Who will overtake Murali's test wicket record?

[The Sean]

Actually, he's 37 in 50 days.

Anyone else reckon Murali might've already had 1000 wickets if SL had Australia or England's test schedule throughout his career?

Possibly, but if he had Australia's Test schedule he would have played barely half a dozen matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, rather than 25.

 

[_Ed_]

but also because people will be playing fewer Tests in future.

I hope you're wrong about that, but I don't think you are.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Possibly, but if he had Australia's Test schedule he would have played barely half a dozen matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, rather than 25.

What difference does that make?

 

[The Sean]

What difference does that make?

Seriously? They're weaker opposition, and so run-scoring and wicket-taking has traditionally proven comparatively easier against them than against other teams generally.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Seriously? They're weaker opposition, and so run-scoring and wicket-taking has traditionally proven comparatively easier against them than against other teams generally.

Yeah, but he'd still be playing other teams instead. At his rate of wicket taking against the other teams, if he'd played those 25 tests against teams other than Ban and Zim, he'd have 29 fewer wickets, thats all.

 

[Richard]

Agreed. Although, I dont think you can blame the man for the schedule he is given.

Oh, no, it's not his fault at all - but he has suffered from it. Most people now realise wickets against Bangladesh are not worthy of being called Test wickets and as our G.I. friend has pointed-out, he'd have been unlikely to have gotten many less (maybe none less in fact) had he played Test-standard teams instead.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, but he'd still be playing other teams instead. At his rate of wicket taking against the other teams, if he'd played those 25 tests against teams other than Ban and Zim, he'd have 29 fewer wickets, thats all.

It depends on where and against who he played them - his wicket taking ratio isn't consistent against all countries. Australia's schedule, as was the point of the question, isn't necessarily going to result in many more wickets (though I suppose it would if it meant he wasn't playing against Australia!).

This isn't a shot at Murali at all - merely an observation that while changing his schedule might seem beneficial in one way, it would probably be offset by other factors to the point that an assumed big increase in his total wickets may not necessarily eventuate.

 

[Richard]

Think how deadly they could have been if they'd played somewhere where conditions suited them!

I'm yet to see Gul master reversing the ball, but if he does then that particular point will be null and void. Reverse swing doesn't seem as deadly of late as it once did, currently everyone can do it but noone can do it well.

I've seen Gul bowl reverse-swing better than most bowlers around currently TBH.

The simple truth currently is that it's not reverse-swing that's currently lacking but swing. For the last 7-8 years swing has been that much harder to attain than it always used to be, whether it's the conventional or reverse variety. There's only ever been the odd interlude, be it a spell, a session, a day, a match or occasionally even a whole series, where a bowler has used swing as a really dangerous weapon in recent years.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It depends on where and against who he played them - his wicket taking ratio isn't consistent against all countries. Australia's schedule, as was the point of the question, isn't necessarily going to result in many more wickets (though I suppose it would if it meant he wasn't playing against Australia!).

This isn't a shot at Murali at all - merely an observation that while changing his schedule might seem beneficial in one way, it would probably be offset by other factors to the point that an assumed big increase in his total wickets may not necessarily eventuate.

Well, the fact that his wicket taking ratio isn't consistent against all countries would actually work in his favour if he were playing for Australia. Muralitharan picks up more wickets per match against England than he does against Zimbabwe. And considering Australia play more matches against England than any other opponent, Murali might conceivably have had a greater wicket tally in the hypothetical situation than in present day reality

I agree regarding the point about the hectic schedule though. Just that I didn't think bringing up the Zim/Ban argument made much sense.

 

[The Sean]

Well, the fact that his wicket taking ratio isn't consistent against all countries would actually work in his favour if he were playing for Australia. Muralitharan picks up more wickets per match against England than he does against Zimbabwe. And considering Australia play more matches against England than any other opponent, Murali might conceivably have had a greater wicket tally in the hypothetical situation than in present day reality

I agree regarding the point about the hectic schedule though. Just that I didn't think bringing up the Zim/Ban argument made much sense.

