Murali vs. Kumble (right now)

[Richard]

The only time in the series that he really bowled with big threat was the first-innings. But it was the pitches, not skill of batsmen which had previously not been there, that negated him.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

generally, I agree with ur assessment but tbh, Lara never really had much trouble with Kumble... That one series we are taking about was a series in which he could play so many of his bottom hand shots because of his chipped bone in his wrist.... If you want to see a real Lara Vs Kumble, watch that ODI in chennai in jan this year...

 

[silentstriker]

Murali - clearly. One Test does not make up for 15 years of superior performances, nor does performance in one country.

 

[Francis]

My opinion wasn't determined on one Test. I'm mentioning the Test because it's a great starting point to make an argument. Kumble's been pretty exceptional for the last two years or so.

 

[ozone]

Murali, but agree that Kumble is underated. Despite Kumble playing better against Australia, I would still rather have Murali bowling for me than Kumble.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

You make it sound as though Murali is in some sort of terminal decline. He's only 34 and has thrown a few new tricks into his repertoire.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

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?

OK, Frank... By the time Kumble retires he'll have over 600 Test wickets, only the third bowler to do so and they're all spinners. If they're not mentioned in the same sentence twenty years from now, I'll eat a cricket ball. He's too brilliant a cricketer... It would be absurd for people to say there was this guy Shane Warne, his rival Muttiah Muralitharan and some guy named Kumble. In many ways I think Kumble is better than Warne or Murali... 600 wickets with nowhere near the prodigious spin... Simply one of the most intelligent cricket players I've seen in my lifetime. All of the praise that a McGrath gets should go to Kumble too.

 

[Dissector]

Much as I admire Kumble I don't think he is as good as Murali now or in his career. Despite his unsuccessful tour of Australia Murali has been amazing the last year. He took 60 wickets in 6 tests against England, SA and NZ. In his latest series against England he took 19 wickets in 3 tests despite pitches which were really unresponsive at times. Kumble hasn't approached those performances.

Judged over his career I think Kumble is roughly the same quality as Warne but neither is close to Murali who IMO is the best bowler the game has seen.

 

[Francis]

If they're not mentioned in the same sentence twenty years from now, I'll eat a cricket ball. He's too brilliant a cricketer...

I'm inclined to think he'll be remembered like Kapil Dev in comparison to Richard Hadlee. Both fine bowlers are you know, and Dev was unique - he succeeded as a seamer on dead wickets and won India countless games... but despite having more wickets than Hadlee (and 400 is a heck of a lot for the cricket they played) nobody would ever say he was in Hadlee's league.

 

[JASON]

Kumble is very under valued...He definitely seems to have a better record against Australia in Australia (as opposed to Murali having a better record against Australia outside of Australia) , while Murali seemed to struggle in Australia...But this may be partly a reflection of the different surfaces they played in....

MCG on boxing day was conducive to spin bowling on day 1 while Brisbane (Kevin Mitchell junior prepared track) and Hobart were flat as pancakes ....

 

[Ikki]

Kumble is very under valued...He definitely seems to have a better record against Australia in Australia (as opposed to Murali having a better record against Australia outside of Australia) , while Murali seemed to struggle in Australia...But this may be partly a reflection of the different surfaces they played in....

MCG on boxing day was conducive to spin bowling on day 1 while Brisbane (Kevin Mitchell junior prepared track) and Hobart were flat as pancakes ....

Actually, you're wrong Jason. Kumble has a much better record against Australia outside of Australia too.

Murali V Australia not in Australia
Kumble V Australia not in Australia

 

[archie mac]

Kumble is very under valued...He definitely seems to have a better record against Australia in Australia (as opposed to Murali having a better record against Australia outside of Australia) , while Murali seemed to struggle in Australia...But this may be partly a reflection of the different surfaces they played in....

MCG on boxing day was conducive to spin bowling on day 1 while Brisbane (Kevin Mitchell junior prepared track) and Hobart were flat as pancakes ....

