Is Murali the worst Number 11 in History ?

[archie mac]

Archie, I thought you had read and reviewed A.W. Pullin's Talks With Old English Cricketers? Could have sworn he was mentioned in that.

Yeah, Archie! What he said!

I Recognised the name but could not put it into any context

And welcome back AMZ

 

[Richard]

Yeah hope amz sticks around for a bit this time. Appeared for about 4 posts then disappeared again a few months back.

Having him and tec back within a few weeks would be quite the boost for the forum.

 

[NZTailender]

Wilf Rhodes wouldnt be a bad guess. Opened for England and batted every other position as well from 3-11.

Averaged over 40 at #11 in Test cricket.

But he only batted there 6 times. Lindwall batted at 11 3 times. I'm talking about genuine bowlers who batted at 11 for the most of their career, not all rounders who on occasion happened to have batted at 11 a few times.

 

[archie mac]

But he only batted there 6 times. Lindwall batted at 11 3 times. I'm talking about genuine bowlers who batted at 11 for the most of their career, not all rounders who on occasion happened to have batted at 11 a few times.

Well you need to be clearer

 

[The Baconator]

Herschelle Gibbs is currently described on CricInfo as "right-arm bowler", which is about as bad an insult as anyone can come-up with for a bowler.

I can bowl better than him, by a fair bit, incidentally, as I recall.

TBF, if they were really insulting him they could put 'right arm "bowler"'

 

[Richard]

Surely they'd not dare do that?

It took some galle for Lloyd and Botham to "write" left-arm dibbly dobbly over the left-arm medium placed on Neil Fairbrother's "standard" bowling-description in 2002(?).

 

[Goughy]

But he only batted there 6 times. Lindwall batted at 11 3 times. I'm talking about genuine bowlers who batted at 11 for the most of their career, not all rounders who on occasion happened to have batted at 11 a few times.

If a #11 is any good they will not stay there for long.

Rhodes may only of batted at 11 six times but 3 of his first 5 innings in Test cricket were at 11 and he was selected purely as a spinner.

He was picked as a genuine non-batting bowler and was a legit number 11.

Just look where he batted early in his career. Its not as simple as just looking at his overall record.

 

[James_W]

Murali is nowhere near the worst. Has a Test 50 and I recall him hitting Brad Hogg for a couple of sixes.

 

[NZTailender]

Contenders for best No. 11.

Zaheer Khan
                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
overall               53   69  17   628  75   46   45   12.07   0   1  17
11th position         16   19   8   176  75   25   22*  16.00   0   1   5


Richard Collinge
                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
overall               35   50  13   533  68*  54   36   14.40   0   2   9
11th position         13   17   8   184  68*  34   17   20.44   0   1   2

Bert Vogler
                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
overall               15   26   6   340  65   62*  28*  17.00   0   2   4
11th position          7    8   4   115  62*  28*  12*  28.75   0   1   3

Fred Spofforth
                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
overall               18   29   6   217  50   39   20*   9.43   0   1   6
11th position         10   13   6   100  50   20*  14*  14.28   0   1   3

 

[Goughy]

But he only batted there 6 times. Lindwall batted at 11 3 times. I'm talking about genuine bowlers who batted at 11 for the most of their career, not all rounders who on occasion happened to have batted at 11 a few times.

Contenders for best No. 11.

Zaheer Khan
                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
overall               53   69  17   628  75   46   45   12.07   0   1  17
11th position         16   19   8   176  75   25   22*  16.00   0   1   5


Richard Collinge
                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
overall               35   50  13   533  68*  54   36   14.40   0   2   9
11th position         13   17   8   184  68*  34   17   20.44   0   1   2

Bert Vogler
                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
overall               15   26   6   340  65   62*  28*  17.00   0   2   4
11th position          7    8   4   115  62*  28*  12*  28.75   0   1   3

Fred Spofforth
                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
overall               18   29   6   217  50   39   20*   9.43   0   1   6
11th position         10   13   6   100  50   20*  14*  14.28   0   1   3

Only 1 of the played you list meets your own criteria, and that is only just.

 

[SJS]

The guy has played over 100 Tests but his batting is apalling...the guy has made no effort to improve it...In fact when the Team is in perilous positions and he comes to the wicket, he has never (from the years I have observed him) made an effort to stay in or try and help the batsman at the other end add valuable runs to the Team's total...It's like when he walks in, the opposition are dead certain , the innings will fold sooner or later ...either because Murali will give his wicket away easily or the batsman at the other end starts slogging and making a mistake (because they know Murali won't hand around for long).

Here are his batting stats ....

Mat I NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50 0

overall 118 149 51 1144 67 43 39 11.67 0 1 30

Discuss...

Thats an interesting thought. I can see what Jason is trying to say.

• For such a senior player, one would like to see a less cavalier approach at least when the situation is truly grim than what Murali seems to display.
• Secondly, for someone who has been in the game so long, and does seem to be able to hit the ball some distance at times, one would think he would have taken some trouble to learnt a bit more than seems apparent. Not to say that he hasn't but its how it appears.

I can see that his being a senior player (100 tests played) is a big factor in the argument forwarded so I listed the players with 75 plus test matches played and ranked them by lowest batting average. Here is the list with the top nine. Before anyone questions why nine, let me hasten to add that the 10th on that list is Wasim bari the Paksitan keeper with 6 test fifties and the 11th is Shane Warne as close to being called an allrounder without being one ?

