Murali vs. Kumble (right now)

[Francis]

Just to make things clear, I don't think Kumble is as great as Murali or close to being as great as Murali, this thread is simply questioning who's better right now. Two best bowlers in the world today. I think Kumble is slightly better right now.

You can't compare the two very easily because they're different. Murali relies more on majestic turn and variation. I think he gets a lot of his wickets from batsmen not being able to pick him. Kumble is more probing. He's facinating to watch in that what he does is different, yet sometimes you hardly notice on TV. That delivery he bowled to get rid of Mike Hussey is my pick for best dismissal of the year. He just probed on him and did something slightly different. He only bowled a tiny wrong'un but it worked a gem. I can't think of many bowlers in the world who could manipulate Hussey with a few deliveries beforehand, and then getting him out like that.

They're close. But for me it's slightly Kumble.

 

[haroon510]

i will do the honer and post first.. here

Murali

 

[JBH001]

Kumble easily. Murali is not playing right now, so its pretty obvious. Dire, dire, thread btw.

 

[Hoggy31]

Kumble, takes wickets everywhere.

 

[Ikki]

Kumble, takes wickets everywhere.

But not near as good as Murali. I can't really see the point in comparing them at the moment other than both playing Australia recently. And it'd be better to see how Kumble finishes.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Murali had a better year than Kumble bowling wise, but I agree with your assessment of how Kumble and Murali approach Australia, not only this summer but in the past too.

 

[Francis]

Kumble easily. Murali is not playing right now, so its pretty obvious. Dire, dire, thread btw.

I feel like slapping the taste out of every CW member who uses that term "dire". If you don't like threads, don't post in them. What really is "dire" is how often that term is sarcastically used here.


Anyway I want to make a few arguments for Kumble...

* The goal of a bowler is to win Tests, and that doesn't always entail taking wickets quickly, for a bowler is just means taking wickets. Take Shane Warne, who seldom bowled 50 overs because his body and surgically repaired fingers couldn't go that long. Lets just say he takes 4 wickets after bowling 25 overs. That's great - excellent strike-rate, valuable wickets etc. But the rest of his bowlers suck and can't take wickets. Australia would be in a bind then. Then lets say Kumble plays a game and doesn't take wickets for the first 20 overs (he normally does), but he goes 50 to 60 overs and takes 6 or 7 wickets. He just won India the game. That's an example of Kumble's value and greatness. Like Murali he's durable and can keep on going and still be effective.

Think about that scenario. Then ask yourself: "How many games has Kumble won for India?" Anil Kumble is India's most important player because he wins them games and no cricketer in India's history has won more games for India than Anil.

People don't rate Kumble highly because he's not flashy and he doesn't stand out. He doesn't spin the ball a lot, and if spin is an art, then Warne and Murali are artists and Kumble is a tradesman. But he's effective.

I don't hold Murali's performance against Australia to much against him. The fact that he didn't get wickets doesn't mean he couldn't. I suppose he lacked a plan B, but he did OK. As far as Australia go, I think Kumble is a better *type* of bowler to face them. Murali gets a lot of wickets from massive spin and batsmen's inability to pick him is his greatest asset. Kumble is more probing and his deliveries have a "sameness" about them that makes it difficult to discern any difference any time Kumble does something different.

When Kumble got Mike Hussey, he didn't telegraph his wrong'un, and he didn't care about spinning it much. I think sometimes small differences are more dangerous than big differences. Myself personally I've defended slower balls well, but gone out to deliveries that might only be slightly slower or faster. Andy Roberts used to say a slightly faster delivery is more important than a slower ball. That's Kumble's great gift, he's ridiculously subtle.

Like I said, when both are retired, I'll always say Murali was better by a mile and Kumble isn't in his league. But Kumble just bowled his greatest ever spell outside the sub-continent and is at the peak of his powers. Ian Chappell used to say (and he's right), that footwork nullifies spin. And it does. But it's great seeing two batsmen: Hussey and Clarke, one (Clarke) with the best footwork to compete with spinners in the Aussie side, being unable to master Kumble just because of subtle differences.

