Murali's Record

[JASON]

This thread has been soured by some people who try desperately to pour their poison into every thread. I would rather its closed, tbh.

 

[FRAZ]

This thread has been soured by some people who try desperately to pour their poison into every thread. I would rather its closed, tbh.

loved the sentence . hehe

 

[Son Of Coco]

This thread has been soured by some people who try desperately to pour their poison into every thread. I would rather its closed, tbh.

Give me a break...I've just written an insightful piece complete with circus analogy that deserves to be read (and responded to) by the cricketing public as a whole! Who are you to deny them this right?

The grapes I referred to in my previous post were Thompson's seedless (I demand this on my rider, and if they're not present then the spinner usually runs down to the local markets and picks up a couple of bunches)...always fresh, never sour.

 

[shortpitched713]

Who needs to bowl 30-over spells if you've knocked a team over before the second new ball's due?

Are you seriously telling me that a pace bowler will knock over a team in less than 80 overs on every go?

 

[Top_Cat]

3. The advent of more and more bowlers bowling the doosra has made the already strong Australian batting line up less susceptible to the same by the time he agreed to go there again this year.

I don't know if I agree with this. Every other offie with a doosra has had success (Saqlain, Harbhajan) with it against the Aussies and, to be honest, Murali's turns so much and requires a much greater contortion of the wrist so it's barely a doosra as it is. That same extraordinary contortion means it's more obvious out of the hand than those bowled by others and, I think, suffers due to it's own cleverness i.e. whilst difficult to bowl, it's also difficult to conceal. Couple this with that Murali uses it quite a bit so it becomes more of a stock ball alongside his offie and less of a surprise variation. Batsmen get a decent look at it and I've always thought that Murali overuses it, especially earlier in his career. His ripping offie is still his greatest asset and that he uses it less and relies on tricks means he wrecks less capable teams but has struggled against the Aussies at home and away (yes, he's taken some wickets at home but he paid a hefty price for them and on a few occasions, they came in a rush after the Aussies had already topped 400 or so).

Truth is, the Aussies have never struggled against his doosra for a protracted length of time. Murali has troubled them when he bowls his orthodox off-break consistently and with straight-ball variations.

4. This Australian side has three left handers in the top four and another in Gilchrist. Four of the five hundreds in this series were scored by left handers. I suspect these left handers reduced Murali's effectiveness. Though how big is this a factor is not that easy to be stated.

Generally, offies do better against lefties. Why? Because the ball turns away from the bat. That the Aussie lefties have done well against Murali suggests he bowled his doosra quite frequently and lefties find it easier to counter.

5. The determination of not letting Murali break Warne's record in Australia was a HUGE factor this time around. Its difficult to think of a non-cricketing issue that may have affected, positively, a team's performance in one aspect on the field as this might have.

Meh, vastly overplayed in my opinion. Even from a team as professional as the Aussies, introducing outside factors distracts from what's important i.e. getting runs, taking wickets and if this was seriously in the minds of the Aussies, I'd reckon they'd have been fodder for him because they'd have been more pre-occupied with denying him wickets and less with just scoring runs against him. It's not as if they stone-walled him, either; on occasion, they spanked him around a bit.

6. Murali too must have been affected by all this talk of not letting him get his record in Australia and this would surely have affected his mental make up and thereby performance. He is clearly a very emotional person.

This is a bigger factor, I reckon. He seems a nice guy and would probably be wondering what he did wrong to engender so much hatred!

 

[Richard]

Are you seriously telling me that a pace bowler will knock over a team in less than 80 overs on every go?

Well no-one will do something every time, and obviously one bowler will never do such, but an attack full of high-calibre seamers will do the trick far, far more often than not.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Generally, offies do better against lefties. Why? Because the ball turns away from the bat. That the Aussie lefties have done well against Murali suggests he bowled his doosra quite frequently and lefties find it easier to counter.

Am pretty sure I've read that Murali himself rathers bowling to right handers.

 

[Richard]

At the very least he certainly used to, and probably still does.

In the pre-Wrong-'Un days, he often used to struggle badly against left-handers. He also used to absolutely hate bowling round-the-wicket. Both of those have changed in the last 4 or 5 years or so, but I'd imagine he probably still prefers righties.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He also used to absolutely hate bowling round-the-wicket.

I believe he straightened his run-up a bit to help him with this.

 

[Matt79]

Well done Murali. A well-deserved record. Can't see any of the players still playing getting close to what Murali will finish with, nor any of them deserving to do so.

 

[shortpitched713]

Well no-one will do something every time, and obviously one bowler will never do such, but an attack full of high-calibre seamers will do the trick far, far more often than not.

Well sometimes it will do the trick, but other times it will not. And thats really where a spinner or two are valuable. Bowling in cricket is not just about attack but also about defense, and in this aspect spinners have the distinct advantage in being able to bowl as many overs as you like, hopefully tightly, and therefore make it less necessary to resort to lesser bowlers once the quicks tire. And then, once having made a breakthrough, the best spinners like Murali and Warne will be able to transition to more attacking bowling without even having to make a change.

Basically a good spinner (Murali, Warne, Kumble, etc.) is like a get out of jail card for a captain, in that you can insert him at one end almost regardless of the situation and not have to worry about it for the rest of the session. Theres no way a fast bowler can compare in that regard.

 

[Richard]

Maybe one single seamer can't, no, but 2 of them can. They don't even have to be absolute top-rank seamers either: Angus Fraser and Andrew Caddick (on a good day) could do that job with no difficulty at all. And they could translate into attacking weapons in the right conditions, just as Kumble can.

I'd also say no spinner can ever be a guranteed block-up - the batsman always has the get-out clause of running down the pitch, or even playing the sweep-shot to a good-length delivery. An accurate seamer > an accurate spinner in terms of keeping things quiet.

