Ponting or Murali: Who is the greater test cricketer?

[Smudge]

I voted for the very relevant third option, but if I was pinned down and threatened with a red-hot poker up my jacksy if I didn't vote for one or the other, I'd go for Ponting, seeing as I still have deep-seated issues with Murali's place in the game.

 

[DingDong]

nobody in their right mind would vote for ponting here.

 

[Black_Warrior]

IMO, Kumble has also won India more Test matches than any of those three have done for their respective teams. Isn't it just another version of the old cliche "you have to take 20 wickets to win a Test match and only bowlers can do that for you"? The second point is a valid one - but one could say that Murali is not even the best spinner of his own generation outside the subcontinent (without wanting to spark a Warne-Murali war).

Umm I dont think Kumble has won that many test matches for India outside the subcontinent..Clearly Murali is ahead in that regard. Murali has just struggled in Australia.

 

[Black_Warrior]

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.

This is why rankings is not a valid criteria when comparing this.
Take for example, Pakistan won the second test against Australia because they bowled Australia out for 88..That allowed them to chase a measly 180 in the second innigns and their batsmen struggled and huffed and puffed and finally managed with 3 wickets remaining.

On the other hand, say Indian batsmen pile up 500..if Mithun, Ishant, Ojha and Harbhajan bowl as poorly as they did in Sri Lanka, I dont think they will win the test match.

The issue here is, Indian bowling attack with Zaheer, Sreesanth, Ishant and Harbhajan is more effective than Pakistani batting line up of Salman, Farhat, Ali, Amin, Akmal.

Long story short, Great bowlers with crappy batsmen can still help win a match..Great batsmen with crappy bowlers are relatively less likely to do so.

 

[nightprowler10]

Yeah what he said. GI Joe underestimating how bad our batting really is.

 

[vcs]

Umm I dont think Kumble has won that many test matches for India outside the subcontinent..Clearly Murali is ahead in that regard. Murali has just struggled in Australia.

Of course Murali has won more matches than Kumble, but I was just trying to make the point that "winning matches" is part of the bowler's job description.. so saying Murali has won more matches for his team than the other three, hence is a superior cricketer doesn't really make sense.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Who is better at cricket? Ponting.

Who is the more important player? Murali.

 

[Faisal1985]

Murali a bigger match winner imo...bringing down 20 wickets is the main factor in test match results which gives bowling a touch more importance in results...and Murali being a guru at that puts him ahead for me..

 

[vic_orthdox]

In the discussion regarding Ponting as a cricketer in the "Best player since 1980" thread, there was talk about Ponting as a captain.

What I think is interesting is that he is a good study of captaincy in itself, because he takes the variable of man-management out of it; I think its pretty clear that Ponting has been very good to excellent in this aspect of captaincy, that the Australian team has pretty much always been united and pulling in the same direction.

You can pretty much then run a ruler over the on-field aspects of his captaincy to judge him, and they're the most blatantly obvious parts of the captaincy, the aspects that you remember the most. This isn't really that usual for captains.

I think that following the success of Vaughan in the 2005 Ashes of dropping players back to stop the Australians' boundaries, Ponting wasn't able to implement it as well as the English team did throughout the next couple of years. He got caught using someone else's tactics for their own ends. The perfect example of this is the test versus South Africa in Perth where they chased over 400, and once a batsman was in they were able to rotate the strike comfortably and no pressure could be built.

There's obviously Edgbaston, where he chose to bowl first and AFAIK has not done so since. I think that he came in for some unfair criticism in Leeds in some respects; following on from Sydney against Pakistan, he could have hoped that his top order could have learnt from that experience in difficult conditions, and it would have further emphasised to him the value in having runs on the board heading into the fourth innings.

Because a number of those things are so memorable, people don't realise the importance of consistent leadership. If there had've been captaincy changes over the past four years since the retirement of McGrath, Warne, Martyn and Langer in such a short space of time, then Australian cricket would be in a lot worse position than it would have otherwise been. He's taken criticism which could have driven a lesser man to resignation, yet his presence throughout a period of transition has ensured a level of consistency in the set-up which has been, and will continue to be vital for Australia.

This aspect of his captaincy is much more important than his win/loss percentage, or even his batting record as captain.

 

[four_or_six]

No way. Chicks have smaller brains than guys.

It's not the size that counts, it's what you do with it.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

yeah the Windies of the 80s and the Aussies recently were **** batting line ups...

 

[honestbharani]

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.

So you can win a match with 0 runs?

 

[vic_orthdox]

yeah the Windies of the 80s and the Aussies recently were **** batting line ups...

Meh, that's not the argument he's making. The two teams were characterised by great bowling line-ups, and it's pretty true; I'd say that more people associate the Windies of the 1980s with fast bowling foursomes than Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, etc. It's not saying that the batting was no good, but talking about what was their trademark.