To be fair to Kumble the last time he visited Aust the pitches were very flat and he still bowled pretty well, in what was a batsman's feast

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I'm inclined to think he'll be remembered like Kapil Dev in comparison to Richard Hadlee. Both fine bowlers are you know, and Dev was unique - he succeeded as a seamer on dead wickets and won India countless games... but despite having more wickets than Hadlee (and 400 is a heck of a lot for the cricket they played) nobody would ever say he was in Hadlee's league.

I think Kapil Dev compares quite favourably to Hadlee as a cricketer... Whether he compares to him as a bowler, I don't really care. Once a cricket player retires, their legacy takes on more meaning than how skilled they really were. Kumble, to me, is just as great a cricketer as Warne or Murali.

 

[silentstriker]

I think Kapil Dev compares quite favourably to Hadlee as a cricketer... Whether he compares to him as a bowler, I don't really care. Once a cricket player retires, their legacy takes on more meaning than how skilled they really were. Kumble, to me, is just as great a cricketer as Warne or Murali.

No on either count. Dev wasn't really close to Hadlee as a bowler, or a Test cricketer.

 

[Francis]

I think Kapil Dev compares quite favourably to Hadlee as a cricketer... Whether he compares to him as a bowler, I don't really care.

Dev perhaps isn't too far behind Hadlee because he could bat, I was just using their bowling records as an example. I think there's a pretty apt comparison in comparing the achievements of Dev and Kumble to the achievements of Hadlee and Murali/Warne. Dev ended up with more wickets than Hadlee (IIRC) and Kumble might end up with the same amount as Warne or more. But Hadlee stands out in his ability to simply do more when it counted. Hadlee did things, like demolishing Australia in 85/86, that Dev would find difficult. It's not like Dev couldn't destroy a batting line-up, but more people would look to Hadlee to do it. I think people (and CW is good proof of this) just see Murali (as they did with Hadlee) as just a more effective bowler when the time came.

I know you see things a different way there, but I really don't think you'll find many takers to the whole "Kumble was in Murali's league".

Once a cricket player retires, their legacy takes on more meaning than how skilled they really were. Kumble, to me, is just as great a cricketer as Warne or Murali.

Yeash, in terms of legacy I think both Warne and Murali smoke Kumble. Warne's a legend in ways no bowler in history was.

Shane Warne is...

* The Gatting Ball - the ball of the century
* The man who made spin fashionable
* Who took over 70 wickets in 8 Tests during 1994 at a strike-rate around 42
* The man who saved Australia from certain defeat in the 1996 world cup semi
* The man who saved Australia from certain defeat in the 1999 world cup semi
* Who bowled just as well in the final
* Who proved critics wrong and took 30 wickets against England in 2001
* Who came back after suspension and was the difference between the Australian and Sri Lankan sides in the 2004 series
* The only Australia who played well in the 2005 Ashes, and actually carried a side in a way I haven't seen any other cricketer do
* I even think his achievement of 600 wickets will be remembered as something similar to Trueman getting 300 wickets. Many will do it, but because he did it first it means something.

I mean that's just the tip of the iceberg, I don't think I need to go on any further. There were times he wasn't the best bowler in the world, but no bowler in cricket history has etched out so many memories for himself. People say that's because he played in a great team but they're wrong. Most of those achievements came when Australia had their back to the wall. Warne succeeded when other bowlers would have failed and he did it with a blend of charisma, style, pnach but most of all - a force of will. Kumble just hasn't left so many strong memories in his career. It's not like he hasn't had chances to either... I mean I agree he gets overlooked, and he won India a hoard of games, but he hasn't left as many potent memories of greatness.


