Murali retiring after Galle test

[Robelinda]

He couldve played 2 more tests in Australia in 2004 but didnt have the balls. Scared of a few hecklers in the crowd? I just cant believe he missed that tour, I dont believe he genuinely chucks, but I do believe he needed to harden up a bit.

 

[Cricketman]

He is the most publically humiliated cricketer the game has seen. Harden up... I don't think so. No one else has gone through what Murali has, even after proving everyone wrong (bowling with a cast, all those shirtless tests).

 

[angryangy]

the figures back up the australian thing (though personally I think this had as much to do with missing the series when he was at his peak, he went from 1995 to 2005 without playing there,and the sheer brilliance of the aussie batting line up, especially at home that contributed to this) but saying saying 77 wickets at 26 (including one of his trademark 10-fers) shows he couldn't perform in south africa is extremely harsh. warnes average was 24.3, a whole 1.7 runs better. plus he destroyed england.

No, that's just putting words in my mouth. Besides, he didn't take 77 wickets in South Africa.

No where do I say he couldn't perform, but his level of performance was generally not the godly one that people tend to wax lyrical about.

That second innings at Durban for example, is a distant outlier, not a median figure, but it changes his average and strike rate by a fair margin. South Africa were running out of time to set a target and so they promoted Shaun Pollock to 4 and Nicky Boje to 5; South Africa were looking to force the issue and although Murali took 6 wickets in 10 overs, South Africa still scored at 4 rpo and declared with a lead of 350+. It's probably one of the more pointlessly devastating innings you could hope to see.

Of course, he could get wickets, but in his other innings, even the first innings in that match, he had to work decidedly harder for wickets; than for example, in Sri Lanka; without even playing a lot of games at Johannesburg or Cape Town. This is the point I was making. Not that he was suddenly useless, but that he did have his weaknesses, points where he was still worthy of his Test cap, but that others might have given him a run for his money. I fear that will be lost on a lot of people all too quickly.

 

[Themer]

If they had played the same number of tests who do you reckon would have had the higher number of wickets?

 

[McLOVIN]

Lol. /Tait fail


YouTube - Proof that Muttiah Muralitharan does not chuck

 

[rocky_g]

Warne was a great spinner, Lets not lie Murali went a lot longer than Warne no?

If they had played the same number of tests who do you reckon would have had the higher number of wickets?

Saqlain Mushtaq.

 

[hacker]

Warne was a great spinner, Lets not lie Murali went a lot longer than Warne no?

If they had played the same number of tests who do you reckon would have had the higher number of wickets?

seems to be you having some mathematical problem

 

[riz7khan12]

Warne was a great spinner, Lets not lie Murali went a lot longer than Warne no?

If they had played the same number of tests who do you reckon would have had the higher number of wickets?

great sig material

 

[Owzat]

I hear there's a tribute song coming out to him, mixing the music to "I lost my heart to a starship trouper", it's called "I chucked my way to 800 wickets"

 

[hacker]

I hear there's a tribute song coming out to him, mixing the music to "I lost my heart to a starship trouper", it's called "I chucked my way to 800 wickets"

go ..... yourself:

 

[blake]

Apparently there's going to be another one - instead of "I'll stop the world and melt with you" it's now going to be "I'll break the rules, I chuck it's true"

 

[Owzat]

Warne was a great spinner, Lets not lie Murali went a lot longer than Warne no?

If they had played the same number of tests who do you reckon would have had the higher number of wickets?

You mean Warne with only 145 Tests played less than Murali's 133 Tests?!?! Answer = Murali by the way. If they'd played on level terms, same opposition, same pitches etc, then it is less clear cut.

Certainly the argument more wickets = better falls apart anyway, would that mean all batsmen who score(d) more Test runs than Bradman are/were better..................?!?!?

By opponent quality

Warne vs BAN/ZIM : 17 wkts @ 25.71
Murali vs BAN/ZIM : 176 wkts @ 15.10

Warne vs NZE/WIN : 168 wkts @ 26.54
Murali vs NZE/WIN : 164 wkts @ 20.58

Warne vs ENG/PAK/SAF/IND/ICC/SRI : 523 wkts @ 25.05
Murali vs ENG/PAK/SAF/IND/AUS : 460 wkts @ 26.41

I think the key is the last comparison, against the better sides Warne outperformed Murali. Sure Murali was ruthless against the very weakest sides, he got enough practice at it, and his wickets were also much cheaper against the variables that are New Zealand and West Indies - both have declined, Warne and Murali playing them over much the same period.

