Murali winning the battle (against his critics) (1 Viewer)

[serv0]

Two fabulous sites I found.

One is old but just shows Murali's class:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/2572069.stm


This recent one is about Walsh backing the offspinner:

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,11731996%5E2762,00.html

 

[dave_119]

go fuck budj in the bum

 

[phungus]

His bowling action causes too much controversy =/ Go Warne!

 

[Pace Setter]

For those who cant be bothered to click on the article that has not yet being buried under mountains of cricketing archives, here's the bit Walsh had to say about Murali.

1. MUTTIAH MURALITHARAN
There is not one other off-spinner who has had the impact of Muralitharan. He's copped a lot of criticism over his action but he has continued to perform, which is testimony to his talent and mental toughness.

He consistently wins matches for Sri Lanka and if he wasn't around, I don't know how competitive they would be. If "Murali" stays around, I have no doubt he can get 800 Test wickets, easily.

It is ironic that early in his career not once was he targeted as a chucker, but now people are trying to put pressure on him, perhaps because of his success. He is a great bowler and I fully support him.

First, what type of "critic" are you referring to? The ones in the minority who doubt his matchwinning ability to bowl/chuck, or the ones who doubt the legitimacy of his deliveries?

If it's the former, then this post is a waste of space. I've heard of even the most anti-Murali fans saying stuff along the lines of "best chucker in the world."

So I'll make what I think is an accurate guestimate and suggest that you reckon Walsh's supporting him in the legitimacy corner. He makes one point in the post, suggesting that he has been targeted "because of his success." Well, I can tell you with some certainty that before Darrell Hair called him, he averaged roughly 42 with the ball in tests. That's not exactly too flash is it? And someone remind him about the figures he took in that particular match BEFORE he was called. To further support his own genial discovery, Walsh furthermore states that "early in his career...not targeted..." By early in his career he probably means before Daryll Hair. Walsh may be correct. He was not targeted by any particular umpire as such. However, during his first two years of test cricket, he was reported 3 times by match referees for his action. I guess, to Walsh, the definition of being "targeted" only occurs when the umpire sticks a hand out after each delivery. Never mind what the presiding ref or official thinks or says.

Out of his 3 paragraphs on Murali, there may be one and a half paragraphs of anything resembling fact. The rest is either complete subjectivity or assertions based on incorrect information. So I'd say this little excerpt is from a man not making a legitimate argument that aids Murali's case. In fact, the flaws in it have the exact opposite effect. The factually-flawed nature of the article make this bowler's opinion no better than your average, mindless, band-wagon jumping supporter/critic.

 

[serv0]

PaceSetter, that BBC site said that Murali is the "best bowler ever"; NOT "the best chucker ever".

 

[Pace Setter]

Wasnt referring to the BBC site. You missed my point. Here it is clearer: There are doubters of his action, but even some of the more extreme ones that I've come across can appreciate that he's a good player, just not a legitimate one.

 

[serv0]

But how can you deny he is not an all time great when his record surpasses that of Warne himself?

 

[Pace Setter]

I think you missed my last post. Most critics dont have much of a problem with his matchwinning ability, just his legitimacy. And of course, if they don't consider him to be legitimate, they couldn't consider him as an all-time great either. I'm not sure you've introduced any new points/arguments in your last 2 posts.

 

[budj]

All be it, Murali is the best bowler of all times, statistics show that, no matter what speaks.
And you know Murali is going to not be called. THerefore by using foresight we can deduce that Murali is awesome and legit

 

[blackfriday]

yeh he has taken lots of wickets...and of course murali is not going to be called because no umpire has the balls to do so. there would be such a massive stink because fellas like budj use their powers of selective reading and listening and they would crucify that umpire until the ICC has no choice but to stop selecting those umpires. ross emerson was a brave man and he paid the price for it.

 

[Pace Setter]

All be it, Murali is the best bowler of all times, statistics show that, no matter what speaks.

Depends what kind of statistics you look at. You ever seen Murali V Warne in terms of their away record? The one that takes out the batsmen-friendly test matches in Aus for Warne, and the quite spinner-friendly tracks in SL for Murali . I've seen those ones, as well as countless others that support the Warne argument as well as the counter argument. And believe it or not, most of them sound reasonably logical. The point is, there are various stats and constructs you can use to prove either bowler better, and various arguments you can raise to prove any statistic or measuring tool to be of greater importance than the next. But the thing is, it's far too close to call in this case, to "truly" differentiate between the two. In the end it comes down to opinion. I think sometime in the future the chucking debate might possibly end. But Warne verse Murali in terms of matchwinning/aiding ability? Forget it.

 

[serv0]

ross emerson was a brave man and he paid the price for it.

Ross Emerson said he was pressured by the ACB to call Muralitharan. He wasn't a brave man.

 

[serv0]

But Warne verse Murali in terms of matchwinning/aiding ability? Forget it.