Ha ha well I DID caveat by saying my argument would mean less if we was playing FOR rather than AGAINST Australia!

Fair enough if you disagree about Zim/Bang - I think it would make a bit of a difference, but I won't go around in circles with it.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, but he'd still be playing other teams instead. At his rate of wicket taking against the other teams, if he'd played those 25 tests against teams other than Ban and Zim, he'd have 29 fewer wickets, thats all.

I did the calculations, I think it would be something like 50 fewer wickets. The B/Z distinction really is of importance when you talk about how much it helps his average and SR. Not so much on his total wicket-taking capability.

He bowls much more than everyone else; with much less competition; is one of the best bowlers of his generation; and is a spinner. Until a similar situation occurs it's unlikely anyone will overtake him.

 

[Jakester1288]

You are joking, and Moobs taking 350 wickets let alone 700 ****ing wickets looks distant now. I might settle in Mars.

I presume ol' Jakey's post was in reply to NUFAN's on this subject:

I certainly hope so.

I was indeed referring to NUFAN's post about the 24 year old quicks.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I did the calculations, I think it would be something like 50 fewer wickets. The B/Z distinction really is of importance when you talk about how much it helps his average and SR. Not so much on his total wicket-taking capability.

He bowls much more than everyone else; with much less competition; is one of the best bowlers of his generation; and is a spinner. Until a similar situation occurs it's unlikely anyone will overtake him.

Nah, its 29 fewer wickets. He actually performs better against England than Zimbabwe, playing for Australia would have helped him.

 

[Ikki]

Nah, its 29 fewer wickets. He actually performs better against England than Zimbabwe, playing for Australia would have helped him.

How did you come up with 29 fewer wickets? Are you choosing a specific opponent?

It's important to remember to take out B/Z out of his stats before you start comparing. When you do that, his SR is 58.2. He bowled roughly 1238 overs against both B/Z so with that many balls and with that SR he takes 128 wickets, where he'd had taken 176 against B/Z. That's 48 wickets less.

And having played for Australia would have resulted in him getting less wickets, not more.

 

[G.I.Joe]

How did you come up with 29 fewer wickets? Are you choosing a specific opponent?

It's important to remember to take out B/Z out of his stats before you start comparing. When you do that, his SR is 58.2. He bowled roughly 1238 overs against both B/Z so with that many balls and with that SR he takes 128 wickets, where he'd had taken 176 against B/Z. That's 48 wickets less.

And having played for Australia would have resulted in him getting less wickets, not more.

Well, Murali has a w/m ratio of 7 against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe combined., over 25 tests. He has a w/m ratio of 5.8 against teams other than Ban/Zim over 102 tests. So, if he'd played those 25 Ban/Zim tests against other opponents, he'd have picked 1.2 fewer wickets per test over those 25 tests, which works out to 30 fewer wickets (which was 29 before the last test vs Pakistan).

 

[Migara]

If Murali had played similar proportion of test that Warne has played against each opposition he would have taken roughly equal number of wickets (or was it higher? has toc hech it)

 

[Ikki]

If Murali had played similar proportion of test that Warne has played against each opposition he would have taken roughly equal number of wickets (or was it higher? has toc hech it)

Exactly, had he played a similar amount of matches as Warne, in Warne's team, he would have taken less. In Terms of SR, Murali is slightly inferior to Warne, but more importantly, because of wickets-per-match - which has a lot of relevance to the team he is in - he would see much fewer per game than he does with Sri Lanka.

 

[Lostman]

Do both of you (Migara and lkki) keep excel files icons on your desktops with Murali/Warne comparisons/stats?
Just seems that way for me

 

[Richard]

Either way, you can be fairly sure what just about any thread relating to Murali will eventually degenerate into. And mostly who it'll involve as well.

BTW that doesn't, particularly, bother me - I just ignore the thread once it starts. But it's quite really.

 

[Lostman]

But it's quite really.

well tbh i enjoy it.