Murali has taken more wickets than Warne by virtue of having taken so many against Bangladesh (89) and Zimbabwe (87), plain and simple.

Wickets by country

Warne in IND/SRI/PAK/BAN/UAE* : 127 wkts @ 26.82
Murali in IND/SRI/PAK/BAN : 612 wkts @ 21.69

*Two Tests vs Pakistan in 2002 @ Sharjah Stadium, UAE

Warne in AUS/ENG/SAF/WIN/NZE/ZIM : 581 wkts @ 25.11
Murali in AUS/ENG/SAF/WIN/NZE/ZIM : 188 wkts @ 26.09

Warne took 319 (45.06%) of his 708 wickets in Australia @ 26.39, his other 389 wickets cost 24.61 apiece. Murali's wickets in Australia cost him 75.42 apiece. 3/4 of his wickets have come on the sub-continent and no less than 493 (61.6%) in Sri Lanka @ 19.57 with the other 307 wkts outside Sri Lanka taken @ 27.80. THAT says most of/all that needs to be said about Murali's home advantage. Warne took 48 wickets in Sri Lanka @ 20.46, just emphasises Murali's home advantage, had Warne played home Tests there, and Bangladesh and Zimbabwe more, then he'd doubtless be on more wickets

Warne struggled in India with 34 wkts @ 43.12, but so did Murali with 40 wkts @ 45.45

So the answer as to whether Warne is better than Murali can be answered thus. Murali took a lot of wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, took 493 cheap wickets on home soil and therefore gained a massive advantage on Warne so it is nearly impossible to say who was the better bowler for sure. Take Murali out of the spinner friendly wickets of his home country and sub-continent and there is little between them. Surely the measure of a great bowler is his ability to bowl anywhere without having help from the wickets all the time

There is also the argument about the quality of bowlers around each spinner, but that is subjective and you can't really prove hypotheses like that one.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

there is one interesting loophole that murali creates in these comparisons.

without him, sri lanka would not have been considered a good side, and yet in your comparison you've put them along with all the other big test nations, taking out NZ, bangladesh and the windies.

that's a bit devious. Especially since warne and murali played in a time when the windies had walsh, lara, chanderpaul and won a few high profile tests and would certainly be considered the better team than sri lanka. go back and read the reports of sri lanka's visit to england as recently as 2006 and you'll see they were considered whipping boys.

I'm pretty confident you're well aware that murali's record against the west indies is a lot better than warnes. (murali average 19 to warnes 29) and don't think you can credibly take them out using the "weaker opposition" arguement when considering careers that started in 1994.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

No, that's just putting words in my mouth. Besides, he didn't take 77 wickets in South Africa.

No where do I say he couldn't perform, but his level of performance was generally not the godly one that people tend to wax lyrical about.

That second innings at Durban for example, is a distant outlier, not a median figure, but it changes his average and strike rate by a fair margin. South Africa were running out of time to set a target and so they promoted Shaun Pollock to 4 and Nicky Boje to 5; South Africa were looking to force the issue and although Murali took 6 wickets in 10 overs, South Africa still scored at 4 rpo and declared with a lead of 350+. It's probably one of the more pointlessly devastating innings you could hope to see.

Of course, he could get wickets, but in his other innings, even the first innings in that match, he had to work decidedly harder for wickets; than for example, in Sri Lanka; without even playing a lot of games at Johannesburg or Cape Town. This is the point I was making. Not that he was suddenly useless, but that he did have his weaknesses, points where he was still worthy of his Test cap, but that others might have given him a run for his money. I fear that will be lost on a lot of people all too quickly.

that's fair enough, to me it did look like you were saying he didn't perform well, I would happily admit his results there are not where his reputation lies.

Though I don't think it can be written off completely as an outlier, that seems to be a tact all to often used in the warne v murali comparison. I'm pretty sure south africa wanted to score faster than murali let them and didn't plan to lose a load of wickets to him.

he only played about 6 or 7 tests there anyway, if that, that many innnings and they're all outliers.

 

[Shaun Tait]

Wow I made a big mistake about that, Oh well LOL