Havent read many of the last few posts so if I am repeating myself, I am sorry.
(Been on the turps for the last couple of days)
Hmm, I may have been the minority that didn't really expect Murali to do well and I am not surprised. I thought, though, if he had it would have really improved his legacy.
I thought the same at the start of the series (except for my rather optimistic post two days ago where I thought, out of wishful thinking, that Murali might take a bag at Hobart) where I said he would not break the record in Australia. If I recall my post at the time, I said that Murali would bowl well, but that Australia would play him very well, and that has been the case. 3 wickets for 310 runs is a poor haul for the series, but not entirely unexpected given the context he was bowling in - and for most of his spells I dont think it was for lack of trying. The only spell of his where I thought he was relatively poor was on the second day at Hobart where I thought he bowled too fast and too flat most of the time. Maybe this was a result of the injury to Maharoof and the realisation that he would have to shore up an end, and try to contain as much as possible. His wickets so far have come from classical attacking spinning deliveries, and his battles with Ponting (which I think he won) were great to watch, as were his battles with Hussey and Clarke (which he lost). But there is no shame in one of the greatest bowlers coming up short (or rather not as good) agains the best batsmen in the world on flat tracks. Murali is not a Bradman of bowling after all - and our expectations of him as a bowler are based on his achievements over the years, which really in a back handed way indicates how good people think he is and how good he is.
With regards to Warne being in the same boat...I think Warne would have stopped caring about how many runs he was going per over or realising that, regardless, the opposition would have made a big score and would have tried anything to change up the game and get a wicket. I think that would have also spurred on his teammates and I think, if not in that match, in the next they'd come to the pitch with a different attitude. That's what Warne did for you. He'd never let the opposition feel that they can rest on their laurels, and not because he was going to bowl a lot, but for the fact that he was going to try anything and test you at everything for every single ball. It's why when he balled, you could never take your eyes off the screen. Something was always going to happen with Warne on the pitch twirling the ball, as it most often did.
Agreed. This is one aspect of Warne's bowling I have always liked. The unceasing attack. And this is one aspect of Murali's bowling I usually have not liked. That is the tendency to go on the backfoot too quickly when I would prefer him to keep attacking. This may be a personality thing - I do not know, but it would also be foolish to suggest that it may solely be a personality thing. Murali has rarely had the luxury of being an out and out attacking bowler throughout his career - it has usually been a mixture of strike and stock. And we saw this latter option encapsulated in the second day at Hobart. Simply put Murali, given the context of the team, cannot not care about how many runs he is going for or how on top the opposition are. Given the team he is in, I do not think he can do otherwise - especially overseas. So, saying that he should have done this and done that is often, I think, to miss the point.
Though, as I have said, I do recognise the argument used and recognise the validity of it. All it means is that arguments of Warne v Murali will go on and on. Although we will have to wait for Murali to hang up his boots before a proper assessment can be made - and I increasingly doubt if it can be done in an objective fashion. Subjective considerations will, I think, inevitability swing it depending on the individuals concerned.
(Also sorry if that was a long rabble. I am hung over as buggery)
