According to the man who turned his off break from the leg, Saqlain "The Doosra" Mushtaq, Murali is the best spinner of his generation. An interetsing opinion, especially in it's complete disregard for our chain-smoking, chain-texting, fat man SK Warne.
How does one compare the two? Wickets ... waste of time. Opposition ... again a waste of time, for those that complain Murali has spun himself to glory against weaker opposition overlook where he did it, on the subcontinent, a place where Warnie was as impotent as his baggy white undies would suggest. In return, Murali has always been a dud in Australia. Shallow thinking this.
Both have been splendid in England. Both were deadly against the tail. Both included deadly facial features in their armoury (Warnie's smile and Murali's eyes). Both possessed unnerving accuracy from the first ball bowled till the last wicket taken. Both showed greater control of the speed and angle of rotation of the cricket ball than ever before seen in world cricket.
Apart from their home ground advantages highlighted earlier the other difference worthy of note is the standard of the attacks they bowled with. Vaas was world class, as clearly McGrath was and it was these partnerships that greatly assisted their wicket taking but Murali generally bowled in a weaker team and with more responsibility for the team's success than Warne. Murali has bowled 55 overs per Test compared to Warne's 46, giving him more chances for wickets but a great deal more workload and that gets even heavier when you factor in ODI's.
In the end, they are both great bowlers of equal standing who just happened to play in the same era. We wouldn't seriously try to spilt Lindwall and Lillee in a comparison. Truth be known, if we picked the greatest World XI, wouldn't you want both?
As for those who still shout "no ball" when Murali runs in for his first delivery of a new spell need to grow up. His action, was more dreadful than doubtful in the early days when Darryl Hair called bravely and correctly but it progressed some time ago to something different, something consistent and something a damn sight more dangerous.
Better than Warne ... no ... but every bit as effective and every bit as good. Forget the wickets, Murali is in the first half dozen of the greatest bowlers cricket has seen. Like Lillee, he overcame a crippling setback to his career and became the greatest Test wicket taker of all time. It's time for us to excise the John Howard in all of us and embrace this terrific little bloke's achievements and durability.
How many champions do we need in a lifetime to recognise the true ones?
Lango, I must call to arms and disagree with the bent arm factor. Never in history has the cricket authorities changed the rules to suit an individual. The 15 degree leniency is undeniably the result of the politically sick "black" power nations desire to retain Murali as a god like figure in the game
ReplyDeleteThat bend whilst very difficult to measure in terms of advantage certainly lends itself to more zip and bounce. Having said that the man had great competitive juices and when in action the crowd was dragged into total attention in anticipation of what was about to happen.......................apart from the above Warne V Murali call it a draw.
I also would not try to split Warne and Murali.
ReplyDeleteIan, w.r.t. to the bent arm rule, my engineering and science background led me to conclude that there are very few black and whites in the world, long before this case arose. It should come as no surprise that other bowlers had been, and were continuing to, bowl with bent actions. Whether 15 degrees is the right shade of grey is the subject of debate, but the line had to be drawn somewhere. Drawing it at 15 degrees did superficially suit Murali but he did require some significant work on his action to ensure he consistently complied with the new rule even so.
Further, I can't let this go untouched: "Never in history has the cricket authorities changed the rules to suit an individual". I seem to recall an incident from my cricket history books on 26 August 1862. The shades of grey in calling overarm no-balls are not dissimilar to the shades in the bent arm actions of many bowling heros. Willsher was just the catalyst for change, just as Murali was.
i'm sick of this argument...
ReplyDeleteto muralis credit he took on the protractors and the testing; and i still thought he was suss and that rule changes were a manipulation by nations and groups; the fact that "everyone" was pushing a few degrees doesn't justify the change.
the single point that kept me offside with murali was the bowling with a brace. his supporter justify that he could still bowl both ways with it on- a feat to be sure! but if you view that footage he doesn't turn it much and all deliveries look... insipid, short and beltable!
my finally point is one where i would need a better edit suite to prove -so i could put side-by-side shots of his bowling; but visually i believe murali deliberately changes his action when being tested: not so much his arm, but his stride and the amount he turns his upper body around.
i call SHENANIGANS! and will always have an asterisk next to his name in any record book.
he may be a 'top bloke' and competitor, but he has stained the game.
*on a final point- who here has faced a 'chucker?' it will get wickets because it is SO off putting to watch... not because it is a good ball.