Why do Aussies hate murili?

[pasag]

Agreed.

Just to clarify, I wasn't calling you an idiot, you're a gun poster. Hope it didn't come out like that.

 

[Johnners]

Firstly it's not most, secondly it's outspoken members who may make it seem like it's most and thirdly it would be rather idiotic to presume that members in this forum represent the wider Australian public. But whatever.

What he said...

 

[adharcric]

Just to clarify, I wasn't calling you an idiot, you're a gun poster. Hope it didn't come out like that.

Haha, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Jono]

Not defending any racists out there, or trying to be a stirrer, but what would the appropriate method to dress up as Murali be, without being offensive? This probably sounds like a smart-ass question, but its not intended as such, just a random thought at 2am...

Lol.

Well all I can say to it really is its just a touchy area. I'm not sure if you remember Sam Newman painting his face black and pretending to be AFL footballer Nicky Winmar on one Footy Show episode. People can say its 'political correctness' gone mad and what not, but its totally different when its on the other foot.

Then you have to take into account the history of 'black face paint'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface

 

[Son Of Coco]

Bowling to the bottom order is something, as a bowler, i'd take any day of the week over bowling to bona-fide batsmen. You can skittle out the lower order more often than not for next-to-no-runs : for example, when Sreesanth and Zaheer destroyed South Africa in the first test first innings, Kumble bowled 2-3 overs, conceded 2-3 runs and took 2 wickets.
Kumble this series took less wickets than his overall wickets/match rate but at a much better average simply because he came in more often with 3-4 wickets down than just 1 or 2. This is precisely the advantage of bowling behind excellent bowling attack.

As i said, bowling to the lower order because the top order has been scythed out by your pacers will cause you to take less wickets/match but your average, your strike rate, etc. will improve considerably.
Some ill-informed ****** in this thread disputes this but this is not just a logical supposition-this is factual, as evidenced by examining the statistics of bowlers from great bowling attacks. Since bowlers, even from a great bowling attack dont generally start their careers and end it exactly in sync(ie, there is a few years gap and several years overlap : eg Walsh and Ambrose/Bishop, Holding/Roberts and Marshall/Garner, Lindwall and Miller, Statham and Trueman, etc etc) the years they bowl while they have good bowling attack invariably produces better averages and strike rates but with slightly reduced wicket/match haul (ie, instead of 5-80, you get 3-40). When Walsh had Bishop(who was good enough to walk into any lineup before his back injury) and Ambrose set and bowling in the team in the late 80s/early 90s, his average dropped - it climbed back again when Bishop was laid low and it was higher before the arrival of Ambrose/Bishop, when he was essentially partnering Marshall, Patterson and Baptiste, etc for a short period.
Same is true for Ambrose, Trueman, Lindwall, miller,Wasim,Waqar, etc - ie, it is the general pattern, which is not to say there isnt any exception to this. The spin quartet too improved their averages/strike rate in the early-mid 70s when they were all bowling in tandem.This is why, statistically, Hadlee's average/strike rate is worse than Marshall's but his wicket/match rate is higher.
As such, if a bowler, while bowling in a lesser bowling attack ends up with a better wicket/match haul as well as a better/equal average and strike rate, the tangiables, quite categorically point towards him being the superior one.

But i realise why some Aussies are so entrenched about this- you find this irrational hatred of Murali from the aussies, the irrational hatred of Warne from Lankans(though on a much lesser degree- i suspect because the element of racism/ethnocentricm is far less pronounced in their society), the continuous sniping at Tendy from carribean messageboards, the focussing on Lara's failures far more than successes from Indian boards, etc. all fit the pattern.
It is quite simply, insecurity and jealousy- if you are an irrational fan of one particular performer, you develop a dislike automatically for his/her closest rival, simply because they are the ones most likely to deny your 'hero' the #1 spot.
Its just that simple. Some try to couch it behind fuzzy-logic and marked distortion of the basics of the sport/art in question but it is quite common phenomena.
I dont know if there are many music historians here but a friend of mine a long time ago (who eats, breahes and craps music) showed the entrenched rivalry between Bach and Mozart fans too.

If said bowlers have a similar success rate against top order batsmen though wouldn't that be comparable? I think both have proven they can take care of the top order. I don't really care enough to look up the stats though...

 

[Son Of Coco]

http://ashes.sportinglife.com/crick...TORY_NAME=cricket/06/12/21/manual_081248.html

who's the greatest?

Muralitharan - likely to overtake Warne's haul.

By Rory Dollard, PA Sport

In any other era, the achievement of becoming the first bowler in Test history to take 700 Test wickets might be enough for Shane Warne to confidently request a fitting for the crown of greatest spinner of all time.

But despite being only one wicket from this monumental feat, Warne knows that the true owner of finest slow bowler of the modern era is a vexed question.

