If you were Murali…
You’d rightly be feeling a little bit miffed at the moment. You can’t escape the hype surrounding Shane Warne and his 700th test wicket. Heck, I’m as guilty of it as anyone. Yes, 700 wickets is a huge feat and no doubt his impending retirement has added to the hype, but it seems one or two people have mysteriously forgotten about another famous spinner, Muttiah Muralitharan, whose match-winning 6 for 87 vs New Zealand went largely unnoticed.
Warne might be on 704 wickets after Day 1 of the 4th Test, but Murali is hardly slouching, currently hovering around the 680 wickets mark. An important distinction which is consistently overlooked is that Murali is some 30 matches behind Warne. When Murali passes 700, which he inevitably will, it seems likely that he will actually achieve the feat faster than Warne managed it. Will people still be bothered by such an achievement by then? Murali has arguably been the better bowler this year, managing a staggering 9 5fer’s, but for some reason you never seem to hear Murali heralded as one of the all-time greats or spoken of in the same regard as Warne.
Take a quick glance at their respective stats, and focusing on Test matches, there’s a story there, since with the exception of wickets, Murali beats Warne in every column:
| mat | balls | runs | wkts | bbi | bbm | ave | econ | sr | |
| Murali | 110 | 36705 | 14649 | 674 | 9/51 | 16/220 | 21.73 | 2.39 | 54.45 |
| Warne | 143 | 40315 | 17818 | 699 | 8/71 | 12/128 | 25.49 | 2.65 | 57.67 |
Considering that Warne has bowled some 600 overs more than Murali, the 30 wickets difference really seems inconsequential. Murali’s strike rate suggests he ought to get those wickets in about 270 overs, some 330 overs faster than Warne.
It seems constant speculation over Murali’s action has robbed him of the recognition he deserves, with the only notable accolade in his career to date being Wisden Cricketer of the Year 1999, compared with Warne’s longer list: Wisden Cricketer of the Year 1994, One-Day International Player of the Year - 2000, Selected as one of five Wisden cricketers of the century, 2000 and Test Player of the Year - 2006.
Will it really take 1000 wickets to make people remember Murali? That would really piss on Warne’s bonfire.
Tags: 700-wickets, cricket, its-just-not-cricket, muttiah-muralitharan, Shane-Warne, sri-lanka, testRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Cricket
7 opinions for If you were Murali…
Phillip Molly Malone
Dec 27, 2006 at 1:37 am
I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned his action. I personally have no problem with it.
Other things that I hear against Murli are:
* His high number of games against Bangladesh and Zimbarbi compared to Warne (19 - 3)
* Playing on Spin Friendly Sub-content wickets
* Murli has been just about SL only bowler and so has bowled more in juice situations.
To me this can be countered by Warne having:
* Better Bowling support at the other end (McGrath, May, Gilliespe, Lee, Clark, etc)
* More second innings (this is just a feeling, might not be right).
* More runs to bowl with.
So I think there both great players and it is unfortunate that Murli will be tanted by his action.
JMTC
Molly
Matt Thornton
Dec 27, 2006 at 10:22 am
Yeh, I agree… I don’t think Murali is ever going to get the same recognition as Warne, unless he gets 1000 wickets purely because people see him as a chucker.
patatoz
Dec 27, 2006 at 10:24 am
The reason is simple: (why Murali is not recognised)
Murali has an illegal action (which the toothless tiger - the ICC - bent the rules to pander to sub-continent pressures) and despite all his flaws, Warne has changed the game of cricket and brought to life Test cricket which I might add was dead and buried a dozen years ago.
As a nice a bloke Murali is, his action is diabolical and there will always be an asterix beside his name.
David McCullough
Dec 27, 2006 at 11:07 am
I think it is fair to show that Murali has 140+ wickets against Zim and Bang compared to Warne who has only 17 as Warne has only played a few matches against these teams. If you take those into account you will see the picture looks a lot more even. Murali is younger and will go on for some years so will clearly be the first to 800 and possibly more. Also I believe Warne has never been no balled for an improper action or had the law changed to allow for the angle of his wrist due to too much text messaging. I think Murali has been a more accurate and economical bowler than Warne but if he played 50 years ago he wouldnt have been tolerated due to that action. In those days they looked at the action nowadays its seen as racist so the ICC has stuckk 15 degrees on it. I think if you want to compare them just say who would you pick in your team as a match winner. I would pick Warne for his bowling, his attitude and he can even bat a bit and in the end I think I would win more matches with him.
Marcus
Dec 27, 2006 at 12:46 pm
I really think this is a pointless argument. Can’t a cricket blogger think up more original material that this hackneyed tripe? Statistics don’t tell the whole story. Is there much difference between a strike rate of 57 v 54?
But been a tragic cricket fan I must…
One of your counter arguments has a counter as well: yes Warne has had better support (McGrath etc) from the other end, but this has probably pushed up his average runs per wicket. McGrath averages a miserly 21.65 runs per wicket. Thus one could suggest that batsmen, stuck between a rock and a hard place, have no option but to attack Warne and score off his deliveries. Unlike Murali, who with little support at the other end, batsmen don’t have to play his deliveries and can wait out the over knowing they can score off whomever is operating at the other end.
One might even suggest having a McGrath at the other end has ‘robbed’ Warne of many wickets. I cite the ‘05 ashes series, as an example when Warne, operating as the only threatening bowler in the Australian line up, took 40 wickets at an average of 21.
Also Warne’s average, as age has crept up on him, has slowly inflated. I remember a young Warne averaging around 22-23 runs a wicket. Perhaps you should produce a plot of Warne’s strike rate and runs per wicket over his entire career? This might be a useful addition to this tiring debate?
I think there is some truth to Murali getting wickets against the minnows of test cricket. But are we bothered?
Really we are comparing two different bowlers: a finger spinner v a wrist spinner (seems everyone forgets this…). Let us champion SK Warne for reinventing attacking leg spin and Murali for his inventiveness (i.e the Doosra). Both are masters of their arts, and deserve all the accolades bestowed upon them, and we will miss them when they are gone.
Phillip Molly Malone
Dec 27, 2006 at 10:40 pm
The one problem with the arguement that Murli forced the rule change (although partially true) is that technically speaking 80% of bowlers (including Glenn McGrath) had illegal actions as the old rule was written. The thing about it is that Murli’s action looks a lot worst then Glenn McGraths, but none the less both are illegal under the old rule.
The sooner people get over this and realise that Murli has a legal action, the better they will be.
JMTC
Molly
http://boony.mollyzine.com
SixandOut.net - The International Cricket blog » Wisden almanack editorial madness - stop the tattoos
Mar 27, 2007 at 10:10 pm
[…] Who the heck edits the Wisden almanack? Matthew Engel, that’s who. The almanack is something of a legendary book in cricketing terms. It’s a bit like the cricketing bible. Except a new version is released every year. Anyway, the latest (144th) edition was published today. The almanack traditionally announces such important things as the five cricketers of the year and the recently inaugurated “cricketer of the world”. This year, it was Murali. A fair enough choice and one that is long overdue. […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: