Murali vs. Tendulkar

[Rajiv]

:winky: Oh cmon, your intent was to start a debate

[Mr. Wicket]

Any all time XI that doesn't include Gavaskar as an opener - and neither of Warne or Murali in the XI has got to be suspicious. Whats more ridiculous is the fact that wicket keeper chosen is neither of the overwhelmingly all time great WKs ( Allan Knott or AC Gilchrist) but some unknown nondescript called " Don Tallon" . LOL.:hysterical:

If Don Tallon is an 'unknown nondescript' then you need some education in your cricketing history and a bit of perspective. Then again your other arguments here suggest the same. Tallon was noted as one of the finest PURE glovesmen in the game and a contemporary of Bradman's who was held in very high regard internationally. Lost a few of his best years in his career due to the lack of cricket played during WW 2, but his glovework was considered exceptional to the point that his weak batting never led to selection question marks - as he was an expert at even pulling off stumpings off medium pacers. FWIW his keeping was at the standard that in the 1948 "Invincibles" Tour when Tallon was first choice keeper for Bradman's Aussie XI... he played with a finger injury, still was superb with the gloves and for his pure keeping alone (his batting was never a major thing) was named one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year. Now let's see... if Bradman rated him that highly (and had him the first choice on his 1948 tour despite the understudy Saggers being a better bat), and his other contemporaries used similar praise - Alan Davidson (another name I hope actually means something to you and isn't another unknown nondescript) called him the Bradman of keepers, Jack Fingleton - another contemporary of Bradman and Tallon's and later a phenomenal writer on the game - rated him incredibly highly, and his English opponent Godfrey Evans rated him the best in the world - then you're obviously very wrong in calling him an "unknown nondescript" and just showing off your own ignorance or close-mindedness on a subject you are clearly not familiar with.

[patriot]

If Don Tallon is an 'unknown nondescript' then you need some education in your cricketing history and a bit of perspective. Then again your other arguments here suggest the same. Tallon was noted as one of the finest PURE glovesmen in the game and a contemporary of Bradman's who was held in very high regard internationally. Lost a few of his best years in his career due to the lack of cricket played during WW 2, but his glovework was considered exceptional to the point that his weak batting never led to selection question marks - as he was an expert at even pulling off stumpings off medium pacers. FWIW his keeping was at the standard that in the 1948 "Invincibles" Tour when Tallon was first choice keeper for Bradman's Aussie XI... he played with a finger injury, still was superb with the gloves and for his pure keeping alone (his batting was never a major thing) was named one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year. Now let's see... if Bradman rated him that highly (and had him the first choice on his 1948 tour despite the understudy Saggers being a better bat), and his other contemporaries used similar praise - Alan Davidson (another name I hope actually means something to you and isn't another unknown nondescript) called him the Bradman of keepers, Jack Fingleton - another contemporary of Bradman and Tallon's and later a phenomenal writer on the game - rated him incredibly highly, and his English opponent Godfrey Evans rated him the best in the world - then you're obviously very wrong in calling him an "unknown nondescript" and just showing off your own ignorance or close-mindedness on a subject you are clearly not familiar with.

Purely as a gloveman ( not even considering the exceptional grittiness with the bat) - Alan Knott is universally acknowledged as the greatest ever...overwhelmingly Now wait...are you disputing this ?

[Mr. Wicket]

Care to provide some proof of Knott being universally acknowledged as the greatest keeper ever (aside from the standard one-eyed English drivel from Henderson at the Telegraph)? There are plenty of other experts who disagree with that. Bradman for one obviously felt Tallon was superior. When Benaud listed his "Greatest XI" (another lineup where he included Tendulkar and not Ponting or Murali :winky:), he considered Rod Marsh, Ian Healy and Adam Gilchrist for keepers and not Knott (and Marsh and Healy surely wouldn't have come up just for their keeping abilities). Christopher Martin-Jenkins in his list of 100 greatest cricketers ranked Les Ames above Knott; so it's hardly universally acknowledged or as one-sided a debate as you seem to think (unless you've only been reading one side of the argument). Meanwhile, what about your previous point that Don Tallon was "some unknown nondescript"? Any follow up regarding that - are you still standing by the claim that one of the finest Aussie glovesmen ever and a key figure in one of Australia's most historic/significant Ashes triumphs in the 48 Invincibles tour was an unknown nondescript?

