The Outsider Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Or at least the gap has narrowed after this series and unless Murali can bring about a tremendous performance in the second innings (if he gets a chance, which is unlikely), my opinion has certainly undergone a change. I used to rate Murali a hands down winner over Warne but there isn't much between them now. Even a decent performance like 7-8 wickets in the series @35 or so would have been okay but the claims to being the best in the world after being dismantled by the best team in their backyard takes a huge thumping. As for their performance against India, Warne's sucks but Murali's isn't anything out of the ordinary either. Link to comment
Bongosamaj Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 but the claims to being the best in the world after being dismantled by the best team in their backyard takes a huge thumping. Not disagreeing with you btw ( i too have undergone change in opinion a bit about Murali and the Aussies-who are fast becoming my favourite team,just for different reasons) but the above logic is flawed in my opinion. If the best player goes up against the best team, i don't see why his/her greatness is in question incase he fails. For one, he is in unchartered terrirtory by the very definition of the matchup. If there can be only one 'best' player and one 'best' team at any given point, then it means his nearest competition has not faced this level of challenge. So, it stands to reason then- how can the best of the best lose his tag/have it jeopardized if his nearest opposition has not even taken a test so hard. Take an academic analogy if you will - you and I are classmates through highschool/junior high. We are both chart-toppers in math classes but you've comprehensively beaten me in every single math final exam for the last 5 years.(pretend that you get 97-99 everytime, i get 90-93 everytime and the third best is in the low 80s). In final year,some govt. guy walks in class, asks the teacher who the 'best' student is in this class for math. The teacher obviously points to you, he wishes to have a few words with ya. He tells you there is an aptitude test for best math students from each class and the very high scorers will get scholarship for college. You take the test-but you bollox it up completely. So the 'best' in my class (ie, you) just got owned by this test. Does that mean suddenly the status-quo between you and me is in jeopardy ? That i may be best student afterall ? Sorry, but this is precisely what your logic implies and this is precisely what doesn't add up in my opinion. Link to comment
living Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 He doesn't have any support, its not like they are scoring briskly against him - they are scoring at around 3rpo against Murli. So their general idea, is to score against the other bowlers and take it easy against Murli. In the case of Warne, Aus has always had sme of the best fast bowlers and because of that when Warnie comes on the batsmen sometimes have no other option but to score off him. Its never easy taking wickets as a spinner if the batsmen do not want to score off you .... Link to comment
Bumper Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 How did you conclude Warne is better than Murali based on 2 innings ? Link to comment
The Outsider Posted November 17, 2007 Author Share Posted November 17, 2007 So the 'best' in my class (ie, you) just got owned by this test. Does that mean suddenly the status-quo between you and me is in jeopardy ? That i may be best student afterall ? Maybe it won't clear cut that you are the best student overall, but neither would my claim to be the best be so strong because I botched up under pressure at a big stage, even though you did not get a chance to perform there. The distance between us would certainly become less. Moreover, if the third guy in class who scores in the 80s has done much better than me in that inter school competition, it does put my credentials to being the best at the top level in doubt. Link to comment
The Outsider Posted November 17, 2007 Author Share Posted November 17, 2007 He doesn't have any support, its not like they are scoring briskly against him - they are scoring at around 3rpo against Murli. So their general idea, is to score against the other bowlers and take it easy against Murli. In the case of Warne, Aus has always had sme of the best fast bowlers and because of that when Warnie comes on the batsmen sometimes have no other option but to score off him. Its never easy taking wickets as a spinner if the batsmen do not want to score off you .... I agree with that but these have been completely miserable performances. Even Kumble managed to quell the Australian lineup in one series down under on his own without support, so one would have expected a half decent performance from someone with claims to be the best spinner of all time. Link to comment
The Outsider Posted November 17, 2007 Author Share Posted November 17, 2007 How did you conclude Warne is better than Murali based on 2 innings ? Not just on the basis of two innings. He has an abysmal record in Australia even prior to this but then one could give some reasonable excuses like being at the start of his career or playing for the World XI instead of Sri Lanka. This was his chance to perform against the best and he turned in a truly insipid performance. Link to comment
Gambit Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 As if there was any doubt. Link to comment
Don Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Leaving aside his dodgy action, Warne's claims that hes got **** loads of wickets agaisnt Zimboks and Banglas is true, he has like 10 5fors agaisnt banglas ans zimboks which props up his stats by far Link to comment
Guest Hiten. Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 I am not supporting murali, but none of the subcontinental bowlers have done consistently well in Aus. As far, as the comparison goes, I have always rated warne a touch higher than murali, because Shane Warne's has been bowling on the pitches which are either pace bowler friendly or batsmen friendly (i.e In AUS). He has taken a near amount of wicket @ home and away. So he stands out in that criteria. But this does not make murali a bad performer/bowler. Murali has done better than Warne in ODI's. So, I'd say Warne is better than Murali in TESTS and other way around in ODI's. Link to comment
The Outsider Posted November 18, 2007 Author Share Posted November 18, 2007 I am not supporting murali, but none of the subcontinental bowlers have done consistently well in Aus. Kumble outperformed anything that Murali has done in that one series down under. Link to comment
bharat297 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 I definately agree with the lack of support thing because in the super test in 2005 when playing for the world XI ... he was supported by flintoff, kallis, vettori and harmison ... and he demolished australia in that 2nd innings. Link to comment
bharat297 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 I would rate Ashley Giles as a better spinner than both of them put together. Link to comment
Chandan Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 I would rate Ashley Giles as a better spinner than both of them put together. What??:confused_smile: Tell me it was just a tongue in cheek remark! Link to comment
bharat297 Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 ^ Hehe ... who wouldnt rate Ashley Giles as the best of all time :hysterical: Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now