I'll go as far to say that I think Kumble could compete with Lara playing at his best. I'm not saying he'd master him, but he'd give him a good contest. Lara's asset against Murali was that he knew how to nullify spin wonderfully. Kumble's more subtle. Lara wouldn't have to worry about nullifying spin more than making sure he doesn't fall into one of Kumble's traps. Again it really has to do more about *type*, and Kumble's a great *type* for some batsmen.

I really think people underrate him.

 

[Perm]

Muralitharan - better bowler.
Kumble - better against Australia.

That's all it comes down to. There is no way at all that Kumble can claim to be as good, or better, than Muralitharan. It just so happens that Kumble is a better bowler against Australia.

 

[JBH001]

I feel like slapping the taste out of every CW member who uses that term "dire". If you don't like threads, don't post in them. What really is "dire" is how often that term is sarcastically used here.

I really think people underrate him.

Fair enough, I suppose.

The only reason I was sarcastic was because I queried the timing of the thread. But I stand corrected (and fwiw I only use dire on these boards, its a lame term tbph, dont even know why I use it here in the few instances that I do. I should stop that).

In terms of the thread, I dont think Kumble is better than Murali right now (although the fact that they have both played Australia recently may give off that illusion).

It should be remembered that Kumble did bowl his best ever spell outside India, and did have a handy supporting cast around him and a more helpful surface. What I did take away from the Australia tests where Murali was concerned was that Murali needs to be more willing to buy wickets at times (like Kumble was if his ER was anything to go by) and that Murali is unable to do it alone in Australia against Australia like he is almost everywhere else, and against almost everybody else.

Also, I dont under-rate Kumble. I think he is a very fine bowler, indeed. And as you say, perhaps under-rated by many others (due perhaps to his unflashy nature and unflashy bowling).

But, I also think that Murali's craftiness and thought is also under-rated - after all, no one goes 110 odd tests with 720 odd wickets over 17 years purely on being difficult to pick. It doesn't work that way at test level.

 

[Francis]

It should be remembered that Kumble did bowl his best ever spell outside India, and did have a handy supporting cast around him and a more helpful surface.

I accept everything you said in your post except this. As I've alluded to before in other threads, nobody gets a bowler his wicket but the bowler. Sometimes the pressure from the other end helps a little, but as I always said when people talked about the Warne/McGrath partnership. Everytime both of them bowled bad deliveries they got murdered, and if the pressure from the other end doesn't help prevent runs, how is it meant to help get wickets. There's answers to that, but by and large people overuse and excentuate how much the bowler at the other end helps.

Be that as it "may", Kumble didn't get a lot of help. Despite good bowling on the first day (the pacemen were unlucky and Kumble's captaincy sucked), Kumble came on when no wickets had been taken. There was a steady flow of runs for Australia actually.

Secondly, Kumble DID NOT have a helpful surface. It's actually hard to say how the Melbourne pitch influenced the game. I'd never seen is as it was. It was slow and offered little to the bowlers. But at the same time that outfield was incredibly slow and the wicket was slow. Matthew Hayden made a great call when he said "we make a point to go after the ball and not wait for it to come onto the bat". I'd say the pitch was hard to bowl on and hard to bat on truth be told. It reacted to the seamers a bit like a subcontinent wicket where the ball kept low from time to time... but it offered little spin on the first day.

Muralitharan - better bowler.
Kumble - better against Australia.

Over their careers maybe. I don't see, if Kumble bowled that well on a regular basis, why he couldn't get wickets against anybody else. Absolutely no reason. In fact I have seen him murder teams in a similar fashion. I'd argue throughout his career Murali's been far more consistent.

 

[JBH001]

Thinking about it a little more...

Where Kumble really has it, is in the fact that he barely moves it at all.

Once that is established and the fact that he generally bowls in a straight line right at the batsman, minor variations in turn and flight are enough to cause problems for the batsmen. Up until 2002/2003 Kumble did not really have a leggie to call on - but, iirc, he managed to change that (round about the tour of Australia) by bowling slightly round arm which gave him a decent enough leg spinner (even though his arm action looks more or less the same). The combination of the small leggie, bouncing top spinner, and small googly means that, along with a tight line, only very little has to be done to get the batsman into trouble (and coming down to him is harder because of his height and the pace with which he bowls the ball). In some ways, imo, Kumble can be seen as a sort of spinning version of a good medium pace seamer/swing bowler. Where he is similar to Warne is the fact that he seems to be able to impart variable degrees of turn (although it may just be the difference between no turn and little turn) whereas Murali - as we know - always likes to rip the ball as much as possible.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

As you know Francis, I've longed argued that Kumble belongs in the same sentence as Warne and Murali... Does this mean you're coming round?

 

[Perm]

Over their careers maybe. I don't see, if Kumble bowled that well on a regular basis, why he couldn't get wickets against anybody else. Absolutely no reason. In fact I have seen him murder teams in a similar fashion. I'd argue throughout his career Murali's been far more consistent.

It's a real shame you don't post more often Francis.

Kumble is a very good bowler, and does have the ability to take wickets against all opposition. The thing is, Muralitharan does it better, as is reflected in his average.

 

[JBH001]

I accept everything you said in your post except this. As I've alluded to before in other threads, nobody gets a bowler his wicket but the bowler. Sometimes the pressure from the other end helps a little, but as I always said when people talked about the Warne/McGrath partnership. Everytime both of them bowled bad deliveries they got murdered, and if the pressure from the other end doesn't help prevent runs, how is it meant to help get wickets. There's answers to that, but by and large people overuse and excentuate how much the bowler at the other end helps.

Be that as it "may", Kumble didn't get a lot of help. Despite good bowling on the first day (the pacemen were unlucky and Kumble's captaincy sucked), Kumble came on when no wickets had been taken. There was a steady flow of runs for Australia actually.

Hmmm. You may be right about that. If anything, Kumble's bowling brought the rest of his attack back into the game when they looked well and truly out of it.

Secondly, Kumble DID NOT have a helpful surface. It's actually hard to say how the Melbourne pitch influenced the game. I'd never seen is as it was. It was slow and offered little to the bowlers. But at the same time that outfield was incredibly slow and the wicket was slow. Matthew Hayden made a great call when he said "we make a point to go after the ball and not wait for it to come onto the bat". I'd say the pitch was hard to bowl on and hard to bat on truth be told. It reacted to the seamers a bit like a subcontinent wicket where the ball kept low from time to time... but it offered little spin on the first day.

I do disagree with that though. The pitch was difficult to bat on (as became clear as the match wore on and 343 suddenly looked a very good score) but in doing so made it easier for the bowlers (in any case Kumble is not a big turner of the ball). Its resemblance to a subcontinental wicket would surely have assisted Kumble. I am merely comparing it to the belters in Hobart and Bellerive which were most definitely easy to bat on and very hard to bowl on (unless you were Brett Lee).

In any case, I will be unable to reply further as I go camping up in the far north tomorrow and will not be able to return to this board until the new year. So, have a good and safe one all. Laters.

 

[gettingbetter]

Murali still has the likes of Bhaji, Powar, Chawla and a few others to beat to challenge Kumble, I don't care what he did in CC.

(Sorry, I think every CWer is due for a stupid post sooner or later)

 

[Francis]

As you know Francis, I've longed argued that Kumble belongs in the same sentence as Warne and Murali... Does this mean you're coming round?