[The Outsider]

Baaharwale gyaani baba, You have to doubt the veracity of the " all time XI" realized only after the great mans death. It was realised by " his office". Any all time XI that doesn't include Gavaskar as an opener - and neither of Warne or Murali in the XI has got to be suspicious. Whats more ridiculous is the fact that wicket keeper chosen is neither of the overwhelmingly all time great WKs ( Allan Knott or AC Gilchrist) but some unknown nondescript called " Don Tallon" . LOL.:hysterical: Sunny infact raised serious doubts about this, " Bradman XI" (LOL..)I clearly remember. Highly like Bradman's office thought that plugging in SRT ( who's style reminds Bradman of himself) who was the most marketable cricketer at the time of realize in a BIG country like India - would excite and enthrall the biggest cricket market. PS: I am not a moderator here that I am to devote such a long time here...and neither am I a Sachin sevak. I have got other things to do , babaji.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Where do you come up with some gems!! Bradman's office wanted marketable cricketer's so they chose the likes of Grimmett, O'Reilly, and, Tallon who very few people in the modern world would have heard of!! Pitting Tendulkar amongst those players really made them a few million bucks, I am sure PS : Bradman had asked the person writing his biography to reveal the list only after his death because he did not want to court controversies.

[patriot]

Care to provide some proof of Knott being universally acknowledged as the greatest keeper ever (aside from the standard one-eyed English drivel from Henderson at the Telegraph)? There are plenty of other experts who disagree with that. Bradman for one obviously felt Tallon was superior. When Benaud listed his "Greatest XI" (another lineup where he included Tendulkar and not Ponting or Murali :winky:), he considered Rod Marsh, Ian Healy and Adam Gilchrist for keepers and not Knott (and Marsh and Healy surely wouldn't have come up just for their keeping abilities). Christopher Martin-Jenkins in his list of 100 greatest cricketers ranked Les Ames above Knott; so it's hardly universally acknowledged or as one-sided a debate as you seem to think (unless you've only been reading one side of the argument). Meanwhile, what about your previous point that Don Tallon was "some unknown nondescript"? Any follow up regarding that - are you still standing by the claim that one of the finest Aussie glovesmen ever and a key figure in one of Australia's most historic/significant Ashes triumphs in the 48 Invincibles tour was an unknown nondescript?

There was a program on ESPN star sports where an elite panel of 15 rated the the greatest 50 cricketers of all times - Even outside the panel - former cricketers were asked to rate the short listed greats - and as far as wicket keeping was concerned - it was all Knott. Here is the list: http://www.legendsofcricket.tv/top50.html Infact I think he is the only wicket keeper selected among the greatest 50 cricketers ever.That I think says a lot. ( Although I personally feel Gilly as a batsman keeper - is incomparable) The panel of judges were: http://www.legendsofcricket.tv/judges.html Besides any talk about Allan Knott - never goes without the statement that no one even recollects him missing anything that seems like a chance. That I think is a big enough statement as well.

[Mr. Wicket]

There was a program on ESPN star sports where an elite panel of 15 rated the the greatest 50 cricketers of all times - Even outside the panel - former cricketers were asked to rate the short listed greats - and as far as wicket keeping was concerned - it was all Knott. Here is the list: http://www.legendsofcricket.tv/top50.html Infact I think he is the only wicket keeper selected among the greatest 50 cricketers ever.That I think says a lot. ( Although I personally feel Gilly as a batsman keeper - is incomparable) The panel of judges were: http://www.legendsofcricket.tv/judges.html Besides any talk of him - never goes without the statement that no one even recollects him missing anything that seems like a class. That I think is a big enough statement as well.

It's a big statement but hardly proof of your extravagant statement of him being universally acclaimed as the greatest: "Alan Knott is universally acknowledged as the greatest ever...overwhelmingly" (FWIW, similar statements are often made too regarding Evans, Ames, Marsh and a few others.) One poll or TV show does not immediately become the worldwide authority on a subject, just because it agrees with your view. BTW, out of interest, have you any thoughts on the exclusions of both Ponting and Muralitharan from that Legends list? Also out of interest, have you any intention of responding to my previous query a couple of posts ago regarding your statement that Don Tallon was "some unknown nondescript"?

[patriot]

It's a big statement but hardly proof of your extravagant statement of him being universally acclaimed as the greatest: "Alan Knott is universally acknowledged as the greatest ever...overwhelmingly" (FWIW, similar statements are often made too regarding Evans, Ames, Marsh and a few others.) One poll or TV show does not immediately become the worldwide authority on a subject, just because it agrees with your view. BTW, out of interest, have you any thoughts on the exclusions of both Ponting and Muralitharan from that Legends list? Also out of interest, have you any intention of responding to my previous query a couple of posts ago regarding your statement that Don Tallon was "some unknown nondescript"?

That was'nt some whacky public poll - it was a poll that included the most distinguished cricket historians, players and umpires. The fact that no other wicket keeper is even in the list is hint enough. Like I said even among cricketers outside the panel, the verdict was unanimous - Alan Knott. WRT to Murali - its obvious, question marks over his action by a large section of influential Western cricketers will never get him universal acknowledgement. But his numbers overall - are unprecedented, unbelievable - perhaps what got him No1 rank in Wisdens all time great Test bowling ranks WRT to Ponting the poll was done in 2004 - Pontings BIG bull run had just started a year back in 2003- by now its acknowledged by even the likes of Border and Waugh ( who also finds a place in that 50 ) - that Ponting is the greatest Aussie bat after Bradman.

[graphic23]

2009 - 2004 = 5 years. According to another legendary thread of yours, Ponting has been the most prolific batsman of the last decade. That would mean he had a golden run 5 years prior to 2004 as well. Going by his stats for the last 2 years, he has had a rather average time as a batsman (compared to the earlier standards he set for himself). That would mean out of his golden run of 8 years, there was a lot of time for these people to judge him as an all-time great.

[Mr. Wicket]

That was'nt some whacky public poll - it was a poll that included the most distinguished cricket historians, players and umpires. The fact that no other wicket keeper is even in the list is hint enough. Like I said even among cricketers outside the panel, the verdict was unanimous - Alan Knott. WRT to Murali - its obvious, question marks over his action by a large section of influential Western cricketers will never get him universal acknowledgement. But his numbers overall - are unprecedented, unbelievable - perhaps what got him No1 rank in Wisdens all time great Test bowling ranks

Right, so you're first bigging up this poll based on how distinguished the historians/players/umpires are - but then immediately shooting down their credibility by claiming they're biased against Murali as it's mostly influential Western cricketers? If it's a selection committee of influential Western cricketers and you don't give them credibility on a Sri Lankan player with a controversial past, then how is it you give them so much credibility on an English poster-boy? Try and keep it consistent instead of changing the goalposts to suit your own argument. BTW, seeing as you missed this earlier, I'll repeat: "Also out of interest, have you any intention of responding to my previous query a couple of posts ago regarding your statement that Don Tallon was "some unknown nondescript"?" http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=791180&postcount=122

[patriot]

2009 - 2004 = 5 years. According to another legendary thread of yours, Ponting has been the most prolific batsman of the last decade. That would mean he had a golden run 5 years prior to 2004 as well. Going by his stats for the last 2 years, he has had a rather average time as a batsman (compared to the earlier standards he set for himself). That would mean out of his golden run of 8 years, there was a lot of time for these people to judge him as an all-time great.

LOL. Don't think too hard graphic. Ponting has been the most prolific batsmen of the new millenium - FACT 1 Ponting had an exceptional 65 odd tests ( 2003-2007) - FACT 2 Ponting has been going through a bat patch - FACT 3 FACT 1, FACT2 AND FACT 3 are reconcilable.

[Mr. Wicket]

WRT to Ponting the poll was done in 2004 - Pontings BIG bull run had just started a year back in 2003- by now its acknowledged by even the likes of Border and Waugh ( who also finds a place in that 50 ) - that Ponting is the greatest Aussie bat after Bradman.

Yet Ponting's average back at the start of 2004 when that poll was taken was actually higher than it is now.

[graphic23]

LOL. Don't think too hard graphic. Ponting has been the most prolific batsmen of the new millenium - FACT 1 Ponting had an exceptional 65 odd tests ( 2003-2007) - FACT 2 Ponting has been going through a bat patch - FACT 3 FACT 1, FACT2 AND FACT 3 are reconcilable.