Because for every mesmerising performance from the Australian icon, there is an equally compelling display from Sri Lanka's own cricketing legend - Muttiah Muralitharan.

From the moment Warne bowled former England captain Mike Gatting with his fabled 'ball of the century' the cricketing world was firmly, and unbreakably, in the Victorian's thrall.

The year was 1993 and at that stage the notion that a Sri Lankan bowler may one day challenge Warne for his unofficial title would have been considered highly unlikely - it is a testament to the achievements of Muralitharan that he is now doing just that.

Their standing in the game is such that Warne and Murali are the only two players in Test history to have claimed more than 600 wickets, with Warne's team-mate Glenn McGrath the highest ranking seamer on 555.

As such there is a largely unspoken race between the two to finish with the most career wickets and set a record that many believe will never be broken.

And although Warne's current pre-eminence sees him leading Muralitharan by an admirable margin, it is now doubtful that he will finish ahead of his rival having announced his retirement at the end of the current Ashes series.

At 34 Murali is around two-and-a-half years younger than Warne - meaning that he should easily outlast the leg-spinner in the international arena.

Naturally comparing the towering achievements of two such giants can be a unenviable task and the conclusion, undoubtedly, is that each player has had a profound effect on cricket as we now know it.

But both men can make tangible claims on the rank of first among equals.

In Warne's favour is that, aside from his own personal tally, he has contributed regularly and heavily to the successes of one of the finest cricket sides ever produced.

Although led by distinguished, era-defining captains like Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and current leader Ricky Ponting, the Baggy Greens generation that will go down in legend alongside the once-dominant West Indies of the 70s and 80s is as much Warne's Australia as anybody's.

World Cups, an almost endless run of victorious Ashes series and a near monopoly of first place in the world rankings have all come to the Antipodeans in the course of Warne's career and success is frequently the barometer by which one can reasonably judge sportsmen.

To that end, he is second to none. Not even Murali.

But delve a little deeper and the Sri Lankan finger-spinner again presses a convincing case.

Firstly, Warne has played a full 33 more matches than Murali - more than enough time to establish a deceptive lead in the wickets-taken category. Given time to play catch-up Muralitharan might even make his way to the once-imponderable 800 mark. In terms of successes, few would rank higher than that.

Warne has bowled in excess of 600 more overs in his Test career. That is a significant deficit for Murali, who boasts a strike-rate of a wicket every 55 balls.

While Warne enjoys a similarly regular success-rate (one every 57 balls), it is the Sri Lankan who has enjoyed a greater volume of big hauls.

He has now claimed five wickets in an innings on 56 occasions and in addition he has recorded a 10-wicket match on 18 occasions, including a staggering sequence of four such matches in succession (against India, Bangladesh and twice against the West Indies in 2001/2).

It is also worthwhile to note the vastly different environments in which the two men have been playing.

While much of Warne's career has been spent in an Australian side as dominant as there has ever been in world cricket, Muralitharan's Sri Lanka, despite their remarkable rise in Test cricket, have spent large amounts of that time - especially away from the sub-continent - on the back foot.

Where Warne has long enjoyed the luxury of his side's prolific batsmen establishing a huge advantage to play with, Murali has often been handed the task of saving the match with little or no margin for error. In many instances he has done just that.

But the perception of Muralitharan as a one-man attack also works in his favour. Where he is frequently given carte-blanche to bowl without rest - thereby increasing his chances of taking more Test scalps - Warne has had to share the burden of wicket-taking with luminaries such as McGrath, Craig McDermott, Merv Hughes and Brett Lee.

On many occasions, the Australian seam department has been in such rude health that there are just a handful of wickets left when the spin is called upon.

Had Warne, the man who saved from extinction the art of leg-spin, been born into another era, he would surely have become indisputably the greatest slow bowler of his generation.

But the shadow of Muralitharan, whose achievements in redefining what is possible with finger-spin at least match Warne's, means it is an honour he cannot take for granted as he prepares to bow out next year.

Just a question...does every opinion of yours come with a headline and a ghost writer?

 

[Son Of Coco]

I get what you mean, but however much Muralitharan tries and takes the abuse on the chin, the Aussies as a whole will still hate him because they think he cheats.

You're right...I didn't even realise I hated Murali, but I'm an Aussie, so I must!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Tbf, most Aussie members in here don't seem especially fond of Murali at least from what I've seen.

Tbf, it seems here sometimes that if you don't worship the ground he walks on you're tarred with the same brush as those who genuinely don't like him.

 

[adharcric]

Tbf, it seems here sometimes that if you don't worship the ground he walks on you're tarred with the same brush as those who genuinely don't like him.

Look, I've seen several (outspoken) Aussies talking trash about Murali in here. You're not one of them. That's all I have to say on this matter.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

I am not the biggest fan of Murali but I would not stoop to the level of racial abuse, it is wrong and against my morals. You can dislike someone but not have not stoop to such lows.