No. I'll never say Kumble was in Murali and Warne's league. Both were crucial to their team winning certain games in ways Kumble couldn't be. It's easier to compare Kumble and Murali than Warne and Murali, because both Kumble and Murali bowl in similar circumstances (eg. long marathon spells, unending accuracy etc). Murali's just so clearly better and I think just about everybody here thinks so.

This is just talking about right now. If you didn't see Kumble's performance in Japan, lets just say he did some great stuff. I do agree somewhat with the stuff you used to tell me about Kumble, but no he doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence as Warne and Murali. Oh, and you know to call me Frank... right?

Where Kumble really has it, is in the fact that he barely moves it at all.

Once that is established and the fact that he generally bowls in a straight line right at the batsman, minor variations in turn and flight are enough to cause problems for the batsmen.

That's what I meant by:

"I think sometimes small differences are more dangerous than big differences. "

and...

"He's facinating to watch in that what he does is different, yet sometimes you hardly notice on TV."

I can see you're getting it now. That's how he got Hussey, he got a ball to move three inches that he expected to be a normal ball. That's all it took. The subtlety in that delivery was delicious. Most bowlers, when they bowl wrong'uns, can be picked by batsmen because they try and spin the ball to much and it's obvious it comes out of the back of the hand. Other bowlers, like Brad Hogg, have a wrong'un that's hard to pick, but when the ball bounces short of a length, the ball deviates so much that great batsmen can adjust themselves to defend the ball.

(NOTE: I'm not knocking Hogg, as his wrong'un is brilliant and he best weapon. He should have gotten more wickets against India because of it eg. Gilchrist's missed stumping and a clear lbw when Ganguly didn't offer a shot).

But with Kumble what he does he does with a delicate touch. Not only didn't the batsmen (Hussey), not pick him, but because the ball hardly did anything he thought he was fine. Instead he got a wonderful delivery.

If there was ever a cricketer who underplayed his genius it was Kumble.

 

[Francis]

Kumble is a very good bowler, and does have the ability to take wickets against all opposition. The thing is, Muralitharan does it better, as is reflected in his average.

I was about to say I agree, then you said "as is reflected in his average". A bowlers average doesn't win you Tests, wickets do. If Kumble was somebody I saw as being better at getting wickets, then his average wouldn't matter. Wickets... crucial wickets... win you matches. I think throughout their careers, Murali's simply been better at playing his role of amassing wickets. And I don't say that because of his strike-rate or average because stats lie to us all. I say that because I've seen both of them play with my eyes, and Murali's consistently proved to me he's better at getting wickets when they matter. 28 is a brilliant spinners average, an that extra crucial wicket that could determine winning or losing a game is so more important that 6 runs it's not worth comparing.

Things can get merky when you use the criteria of "whomever wins you the match", because Murali and Kumble are both in a position where they can win matches for their teams by themselves, whereas other bowlers aren't afforded a chance to bowl long marathon spells. The year Murali got 90-odd wickets in 11 Tests, I actually thought Stuart Clark (in his debut year taking 20 wickets in South Africa) was a hair behind him, yet I don't think he ever got half the wickets Murali got in the year. But it's easier to compare Murali and Kumble by the same criteria because they play similar roles in their teams.

Generally I just ask myself who the better match winner is because the goal in cricket is to win, and like I said, for a bowler that doesn't always mean getting wickets quickly, it just means getting the ones that matter.

 

[archie mac]

On form in OZ I think Kumble, even against England I had the impression the top order were playing Murali much better than in past series. I could be wrong just my impression

 

[Richard]

Don't think they played him any better than they did in 2002 (and certainly not as well as in 2000\01) but the surfaces meant he found it far more difficult than he did in 2003\04 or 1998.

 

[archie mac]

Don't think they played him any better than they did in 2002 (and certainly not as well as in 2000\01) but the surfaces meant he found it far more difficult than he did in 2003\04 or 1998.

I did not get to watch every innings, but when I did he seemed to be claiming a lot of tailend batsman?