[B]Player	 Mat	 Inn	 NO	 Runs	 HS	50	100	 Avg[/B]
Gibbs L	79	109	39	488	25	0	0	6.97
McGrath	124	138	51	641	61	1	0	7.37
Walsh	132	185	61	936	 *30	0	0	7.55
Ntini	80	92	29	620	 *32	0	0	9.84
Waqar	87	120	21	1010	45	0	0	10.2
Willis	90	128	55	840	 *28	0	0	11.51
U'wood	86	116	35	937	 *45	0	0	11.57
[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]Murali	118	149	51	1144	67	1	0	11.67[/B][/COLOR]

Well, well, well. Murali may or maynot have done better as a batsman if he tried harder but clearly he is not the worst batsmen of those who were not really great with the bat and yet played a LOT of tests...in fact he might have been the best !!

 

[NZTailender]

Only 1 of the played you list meets your own criteria, and that is only just.

Fair point.

 

[a massive zebra]

I Recognised the name but could not put it into any context

And welcome back AMZ

Yeah hope amz sticks around for a bit this time. Appeared for about 4 posts then disappeared again a few months back.

Having him and tec back within a few weeks would be quite the boost for the forum.

Thanks guys.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Thats an interesting thought. I can see what Jason is trying to say.

• For such a senior player, one would like to see a less cavalier approach at least when the situation is truly grim than what Murali seems to display.
• Secondly, for someone who has been in the game so long, and does seem to be able to hit the ball some distance at times, one would think he would have taken some trouble to learnt a bit more than seems apparent. Not to say that he hasn't but its how it appears.

I can see that his being a senior player (100 tests played) is a big factor in the argument forwarded so I listed the players with 75 plus test matches played and ranked them by lowest batting average. Here is the list with the top nine. Before anyone questions why nine, let me hasten to add that the 10th on that list is Wasim bari the Paksitan keeper with 6 test fifties and the 11th is Shane Warne as close to being called an allrounder without being one ?

[B]Player	 Mat	 Inn	 NO	 Runs	 HS	50	100	 Avg[/B]
Gibbs L	79	109	39	488	25	0	0	6.97
McGrath	124	138	51	641	61	1	0	7.37
Walsh	132	185	61	936	 *30	0	0	7.55
Ntini	80	92	29	620	 *32	0	0	9.84
Waqar	87	120	21	1010	45	0	0	10.2
Willis	90	128	55	840	 *28	0	0	11.51
U'wood	86	116	35	937	 *45	0	0	11.57
[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]Murali	118	149	51	1144	67	1	0	11.67[/B][/COLOR]

Well, well, well. Murali may or maynot have done better as a batsman if he tried harder but clearly he is not the worst batsmen of those who were not really great with the bat and yet played a LOT of tests...in fact he might have been the best !!

What are the average balls-faced-per-innings statistics for that lot?

 

[neville cardus]

Billy Slinn, anyone?

 

[JASON]

Thats an interesting thought. I can see what Jason is trying to say.

• For such a senior player, one would like to see a less cavalier approach at least when the situation is truly grim than what Murali seems to display.
• Secondly, for someone who has been in the game so long, and does seem to be able to hit the ball some distance at times, one would think he would have taken some trouble to learnt a bit more than seems apparent. Not to say that he hasn't but its how it appears.

I can see that his being a senior player (100 tests played) is a big factor in the argument forwarded so I listed the players with 75 plus test matches played and ranked them by lowest batting average. Here is the list with the top nine. Before anyone questions why nine, let me hasten to add that the 10th on that list is Wasim bari the Paksitan keeper with 6 test fifties and the 11th is Shane Warne as close to being called an allrounder without being one ?

[B]Player	 Mat	 Inn	 NO	 Runs	 HS	50	100	 Avg[/B]
Gibbs L	79	109	39	488	25	0	0	6.97
McGrath	124	138	51	641	61	1	0	7.37
Walsh	132	185	61	936	 *30	0	0	7.55
Ntini	80	92	29	620	 *32	0	0	9.84
Waqar	87	120	21	1010	45	0	0	10.2
Willis	90	128	55	840	 *28	0	0	11.51
U'wood	86	116	35	937	 *45	0	0	11.57
[COLOR="DarkRed"][B]Murali	118	149	51	1144	67	1	0	11.67[/B][/COLOR]

Well, well, well. Murali may or maynot have done better as a batsman if he tried harder but clearly he is not the worst batsmen of those who were not really great with the bat and yet played a LOT of tests...in fact he might have been the best !!

I think Murali's stats are grossly exaggerated by a very very flukish 67 he made at home with several missed catches and some loose bowling against India at home (in Sri Lanka)...take that out and he drops down to the other lowly averagers

Also his away batting average is very very poor...infact may be miniscule, while his home batting average is without doubt inflating his standing among the lowest of the low....

 

[Captain Cricket]

Murali is a lot better than McGrath, Walsh, Martin in terms of batting.

 

[DJellett]

But Chris Martin is a much better singer than Murali.

Love "Yellow", tbh.

 

[Richard]

Impossible not to, TBH.

 

[steds]

Disagree.