Obviously Muralitharan wins more matches for SL than Warne does for AUS. I'm not being critical of Warne, cause he is a great bowler. But IMO, Murali is better.

 

[tintin12]

"Wasnt referring to the BBC site. You missed my point. Here it is clearer: There are doubters of his action, but even some of the more extreme ones that I've come across can appreciate that he's a good player, just not a legitimate one."

Murali is a legit bowler though. Science has cleared him. Biomechanics has cleared him. If advanced technology is not enough to convince the sceptic, then I don't know what it is. He even bowled with a full-metal elbow brace, thereby proving that his incredible spin derived from his wrist and not from his 'elbow.'

Warne Vs Murali? Murali wins quite clearly, considering statistics, Murali does actually have a greater claim to greatness. More of his wickets are against top order players, and often on batsman-friendly wickets. Whilst the sub-continent maybe a haven for spin-bowling it is also a batsman's galore - low-bouncing, no pace often subject to very high scoring games. Also, the fact that Murali has been able to convert test success into odi success, something very difficult for spinners to do, justifies his 'greatest spin bowler title', if not greatest bowler ever.

 

[max]

His credence should be based around his athletic ability to bowl in excess of 50 overs per innings (most of the time the majority of the SL bowling).
Despite his remarkable ability to bowl teams out (or so), his unique action will be forever tarnished and overshadowed by the guise of illegitimacy, and, in 50 years time, when the wicket record shows him on 1000+, commentators and biographers will still associate his greatness by this supposed flawed action.

He is however, no doubt, Sri Lanka's greatest ever sportsman.

* Oh, and no, he will never silence his critics - even he knows that.

 

[budj]

It depends on who ou are to like what kinda wicket. Some tams prefer the bouncy tracks (which include /australia), but judgement of bowlers should be based on their average in world criccket and their econ rate, cos lets face it, the better average/more wicket taker is bound to win you more games, which is much more handy than a player who, seemigly has a great fluid action, undoubtedyly posseses a great cricket brain, and is the best leg spinner
Q.E.D

 

[Pace Setter]

Murali is a legit bowler though. Science has cleared him. Biomechanics has cleared him. If advanced technology is not enough to convince the sceptic, then I don't know what it is. He even bowled with a full-metal elbow brace, thereby proving that his incredible spin derived from his wrist and not from his 'elbow.'

Depends how and how much of the science you look at. That whole argument is another thread topic altogether, though.

Warne Vs Murali? Murali wins quite clearly, considering statistics, Murali does actually have a greater claim to greatness. More of his wickets are against top order players, and often on batsman-friendly wickets.

As I said, there are countless counter arguments and various other arguments that sound just as reasonable for the other camp- and vice versa. It's an almost 100% subjective topic I'd say.

Whilst the sub-continent maybe a haven for spin-bowling it is also a batsman's galore - low-bouncing, no pace often subject to very high scoring games.

Which is exactly why he is more successful on a batsmen's paradise than pitches that dont aid spin at all. Again, refer to my response to your previous quote.

 

[Pace Setter]

It depends on who ou are to like what kinda wicket. Some tams prefer the bouncy tracks (which include /australia), but judgement of bowlers should be based on their average in world criccket and their econ rate, cos lets face it, the better average/more wicket taker is bound to win you more games, which is much more handy than a player who, seemigly has a great fluid action, undoubtedyly posseses a great cricket brain, and is the best leg spinner
Q.E.D

To illustrate the pointlessness of a Murali V Warne "argument," here's another sword that cuts both ways:

Argument: Murali has singlehandedly won more games than Warne. (insert stats)

Counter: Because Warne has great bowlers in Mcgrath, Gillespie, Kaspa/Flem/Reiffel to challenge for wickets, whilst Murali only has Vaas. (insert stats of comparison between other bowlers in the team)

Argument: That also means Counterthat he gets to bowl to tailenders-effectively demonstrating his ineptness against good batsmen. (insert stats for Warne and Murali V tailenders)

Counter: And how do you know he would not have dismissed those top order batsmen if he bowled to them enough? For example, he shortened, potentially "Graeme Pollock Jnr's" career. Insert stats for Warne's record against top order batsmen of teams that he dismissed many tailenders in)

I've run out of time. That's two arguments and counters off the top of my head. I've seen that kind of argument go for millions of back and forths, with both sides sounding reasonable. At the end of the day, it's a matter of opinion, because in this case, there is no "scientific proof" you can use-for the simple fact that neither side will ever agree on a basis of the constant and stresses on various aspects of the testing.

 

[max]

Of Muralitharan's 532 test wickets, only 185 of them have been the opposing team's top 6. (cricinfo)

Sanaths ploy of getting one of their men to the top?

Surely not.

But it has put SL on the map...

It's all about the economy...

 

[blackfriday]

hey a wicket's a wicket but geez it must freak tail-enders watching his ugly face come in and his eyes pop out.