I am more of a reader of this forums, I enjoy reading both adharcric and Pheonix opinions but to jump to the conclusion that they are Australian they must hate Murali is an insult to us Australians. We are not all idiots who feel they must racially abuse and taunt him from the stands when he comes out.

 

[adharcric]

This is getting ridiculous now. I say that most Aussie posters "from what I've seen" don't seem to like Murali. FFS, I didn't even make a generalization. Most != All.
Pasag corrects me by saying that it's the outspoken ones that create that illusion, fair enough. I never agreed with PhoenixFire's statement. Now I have all of Australia at my throat?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Look, I've seen several (outspoken) Aussies talking trash about Murali in here. You're not one of them. That's all I have to say on this matter.

You're not who I was referring to as far as worshipping the ground he walks on either, I was making a general statement (although I hope it stopped short of sweeping ).

 

[Son Of Coco]

This is getting ridiculous now. I say that most Aussie posters "from what I've seen" don't seem to like Murali. FFS, I didn't even make a generalization. Most != All.
Pasag corrects me by saying that it's the outspoken ones that create that illusion, fair enough. Now I have all of Australia at my throat?

If John Howard chimes in I suggest you quit while you're ahead.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

This is getting ridiculous now. I say that most Aussie posters "from what I've seen" don't seem to like Murali. FFS, I didn't even make a generalization. Most != All.
Pasag corrects me by saying that it's the outspoken ones that create that illusion, fair enough. I didn't even agree with PhoenixFire. Now I have all of Australia at my throat?

Mate most is pretty close to all, that is good enough for me.

As I already stated I do enjoy reading your posts

 

[adharcric]

Mate most is pretty close to all, that is good enough for me.

As I already stated I do enjoy reading your posts

Please read my post again. Read the part about Pasag correcting my illusion five more times.

EDIT: Read the part with "from what I've seen" ten more times.

 

[pasag]

If John Howard chimes in I suggest you quit while you're ahead.

Haha indeed.

Yeah not sure why people are jumping on adharcric here. It was PhoenixFire with the dire post.

 

[auscricket]

"Why do Aussies hate Murili?"

That's a very rash statement, on the borderline of stupid. No one hates him, and people only say he chucks to get in his face a bit.

Hate is a strong word. How can you possibly "hate" someone you don't even know? He cops flack from the crowd yes, but he wouldn't be the first. And you certainly can't represent the Australian nation by a few drunken members of the crowd. That statement reads that the nation collectively hates him. Umm... a bit general don't you think?

Australians aren't racist either, just the fools in the stands who've had one to many drinks. We're one of the most multicultural nations in the world, so it doesn't make sense that we would be.

IMO, stupid question. Try again OP.

 

[Matt79]

Lol.

Well all I can say to it really is its just a touchy area. I'm not sure if you remember Sam Newman painting his face black and pretending to be AFL footballer Nicky Winmar on one Footy Show episode. People can say its 'political correctness' gone mad and what not, but its totally different when its on the other foot.

Then you have to take into account the history of 'black face paint'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface

Yep, being in a slightly more lucid state than I was last night, and having thought about it for more than two seconds, you're entirely right. I was trying not to come across as defending the practice, but reading my post I don't think I suceeded. Clearly, even if the intention is not at all to be offensive, the act of donning the black face paint to assist in a satire or mockery of a coloured man is so redolent with history and old hatreds that it simply isn't acceptable. Anyone who thinks it is, even if they don't understand the reasons why they're wrong, needs to just take society's word for it...

 

[C_C]

Alagna's actions were universally condemned by members of the audience, critics and the general public

Duh!
They are the 'one side' of the coin. I'd like to know how many Tenors and Sopranos condemned Alagna.
I doubt you have much knowledge or experience in the non-public side of the coin and how extremely uncouth it is considered by the performers when they are heckled by people who's parents have done a pathetic job teaching them manners.

 

[C_C]

I have to say I'm guessing C_C doesn't get to sporting events very often. Never been to an opera in my life (nor do I intend do, steaming pile of bollox that it is; foreign bollox for the most part too, but I digress) but i imagine the accepted etiquette is somewhat different to your average football match.

"Call that an aria, you fat ****?"

"Paverotti - Shut your mouth!!"

"There's only one Placido Domingo, one Placido Domingo..."

On the contrary- i am a frequent visitor to sporting events and cultural events both in and outside Canada. However, i dont give a toss what the 'general behaviour' is- just because proper crowd ettiquette and manners are very rare, it doesnt justify the crowd behaviour one bit.
As i said, the crowd tends to think that since they paid money for their attendance, it is within their right to voice their (and in most cases, highly uneducated) opinions. Not so- as i said, it is a priviledge to attend functions and sporting events where people with far greater skill than yourself perform. If you feel that the performance doesnt suit your taste, you are free to leave. However, booing and heckling shows only one thing : Your lack of manners and proper upbringing.