As far as Murali is concerned, in terms of legacy only Richard Hadlee and Dennis Lillee (people forget Lillee actually bowled more overs than Hadlee per match) can compare to Murali in terms of carrying the bowling attack as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd option to take wickets. Both Murali and Kumble are similar in that they're asked to be durable and get wickets over long periods of time - but Murali does it with more efficiency, and whilst Kumble has won India more games than any other bowler in history, Sri Lanka simply sucked for years when Murali wasn't playing. Kumble isn't plan always plan A - he sometimes comes on late. Sri Lanka bring Murali on ASAP because he's their best chance to get wickets... and then he's plan B - which Kumble sometimes is. And all the while Murali does it with more efficency (and no I'm not talking about stats). Murali was crucial to Sri Lanka in ways Kumble couldn't be, because there were times when absolutely everything landed on Murali's shoulders.

 

[NUFAN]

Kumble captained his country in Test Cricket, the others didn't..

Kumble took an absolutely stunning 10 wickets in a single innings the other spinners have not.

Pretty strong legacy's in my book of legacies.

 

[Richard]

Aaaaah, but Sir James Laker did, thee see?

(One aside there - Kumble in the days of uncovered wickets might just have been the greatest bowler ever; as might Derek Underwood had uncovered wickets survived throughout his career, and the WSC schism and Rebel tours not impacted).

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Eh, I don't see what Kumble has to do besides create controversy to be remembered as the third great spinner of the modern era.

And Kapil Dev was every bit the cricketer that Hadlee was. That's why people considered him one of the four great all-rounders of the 80s, until people decided that needed debunking too.

 

[Francis]

Kumble captained his country in Test Cricket, the others didn't..

I don't think that means much in terms of legacy unless Kumble developes into a great captain. He's captaincy in Melbourne was terrible. He went five hours allowing Hayden and Jaques to rotate the strike with easy singles on a wicket that's hard to make runs on.

Kumble took an absolutely stunning 10 wickets in a single innings the other spinners have not.

That'll undoubtedly be his finest accomplishment in terms of legacy. That's what he'll be remembered for. It says he was a bloody good player.

Pretty strong legacy's in my book of legacies.

He'll have a great legacy, Kumble. I'll remember him as the bowler who won India more matches than anybody. But in terms of vitality, Murali was and still is, Sri Lanka's lifeblood in ways Kumble isn't to India. As strong as Kumble's legacy will be, Warne's simply etched out too many potent memories by himself. It has nothing to do with controversay, Warne won Australia games that they had no right to win. It's not like Kumble didn't have a World Cup final to shine on etc.

Eh, I don't see what Kumble has to do besides create controversy to be remembered as the third great spinner of the modern era.

I'm not sure what you consider to be the modern era. If you mean in the last three decades, then sure, he's third behind the two great spinners in Tests. If you mean over a longer period of time then things get merky. Personally I think Bill O'Rielly is the third best spinner ever. I don't know enough about India's best spinners. I know some Indians here have said Prasanna was their best ever spinner. I really don't know.

I think a while ago my five best spinners ever were (using legacy to determine where they sat):

Warne (for doing it when nobody else could)
Murali (for his durability and vitality to the Sri Lankan side)
O'Rielly (for reasons already mentioned - the first striking spinner)
Grimmett (for his contribution to spin - inventing the flipper etc. The Jack Hobbs of spin.)
Laker (for his average, economy, striking ability and his famous 10 wickets)

If my knowledge of Indian spinners was better that list might change. Many experts rated Bishan Bedi the best Indian spinner ever, I don't know enough of his career. I think Kumble is a strong contender for my top five... he and Laker had similar accomplishments, and like Kumble, Laker is sadly forgotten when great spinners are talked about because Laker was the man in his day. They both got 10 wickets in an innings once too. I think maybe Kumble has the better legacy now considering the fact that he's the main reason India win games. It's the old addage of "runs draw games, wickets win you games".

 

[Francis]

And Kapil Dev was every bit the cricketer that Hadlee was. That's why people considered him one of the four great all-rounders of the 80s, until people decided that needed debunking too.

I don't think Dev was too far behind Hadlee, primarily because Dev was quite a solid batsman. That's why they're comparable. Even though Hadlee was better with the ball, Dev was better with the bat. I just used their bowling as an example of a discernable difference in ability, despite them sharing similar bowling accomplishments.