 

[vic_orthdox]

So you can win a match with 0 runs?

Stop making straw mans. It's not what he's arguing in the slightest.

 

[honestbharani]

In the discussion regarding Ponting as a cricketer in the "Best player since 1980" thread, there was talk about Ponting as a captain.

What I think is interesting is that he is a good study of captaincy in itself, because he takes the variable of man-management out of it; I think its pretty clear that Ponting has been very good to excellent in this aspect of captaincy, that the Australian team has pretty much always been united and pulling in the same direction.

You can pretty much then run a ruler over the on-field aspects of his captaincy to judge him, and they're the most blatantly obvious parts of the captaincy, the aspects that you remember the most. This isn't really that usual for captains.

I think that following the success of Vaughan in the 2005 Ashes of dropping players back to stop the Australians' boundaries, Ponting wasn't able to implement it as well as the English team did throughout the next couple of years. He got caught using someone else's tactics for their own ends. The perfect example of this is the test versus South Africa in Perth where they chased over 400, and once a batsman was in they were able to rotate the strike comfortably and no pressure could be built.

There's obviously Edgbaston, where he chose to bowl first and AFAIK has not done so since. I think that he came in for some unfair criticism in Leeds in some respects; following on from Sydney against Pakistan, he could have hoped that his top order could have learnt from that experience in difficult conditions, and it would have further emphasised to him the value in having runs on the board heading into the fourth innings.

Because a number of those things are so memorable, people don't realise the importance of consistent leadership. If there had've been captaincy changes over the past four years since the retirement of McGrath, Warne, Martyn and Langer in such a short space of time, then Australian cricket would be in a lot worse position than it would have otherwise been. He's taken criticism which could have driven a lesser man to resignation, yet his presence throughout a period of transition has ensured a level of consistency in the set-up which has been, and will continue to be vital for Australia.

This aspect of his captaincy is much more important than his win/loss percentage, or even his batting record as captain.

Well put.. At the same time, I think there is grounds for someone like me who has followed Sachin and Lara so very closely over the years to conclude that they would have done just as good a job under the very same circumstances... And I don't think his captaincy actually elevates or keeps him afloat the same level as a cricketer as his batting does... So there ya go..

 

[honestbharani]

Meh, that's not the argument he's making. The two teams were characterised by great bowling line-ups, and it's pretty true; I'd say that more people associate the Windies of the 1980s with fast bowling foursomes than Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, etc. It's not saying that the batting was no good, but talking about what was their trademark.

I think that had more to do with the fact that a gr8 bowling line up occurs less often than a gr8 batting line up. And let's face it, that Windies pace quartet WAS better than their batting line up by whatever level you can compare batsmen and bowlers.. That doesn't mean bowlers > batsmen at all... Cricket's rules were more well thought out than blokes like UC want us to believe. And you ALWAYS need good batsmen AND good bowlers to win matches. Of course, the % of greatness may vary such that a great batting line up with a good bowling line up could be #1 and the same a great bowlng line up with a good batting line up could be #1.


For me, both the Windies of the 80s and the recent Aussie side had gri8 bowlng line ups. With Australia, they had a great bowlng line up + great batting line up. With Windies, they had a great bowling line up + very good batting line up. But I feel the converse is true as well and that you can be a dominant side with a great batting line up + very good bowling line up.. India's success at home in the mid 90s shows you that.. We had a great batting line up (for the conditions) and a very good bowling line up (for the conditions) and we were just as dominant as any side at home during that period..

 

[honestbharani]

Stop making straw mans. It's not what he's arguing in the slightest.

lol.. I am tired of him trying to paint that bowlers > batsmen when it is never ever true.. Read my previous post.

 

[Streetwise]

Well put.. At the same time, I think there is grounds for someone like me who has followed Sachin and Lara so very closely over the years to conclude that they would have done just as good a job under the very same circumstances... And I don't think his captaincy actually elevates or keeps him afloat the same level as a cricketer as his batting does... So there ya go..

But when given the chance to lead their team Lara and Tendulkar failed, Ponting didnt and thats the difference. So you think they would have done as good a job as Ponting but when given the chance they didnt.

 

[vcs]

But when given the chance to lead their team Lara and Tendulkar failed, Ponting didnt and thats the difference. So you think they would have done as good a job as Ponting but when given the chance they didnt.

Do you really think the situations Lara/Tendulkar and Ponting found themselves in when they were given the reins are even remotely comparable?

 

[honestbharani]

But when given the chance to lead their team Lara and Tendulkar failed, Ponting didnt and thats the difference. So you think they would have done as good a job as Ponting but when given the chance they didnt.

you do understand what I meant by "same circumstances" right?