would that have made his performance better than Warnes? It should. That is, if we go by your way of thinking, that if the team you play for wins, your performance is automatically better.

Originally posted by Cooldude
Warne probably bowled way less overs as well and got around as many wickets, Murali bowled around 300 overs for the series, that's a crap load. (Let's take it as 30 ODIs of work in three matches). He certainly had his chances with the amount of overs he bowled to stamp himself on matches, but he didn't. He took wickets at times (you think time is irrelevant when time is a very important aspect in cricket) when the contest was dead.

Here we go. The "Oh oh look how many balls he's bowled" argument. And where did that come into it exactly?

Yeah, Murali bowls alot of overs, so what of it? He still had the class to take the wickets. You can bowl all day, and if your ordinary, you won't take wickets. If your good, you'll take them, as Murali has done.

Murali has alot of chances, he takes them. Using the "amount of overs is not fair" as an argument is simply clasping at the preverbial straw.

 

[Cooldude]

Originally posted by DKA
Which Sri Lankan team have you been watching? They are the kings of the collapse and have one of the weakest tails.

Is that the same tail that put on so many runs in the 2nd test? Is that the same tail that put on some resistance in the 3rd? Which Sri Lankan team have you been watching?

Originally posted by DKA

I can see your point, but stats won't show that "700 was on the board" therefore, it won't be recognised. What would be recognised is "Tendulkar: OUT, Bowled Murali" and I don't think even you can deny that.

Ummm, didn't I teach ya that stats don't tell the whole story? There are things beyond the stats. If you look at stats all the time, then Courtney Walsh must be the best fast bowler ever, coz he's got the most wickets. If you go by stats, then Pollock has better career stats than Lillee, so he must be a better bowler. If you go by stats in the current NZ vs Eng test, Harmison has the only wicket, does that make him the best bowler in the innings? No, Andrew Flintoff was.

You don't determine whether someone's a good bowler or who was the best simply by looking at stats, there are things beyond stats. If Tendulkar goes out doing a baseball slog at Murali after getting 179, then Tendulkar won the battle and Murali merely got a gifted wicket. It still counts as a wicket mind you.

Originally posted by DKA

Say Gillespie was battling on and on and batted for 3 hours for a paltry 25, Murali got his wicket at a crucial time where Gillespie was trying to make a lead. Would Gillespies wicket be more valuable, than say getting Hayden out at say 20? I think not. As everyone knows the quality of the batsmen that Hayden is.

Going by the situation of the match, if the top order made jacksh*t, and Aus needs 50 to win, and Dizzy and say Warne were together, and they made 30 odd, and Sri Lanka desperately needs a wicket, and Murali gets one, does that make that wicket more valuable than Hayden's? Then I'd say yes, the match was in the balance and Sri Lanka needs him, and Murali delivered, a potentially matchsaving/winning wicket, regardless of the quality of the batsman, because that wicket was taken at the time that Sri Lanka needs it most, you don't understand that logic, do ya?

Originally posted by DKA

How many of Murali's wickets were taken where there was no hope exactly? The aussies had a couple of collapses in that series, meaning that any wicket in a collapse would be vital.

Want me to count? Around 5 in the first test he got that weren't really wickets he earned while having no bearing on the match, around another 3-4 in the second and 3-4 in the third, when Aussies already had a huge lead and looked to accelerate, Murali got a few cheap ones. There is no way if you watched the match that you wouldn't agree with this, that he got gifted wickets.

Originally posted by DKA

So, say if Sri Lanka had won the series, and Murali had taken the exact same scalps as he did, would that have made his performance better than Warnes? It should. That is, if we go by your way of thinking, that if the team you play for wins, your performance is automatically better.

Of course it does, if Murali bowls Sri Lanka to victory 3 times, even if Warne has had more wickets, Murali would be the better bowler. As a bowler, you don't go for wickets, or averages, you try to win the match for your team. Warne did it three times, Murali 0 times. A matchwinning effort is definitely look upon more highly.

Originally posted by DKA

Here we go. The "Oh oh look how many balls he's bowled" argument. And where did that come into it exactly?

Yeah, Murali bowls alot of overs, so what of it? He still had the class to take the wickets. You can bowl all day, and if your ordinary, you won't take wickets. If your good, you'll take them, as Murali has done.

Class? Lehmann slogging one straight in the air, Warne going for the good ol' baseball homerun swinging your head slog, that's class wickets? Murali does take very classy wickets, but in that series, he hardly did it. "When you're good you'll take them" theory is wrong, Steve Waugh used to roll his arm over and got a few cheap ones, does that make him good? Of course not, he bowls nothing but nude medium pacers. When you bowl more overs you're more likely to get wickets.

Originally posted by DKA

Murali has alot of chances, he takes them. Using the "amount of overs is not fair" as an argument is simply clasping at the preverbial straw.

