Murali's Record

[JBH001]

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

Yep. An anomaly for an offie and a consequence of Murali's wrist.

Basically, the man gets too much turn, therefore lefthanders are well able to simply leave a large proportion of deliveries, confident that they do not have to play. When he does pitch straighter the lbw still does not come into play even if leftied simplay thrust their pads out at the ball because of the turn he usually extracts, otherwise when pitching straighter he is simply picked off for runs in the arc between long-on and fine leg.

Murali has a very 'subcontinental' need to spin the ball as much as possible. He really likes to rip it, he does not seem inclined (as Warne did in the latter third of his career) or to have thought of varying the amount of spin he imparts to the ball - or else he may have, but is unwilling to trade the possible loss of dip when he imparts less revolutions on to the ball. There have been some interesting comments recently that he is not spinning it as much or as consistently as he used to (age catching up perhaps?). If this is the case it would be interesting to see how he handles this development in the next year or so.

 

[JBH001]

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

Correct. Its straighter, and also I think, a little shorter. However, I still think he has trouble bowling a preferred line from around the wicket due to his action (and perhaps the very physical abnormalities that give him his gifts). Often I think he pitches the ball too much on middle to leg from around the wicket to right hander when I would think that anywhere between off and middle would be a better line. Still, he has taken a crapload of wickets when bowling around the wicket in recent years - so its more likely that I am well wrong where this is concerned.

 

[simmy]

Congrats to Murali... even if he does have a wife that looks 14 years old...

 

[SJS]

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

Yes he does.

 

[Richard]

Nah.

Well, yeah, I am. You might not be though.

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

I assure you, you'll need 5 bowlers against that lot!

 

[Richard]

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.

Of course they will, otherwise everyone would do it ATT. But it's a potential get-out clause the way there is no equivalent against seamers.

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.

You can only play them if you get the deliveries, though - they're not shots you can just think "I'll play the late-cut this ball".

The point is, with spinners you can put away deliveries which deserve it and you can look to score from good deliveries. It's rare to see batsmen try this to seamers in a Test-match, and there's a reason for that.

 

[shortpitched713]

I assure you, you'll need 5 bowlers against that lot!

In that case, I'd take Sobers. Point remains the same.

 

[shortpitched713]

The point is, with spinners you can put away deliveries which deserve it and you can look to score from good deliveries. It's rare to see batsmen try this to seamers in a Test-match, and there's a reason for that.

Its done in one day cricket all the time, and I don't see why it can't be done in the Test form. As long as you don't telegraph it, a premeditated stroke can do wonders as a "get out-clause" if you will.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Comparing spinners and fast bowlers is about as fruitless as comparing openers and middle order bats... Different roles, diff. responsibilities, diff. styles and diff. ways of measuring "perceived success".....



Amazing that people haven't commented on this yet.

 

[Richard]

While that's very true, my point is that you can get on without top-class spinners if you have top-class seamers.

While the reverse will never be true due to the irregularity of top-class spinners. Obviously, if you picked an all-time attack of Murali, Grimmett, O'Reilly and Warne it'd still be one hell of a prospect. But it'd pale, massively, in comparison to one of Marshall, Donald, Hadlee, Lindwall (for instance).

 

[Richard]

Its done in one day cricket all the time, and I don't see why it can be done in the Test form. As long as you don't telegraph it, a premeditated stroke can do wonders as a "get out-clause" if you will.

Don't you think there's a reason almost always, it's seamers who bowl at the death in OD cricket? As a seamer it's far easier to combat premeditation - which is why it's tried regularly enough in Tests against spinners and almost never against seamers.

 

[Richard]

In that case, I'd take Sobers. Point remains the same.

Sobers was not always a front-line bowler, and when he was was never close to being an all-time great bowler. He'd seriously struggle against batting-line-ups featuring the likes of himself and Bradman.

 

[honestbharani]

While that's very true, my point is that you can get on without top-class spinners if you have top-class seamers.

While the reverse will never be true due to the irregularity of top-class spinners. Obviously, if you picked an all-time attack of Murali, Grimmett, O'Reilly and Warne it'd still be one hell of a prospect. But it'd pale, massively, in comparison to one of Marshall, Donald, Hadlee, Lindwall (for instance).