The only thing a spinner has over a seamer is that they can bowl longer spells. And as I say, two good stock-bowling seamers can do the job combined with every bit as much longevity.

Ergo, give me Donald and Hadlee (for instance) over Warne and Murali every single time. Likewise, give me Caddick (on a good day) and Fraser over Kumble and Harbhajan on anything other than a spin-receptive surface.

Remember, we're talking about comparing the very best seamers with the very best spinners. Not the very best spinners with some more middling seamers.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There is a story on this... Every one used to play Kumble for the turn and used to be flummoxed. Then, Cronje, the great captain that he was, figured - he doesn't turn the ball much, play him like a medium pacer. South Africa fared well against him and then Lanka adopted the same strategy to bash him him.

I know, and they succeeded for a couple series, and he had to make some adjustment to his game. Even now, many teams try to play him as an oncoming medium pacer, but that doesn't work as well as it used to against him, he uses bounce and other tools much more intelligently these days.

Duncan Fletcher apparently advocated playing him as a inswing bowler, so the idea persists now.

 

[shortpitched713]

Ergo, give me Donald and Hadlee (for instance) over Warne and Murali every single time. Likewise, give me Caddick (on a good day) and Fraser over Kumble and Harbhajan on anything other than a spin-receptive surface.

I'm not sure you're understanding my point. Of course spinners can't do it alone, but give me an attack of the four above over an attack with four great seamers every time. Because if they fail at picking up early wickets (unlikely as it is, but supposing they faced all time great opposition), then Murali and Warne could plug up both ends while giving away next to nothing for an interminable period of time, leaving you with two fresh seamers for use once the breakthrough is made.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'd also say no spinner can ever be a guranteed block-up - the batsman always has the get-out clause of running down the pitch, or even playing the sweep-shot to a good-length delivery. An accurate seamer > an accurate spinner in terms of keeping things quiet.

Both of the above methods are risky though. Once a batsman runs down the pitch, a good spinner will begin to vary his line and length more, making such a proposition unlikely to succeed if tried again, and much more risky.

And good spinners like to see batsmen sweeping them off a good length because they are capable of changing the bounce through top and underspin to create a chance of a top edge or lbw.

Of course batsmen can take risks off of spinners to get "easy" runs, but they can do the same off of the fast bowler using his pace ie glide over slips, premeditated strokes, etc.

 

[Richard]

I'm not sure you're understanding my point. Of course spinners can't do it alone, but give me an attack of the four above over an attack with four great seamers every time. Because if they fail at picking up early wickets (unlikely as it is, but supposing they faced all time great opposition), then Murali and Warne could plug up both ends while giving away next to nothing for an interminable period of time, leaving you with two fresh seamers for use once the breakthrough is made.

If they faced all-time-great opposition I'm fairly confident neither Warne nor Murali would be able to tie-down an end as successfully as, for instance, Ambrose and McGrath. Not even close, in fact.

If I was facing (for instance) Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Headley, Hammond, Tendulkar, Gilchrist (circa 2002), I'd want Marshall and the 4 mentioned (eventually) above way, way before I'd even think of wanting Warne or Murali.

 

[Richard]

Both of the above methods are risky though. Once a batsman runs down the pitch, a good spinner will begin to vary his line and length more, making such a proposition unlikely to succeed if tried again, and much more risky.

And good spinners like to see batsmen sweeping them off a good length because they are capable of changing the bounce through top and underspin to create a chance of a top edge or lbw.

Of course batsmen can take risks off of spinners to get "easy" runs, but they can do the same off of the fast bowler using his pace ie glide over slips, premeditated strokes, etc.

That's just the point, though - such strokes (and their chances of success) are markedly higher against spinners, otherwise the best wristspinners would have comparable averages to the best seamers. Sure, if you go for Warne and Murali by running at them (and even more by sweeping them) there's a decent chance they'll get you out. But it'll probably mean you succeed a bit better than you otherwise would.

With the seamers, the get-out clause is more like a suicide note.

 

[Richard]

Duncan Fletcher apparently advocated playing him as a inswing bowler, so the idea persists now.

Duncan Fletcher certainly wasn't the first to suggest the idea; as I said, can't remember if it was earlier this thread or not, I'm pretty sure Graham Gooch was the first to advocate the strategy, and Michael Atherton someone who continued to recommend it. And both heaped praise on Kumble, after he took 9-143 at Mohali in 2005\06, for making that strategy one that was no longer viable.

 

[shortpitched713]

If they faced all-time-great opposition I'm fairly confident neither Warne nor Murali would be able to tie-down an end as successfully as, for instance, Ambrose and McGrath. Not even close, in fact.

Nah.

If I was facing (for instance) Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Headley, Hammond, Tendulkar, Gilchrist (circa 2002), I'd want Marshall and the 4 mentioned (eventually) above way, way before I'd even think of wanting Warne or Murali.

I'd go with three of the above and Murali and pick an extra batsman.

 

[shortpitched713]

That's just the point, though - such strokes (and their chances of success) are markedly higher against spinners, otherwise the best wristspinners would have comparable averages to the best seamers. Sure, if you go for Warne and Murali by running at them (and even more by sweeping them) there's a decent chance they'll get you out. But it'll probably mean you succeed a bit better than you otherwise would.

Thats a myth. They'll get you out quickly far more often than you'll succeed at getting a good number of runs using that method.

With the seamers, the get-out clause is more like a suicide note.

With seamers you can use the pace on the ball against them. Against seamers good batsmen are better able to pick out the gaps behind the wicket. Against spinners its far harder to manipulate unless you go over the top, and even then the ball can come off the bat different from expected due to the spin on the ball.

I don't think theres anything suicidal about playing strokes like the glide, late cut, leg glance against seamers.