Who's clutching at straws here, I wonder? You used some flawed stats to try to prove that Murali wasn't taking cheap wickets, you are proven wrong. My sentiment of saying Murali bowling a lot of overs is simply a comparsion of him and Warne, and how Warne bowls less overs and got almost the same amount of wickets, while Murali constantly went into 1/100 in many of those matches then got a few cheap ones in the end because he just bowls so much. Please, even a pie chucker would take a few wickets if he's given 100 overs.

You still fail to convince me that you watched the matches, or you're just as one-eyed as they come. Murali got cheap wickets, whatever straws you're trying to clutch wouldn't change that fact. I fail to see how class has anything to do with it, no one doubts Murali is a class act, but in that series he wasn't.

I wouldn't wanna go to the stage where we'd have to count to amount of wickets taken by the illegal doosra either.

Seems like this argument can go on forever, and you just wouldn't accept that Murali got cheap wickets. If you actually come up with anything worthwhile to prove your point (which you haven't so far), I won't waste my time typing long posts.

 

[DKA]

Originally posted by Cooldude
Is that the same tail that put on so many runs in the 2nd test? Is that the same tail that put on some resistance in the 3rd? Which Sri Lankan team have you been watching?

Can't be bothered to look those stats up, but you can if you want. I can guarantee you, when Sri Lanka collapse, they do it in quick succession, THAT is the team I have been watching.

Originally posted by Cooldude Ummm, didn't I teach ya that stats don't tell the whole story? There are things beyond the stats. If you look at stats all the time, then Courtney Walsh must be the best fast bowler ever, coz he's got the most wickets. If you go by stats, then Pollock has better career stats than Lillee, so he must be a better bowler. If you go by stats in the current NZ vs Eng test, Harmison has the only wicket, does that make him the best bowler in the innings? No, Andrew Flintoff was.

All you teached me, was that it's ok to over look, clear straight forward stats, instead using "the time it was taken" theory. Which you think, somehow superceeds figures.

C. Walsh's record does not mean "he's the greatest fastest bowler ever" which you wrongly threw in there, when you should know better. It means he was the greatest wicket taker, doesn't mean he's the quickest. Just a sample for your flawed EXAMPLE.

And you say, if you go by stats, Pollock is better than Lillee. And why shouldn't he be? Stats prove it, case closed.

Originally posted by Cooldude Of course it does, if Murali bowls Sri Lanka to victory 3 times, even if Warne has had more wickets, Murali would be the better bowler. As a bowler, you don't go for wickets, or averages, you try to win the match for your team. Warne did it three times, Murali 0 times. A matchwinning effort is definitely look upon more highly.

What crap. Right there, your saying if Murali took the same wickets he did in this series, only that Sri Lanka won, HE would have bowled better in the series. Meaning, just because his team won, automatically makes him the better bowler than the opposition?

Say India Vs Pakistan. Tendulkar made 100, but Pakistan won, Afridi made 42. You'd give the Man of the Match award to Afridi, as he was part of the winning team, overlooking, a century to Tendulkar, based on the fact his team didn't win.

Glad YOU don't give out MOM awards.

Originally posted by Cooldude Who's clutching at straws here, I wonder? You used some flawed stats to try to prove that Murali wasn't taking cheap wickets, you are proven wrong. My sentiment of saying Murali bowling a lot of overs is simply a comparsion of him and Warne, and how Warne bowls less overs and got almost the same amount of wickets, while Murali constantly went into 1/100 in many of those matches then got a few cheap ones in the end because he just bowls so much. Please, even a pie chucker would take a few wickets if he's given 100 overs.

You still fail to convince me that you watched the matches, or you're just as one-eyed as they come. Murali got cheap wickets, whatever straws you're trying to clutch wouldn't change that fact. I fail to see how class has anything to do with it, no one doubts Murali is a class act, but in that series he wasn't.

I wouldn't wanna go to the stage where we'd have to count to amount of wickets taken by the illegal doosra either.

Seems like this argument can go on forever, and you just wouldn't accept that Murali got cheap wickets. If you actually come up with anything worthwhile to prove your point (which you haven't so far), I won't waste my time typing long posts.

And, it is you who is posting flawed statements, with every post straying from the subject at hand. "The overs being bowled" "How many wickets were taken by the illegal doosra". At each opportunity taking a chance to bring something in that's not relevant. You choose to read selectively what I type, then base an argument on it.

And no, there's no way I'll admit Murali got cheap wickets, as he didn't and stats show that. All I'm saying is that he took wickets of more importance than Warne did in that series, not alot more, but never the less more.

I'm not against Warney, love his style, they're both great to watch, just in case you think I'm one eyed.

I won't back down, neither will you, as we both think we're correct. It could, as you say go on forever. So we'll leave it at that.

Fair debate mate.