Ponting or Murali: Who is the greater test cricketer?

[silentstriker]

The key phrase is direct influence. In a team, you cannot hold A as superior to B when both are contributing in their own way, directly or indirectly, by doing what they are picked for. The only argument in favour of doing that is if A is harder to replace than B, but in the case of Murali vs Ponting/Tendulkar/Lara, I'm not totally convinced that's true, unless you are picking an all-time XI. Even then, you could go with an all-pace attack, or pick Warne instead.

When I'm picking a team, I'd pick the player that would have the greatest positive influence on a team. Almost invariably, that's going to be a bowler, so that's the criteria I use for the better cricketer.

Some positions are more important than others in sport. That's just the way it is. If your question is whether Ponting or Sachin or Lara is a better batsman than Murali is a bowler? I'd still go the latter, but personally, I don't use that criteria when asked who is the better cricketer. I use 'Who will help my team the most?' Obviously you may use other criteria.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Pakistan are proof that batsmen and bowlers are of equal value.

AWTA. India and Pakistan are two teams with one department vastly superior to the other. And it isn't the side with the better bowling attack that's sitting at #1.

 

[silentstriker]

OK but Pakistani batting pretty much makes the Indian bowling look like the WI pace quartet.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Murali for the captaincy, tbh.

 

[kingkallis]

Whoops. Meant to vote for Murali but I wasn't thinking and clicked Ponting instead.

But yeah, Murali every time.

Jeez, remove this and Punter has no vote so far...

 

[Uppercut]

It's obvious though. You only have four, maybe five, bowlers to take most of the twenty wickets. You have six or seven batsmen to score most of the runs. So each of the bowlers must contribute a larger share of their team's bowling than each batsman contributes to their team's batting. So a great or a terrible bowler in a team has an amplified effect compared to a great or a terrible batsman.

It shows too, especially in the case of Murali because he bowled so much. Ponting only affects how many runs are scored for 2 of the 20 wickets. Whereas on average, Murali affects how many runs are scored for just over 6 of them.

There's no way batting and bowling are equally important. There's no reason why they would be. For some reason people find it natural to believe that this is the case- it's as though it somehow appeals to their inherent sense of moral justice- in the same way that people like to say that boys and girls are equally smart when all reasonable evidence points to girls being, on average, smarter. That's not to say you don't need both batsmen and bowlers, of course. But when the entire makeup of the game makes it obvious that bowlers will generally have more of an impact, when bowlers statistically are affecting the number of runs scored per wicket much more than batsmen are, and when all of the dominant sides of the last thirty years have been characterised much moreso by great bowling than great batting, it's just being silly to claim that they're equal. Cricket's just a human invention. It's allowed to be unfair.

And yet Bradman managed to be so, so good at batting that he transcended it all.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Considering legacies and opinions of peers this is a no-contest really.Murali hands down.

 

[vcs]

It shows too, especially in the case of Murali because he bowled so much. Ponting only affects how many runs are scored for 2 of the 20 wickets. Whereas on average, Murali affects how many runs are scored for just over 6 of them.

There's no way batting and bowling are equally important. There's no reason why they would be. For some reason people find it natural to believe that this is the case- it's as though it somehow appeals to their inherent sense of moral justice- in the same way that people like to say that boys and girls are equally smart when all reasonable evidence points to girls being, on average, smarter. That's not to say you don't need both batsmen and bowlers, of course. But when the entire makeup of the game makes it obvious that bowlers will generally have more of an impact, when bowlers statistically are affecting the number of runs scored per wicket much more than batsmen are, and when all of the dominant sides of the last thirty years have been characterised much moreso by great bowling than great batting, it's just being silly to claim that they're equal. Cricket's just a human invention. It's allowed to be unfair.

And yet Bradman managed to be so, so good at batting that he transcended it all.

That part sounds a bit simplistic, TBH. To take one example, I'm sure there must be some statistic out there showing that tailenders score more/are involved in larger partnerships in the company of a top-order batsman or a guy like Hussey/Bevan.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It shows too, especially in the case of Murali because he bowled so much. Ponting only affects how many runs are scored for 2 of the 20 wickets. Whereas on average, Murali affects how many runs are scored for just over 6 of them.

There's no way batting and bowling are equally important. There's no reason why they would be. For some reason people find it natural to believe that this is the case- it's as though it somehow appeals to their inherent sense of moral justice- in the same way that people like to say that boys and girls are equally smart when all reasonable evidence points to girls being, on average, smarter. That's not to say you don't need both batsmen and bowlers, of course. But when the entire makeup of the game makes it obvious that bowlers will generally have more of an impact, when bowlers statistically are affecting the number of runs scored per wicket much more than batsmen are, and when all of the dominant sides of the last thirty years have been characterised much moreso by great bowling than great batting, it's just being silly to claim that they're equal. Cricket's just a human invention. It's allowed to be unfair.

And yet Bradman managed to be so, so good at batting that he transcended it all.

No way. Chicks have smaller brains than guys.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It shows too, especially in the case of Murali because he bowled so much. Ponting only affects how many runs are scored for 2 of the 20 wickets. Whereas on average, Murali affects how many runs are scored for just over 6 of them.

Not necessarily true, of course. During a long innings batsmen can have several partners, so influence more than just two wickets.

 

[vcs]

Not necessarily true, of course. During a long innings batsmen can have several partners, so influence more than just two wickets.

That is just the statistical aspect of it. There is also the qualitative aspect - e.g. Viv Richards physically and mentally intimidating the best bowlers of the opposition - making it easier for his teammates to score and rubbishing most of the opposition's plans. Similar arguments apply to Sehwag, Sachin in his prime, Ponting in the middle part of this decade.

 

[akilana]

Whether bowlers>batsmen true or not, Murali has a good claim to be better cricketer than Sachi, Lara and Ponting.

 

[GIMH]

I have no wish to get into the bowler>batsman thing, but even if bowlers are more important than batsmen, it doesn't mean that a great bowler is a better cricketer than a great batsman.

Not saying it isn't true in this case but it's a line of thought I find a bit bleurgh

 

[Cruxdude]

While I do not think Bowlers > Batsmen, I do think Murali > Sachin, Lara, Ponting.

 

[slowfinger]

While I do not think Bowlers > Batsmen, I do think Murali > Sachin, Lara, Ponting.

This right on the noggin, Youd rather have a player who can give you the game single handedly than have a guy who can chip in with a bat. No further questions. We have reached our conclusion, 20>4 tyvm.

 

[Uppercut]

That is just the statistical aspect of it. There is also the qualitative aspect - e.g. Viv Richards physically and mentally intimidating the best bowlers of the opposition - making it easier for his teammates to score and rubbishing most of the opposition's plans. Similar arguments apply to Sehwag, Sachin in his prime, Ponting in the middle part of this decade.

This is more true of bowlers than it is batsmen tbf. Partnership thing applies to both too.

 

[silentstriker]

No way. Chicks have smaller brains than guys.

Not when adjusted for body size.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not when adjusted for body size.

AWTA. Never, ever tell her she looks fat in that dress.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Not when adjusted for body size.

That is incorrect.

 

[silentstriker]

That is incorrect.

You are correct. I was mistaken, I just looked it up.