It doesn't necessarily mean the spinners are the worse bowlers when compared to the quick men. That is like saying that a team can get on with 6 opening batsmen (test class, obviously) but cannot get on with 6 middle order batsmen....


You need the quick men simply because that is the best way to go about with a new ball, but there is no way a 5 man pace attack better than a 4 man pace attack + one of Warne/Murali, no matter who the 5th pace bowler is..... There are inherent advantages of having the spinner in your attack and the qualities he does bring far far outweigh what an additional seamer brings to the table, no matter how good he is....

 

[honestbharani]

Don't you think there's a reason almost always, it's seamers who bowl at the death in OD cricket? As a seamer it's far easier to combat premeditation - which is why it's tried regularly enough in Tests against spinners and almost never against seamers.

Just watch how the batsmen plonk their front foot down in flat tracks against seamers. On such tracks, a spinner has a much better chance than a seamer to break through, simply because at times, batsmen tend to pre-meditate too much against a spinner or because at times, the spinner can get the ball to do something out of the rough, which a seamer can never do.


As I said, you are comparing apples and oranges here. There is no way to conclude one set is better than the other any which way you look at it.

 

[Richard]

It doesn't necessarily mean the spinners are the worse bowlers when compared to the quick men. That is like saying that a team can get on with 6 opening batsmen (test class, obviously) but cannot get on with 6 middle order batsmen....


You need the quick men simply because that is the best way to go about with a new ball, but there is no way a 5 man pace attack better than a 4 man pace attack + one of Warne/Murali, no matter who the 5th pace bowler is..... There are inherent advantages of having the spinner in your attack and the qualities he does bring far far outweigh what an additional seamer brings to the table, no matter how good he is....

Meh, don't agree TBH. Feel 5 top-class seamers > 4 top-class seamers + 1 top-class spinner. No way to prove it conclusively, though, as it's only ever going to be done on hypothetical composition, not reality.

 

[Jono]

Not going to argue, but can't believe you think that Richard. Quite surprised.

 

[honestbharani]

Meh, don't agree TBH. Feel 5 top-class seamers > 4 top-class seamers + 1 top-class spinner. No way to prove it conclusively, though, as it's only ever going to be done on hypothetical composition, not reality.

not sure... a lot depends on the conditions obviously but I do think that a top class spinner can be quite a handful on any wicket, esp. to the tailenders, given that we have 4 top class seamers to go with him. I would rather prefer the spinner... And so would most cricket lovers, I dare say...

 

[Richard]

Oh, yes, a lot depends on the conditions, sure - there are undoutedly conditions which make Murali\Warne\Grimmett\O'Reilly as dangerous a prospect as Marshall et al.

The statement of mine is less based on a single game and more based on the presumption of a succession of games over different sets of conditions.

Overall - more often - the top-class seamer > the top-class spinner.

 

[Richard]

Not going to argue, but can't believe you think that Richard. Quite surprised.

Yeah, I know, I recall you saying a similar thing to ss not so long ago.

TBH, I do wonder, in 10 years' time, when Warne and Murali are both long-retired and their immediate impact on the public has faded, whether the balance of who thinks who's best will be redressed towards seam as it was in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. There's no way we're remotely likely to see two spinners anywhere near as good as them for a fair while.

And hopefully we'll be seeing a generation of decent seam-bowlers starting a year or so ago. If we do, I seriously hope Warne and Murali will slide down a bit.

For all the brilliant seam-bowlers the game has seen in the last 60 years, it almost seems indecent that two wristspinners - two of only five truly outstanding purveyors of the art in history - should be so matter-of-factly put in a top-ten by almost all, and it be considered outrageous amongst most people to leave them out.

 

[Ikki]

Agree with HB. A spinner like Warne or Murali compares quite easily with any seamer. I'd say the factor that would decide any match between the two sets of bowlers is form. The other factors are close enough to be negligible.

I think the fact that there have been so few spinners like Warne or Murali gives the illusion that seamers are better. Quantity, sure. Quality, I disagree.