Um, Your fact 2 is wrong: Dec 31. 2003 - > Dec 31. 2007 :- He played 39 tests - not 65-odd. Even if I take it from 1 January 2003 -> Dec 31. 2007, he's played 50 tests not 65-odd. Your fact 3 has no relevance to my earlier statement as I had already acknowledged it, and said that in spite of ignoring the last 2 years, no one's said that hes an all-time great. Also, as Mr. Wicket has asked numerous times, can you please explain your statement that Don Tallon is "some unknown nondescript"?"

[patriot]

Yet Ponting's average back at the start of 2004 when that poll was taken was actually higher than it is now.

Thats because his current bad patch has dragged his avg down - At one point at the peak of his form -he was just a few decimals short of 60.

[patriot]

Right, so you're first bigging up this poll based on how distinguished the historians/players/umpires are - but then immediately shooting down their credibility by claiming they're biased against Murali as it's mostly influential Western cricketers? If it's a selection committee of influential Western cricketers and you don't give them credibility on a Sri Lankan player with a controversial past, then how is it you give them so much credibility on an English poster-boy? Try and keep it consistent instead of changing the goalposts to suit your own argument. BTW, seeing as you missed this earlier, I'll repeat: "Also out of interest, have you any intention of responding to my previous query a couple of posts ago regarding your statement that Don Tallon was "some unknown nondescript"?" http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=791180&postcount=122

LOL. Don't beat around the bush - I am sure you are aware that the cricketing world by and large is divided over Murali's action - especially the Western nations. WRT to the "great" Don Tallon :winky:, again honestly, very honestly - how many talk outside of Knott, Marsh, Gilchrist and Healy ?

[The Outsider]

Let's see - Ponting has been ordinary in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The poll was conducted in 2004, so patriot is saying if those 50 experts(who as an aside are biased against Murali) had got to see two more years of a superb performance from Ponting and three more years of a mediocre performance he would have been in that list? This guy is laugh a post material

[Mr. Wicket]

WRT to the "great" Don Tallon :winky:' date=' again honestly, very honestly - how many talk outside of Knott, Marsh, Gilchrist and Healy ?[/quote'] I see you're still shifting goalposts and evading the question re. your initial comment, which was that he was an unknown nondescript. BTW, most people don't talk outside of those names as they were more recent and most are generally unfamiliar with the older players of past eras. Same reason why so few talk about Vijay Merchant or Tiger O'Reilly or Grimmett, yet their class and ability is never debated. And Prof, they may be biased against Murali, but they agree with patriot on Knott - therefore they have to be right (and cannot be debated on that regard as their word means universal acceptance)! :hysterical:

[The Outsider]

BTW, most people don't talk outside of those names as they were more recent and most are generally unfamiliar with the older players of past eras. Same reason why so few talk about Vijay Merchant or Tiger O'Reilly or Grimmett, yet their class and ability is never debated.

What are you talking about? O'Reilly and Grimmett were included in Bradman's fake XI by his "offices" to make money by marketing because of their mass popularity! :hysterical:

[patriot]

Let's see - Ponting has been ordinary in 2007' date=' 2008, and 2009. The poll was conducted in 2004, so patriot is saying if those 50 experts(who as an aside are biased against Murali) had got to see two more years of a superb performance from Ponting and three more years of a mediocre performance he would have been in that list? This guy is laugh a post material [/quote'] LMAO Except for the fact that http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/7133.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;spanmax1=31+Dec+2006;spanmin1=01+Jan+2002;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting 2002- 2006 in 57 tests Ponting scored a behemoth 6141 runs at an avg of 72.24 ..with 24 tons. And " in just" 2 more years 2005 and 2006 ( after the poll was done) Ponting in 25 test scored a small matter of 13 tons - a ton in less than every second game at a meagre average of 75.71 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/7133.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;spanmax1=31+Dec+2006;spanmin1=01+Jan+2005;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting :winky:. Anywayz ICF ke chowkidaron. Shubh ratri..shabba khair. Sona matt, chorr* ghuss jayega varna. :driver: Chorr* - IN ICF parlons, anyone who " dares" to question the greatness of the little big man of Indian cricket.

[The Outsider]

And " in just" 2 more years 2005 and 2006 ( after the poll was done) Ponting in 25 test scored a small matter of 13 tons - a ton in less than every second game at a meagre average of 75.71 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/...s;type=batting

That's exactly what I had said - 2 superb years, followed by 3 ordinary years.