Ponting or Murali: Who is the greater test cricketer?

[G.I.Joe]

Sachin contributing with the bowling and Ponting as a great fielder is also a product of the respective environments they found themselves in... if Sachin played for Australia, they would have no use for his part-time fare as they have always had excellent bowling depth. On the other hand, if you put Ponting in the Indian team - as good as he is in the field - he would not have single-handedly lifted the Indian fielding standards all that much... Sachin's ability as a 5th bowler is much more valuable to us.

I still remember in the Hero Cup semifinal when South Africa needed 6 off the last over, no one wanted to bowl it, Sachin went and grabbed the ball from Azhar's hands. He was willing to put his balls on the line even as a part-time bowler that early in his career. In the final where Kumble took 6-12, it was Sachin who dismissed Lara.

AWTA. Good post.

I also agree with HB. The personal beliefs re: Murali's action held by judges would definitely influence his overall ranking. Those sort of rankings need to be taken with a massive handful of salt.

 

[honestbharani]

This is why I voted for Murali. I am not sure why he is not getting his due.

IN a foolish yet simplistic way, if you assume 1 wicket = 20 runs (and that is being kind, coz if u look at overall aggregate bowling average in cricket, I am sure 1 wicket would equal more than that), in batting terms it is like 133 tests and 16000 runs.. How much has Sachin/Lara/Ponting got again?

 

[Himannv]

I don't think Murali's achievements have quite sunk in with people yet. 800 wickets in 133 tests is just sick.

Exactly. I think in time people will respect that kind of achievement more.

Additionally, IMO Tendulkar's bowling is very underrated. I remember a time when he was the best bowler in the Indian team before an injury or something made him concentrate on just his batting. I think his leggies into the rough weren't the easiest stuff to play.

 

[morgieb]

Murali. He's probably the 2nd best spinner to have existed, and arguably the best. Ponting doesn't go close to that imo, despite how good he is.

 

[Matt79]

IN a foolish yet simplistic way, if you assume 1 wicket = 20 runs (and that is being kind, coz if u look at overall aggregate bowling average in cricket, I am sure 1 wicket would equal more than that), in batting terms it is like 133 tests and 16000 runs.. How much has Sachin/Lara/Ponting got again?

Think over the decades, 1 wicket = 30 runs has consistently been a reasonable benchmark - it's gone up and down, but with that kind of figure near the mean....

 

[marc71178]

But that sort of benchmarking cannot be relevant to compare career totals (since the workload Murali's undertaken gives him many more opportunities to take wickets)

 

[Ikki]

Exactly. I think in time people will respect that kind of achievement more.

Additionally, IMO Tendulkar's bowling is very underrated. I remember a time when he was the best bowler in the Indian team before an injury or something made him concentrate on just his batting. I think his leggies into the rough weren't the easiest stuff to play.

In Tests I don't think it was such a big thing. You're talking about a 20+ year career here. If we were talking about Sehwag's bowling complimenting his batting then that would be more amenable to me.

 

[honestbharani]

But that sort of benchmarking cannot be relevant to compare career totals (since the workload Murali's undertaken gives him many more opportunities to take wickets)

Will be interesting to see SRs then... Still think Murali would be well ahead in that department for all guys above 400 wickets..

 

[vcs]

In Tests I don't think it was such a big thing. You're talking about a 20+ year career here. If we were talking about Sehwag's bowling complimenting his batting then that would be more amenable to me.

Sehwag is a better bowler than Sachin and it should definitely count while rating him as an overall cricketer.. I know you think it's not much over a long career but for me it certainly makes a real difference.

 

[weldone]

The importance of fielding, IMO is extremely overrated in Test match cricket. While an extremely talented fielder(Ponting) looks way better, the difference that unyokes him from a merely good one(Tendulkar) is extremely minute when it comes to real impact on the game.

IMHO,

Awesome fielder>Good Fielder/Fielder who can catch>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bad Fielder/Fielder with butterfingers.

Agree wholeheartedly on this.

However, the difference has certainly much bigger impact when it comes to ODIs.

 

[akilana]

Will be interesting to see SRs then... Still think Murali would be well ahead in that department for all guys above 400 wickets..

I think it's 3 or 4 less than Warney's.. and the workload should count in favour of Murali.

 

[Ikki]

You should probably remove B/Z when you compare.

 

[akilana]

and England too and give Murali a few points for doing so well without having a good bowlers on the other end to sustain pressure.

 

[Ikki]

Erm, there is a Murali v Warne thread. Take it there.

 

[Sir Alex]

Sachin contributing with the bowling and Ponting as a great fielder is also a product of the respective environments they found themselves in... if Sachin played for Australia, they would have no use for his part-time fare as they have always had excellent bowling depth. On the other hand, if you put Ponting in the Indian team - as good as he is in the field - he would not have single-handedly lifted the Indian fielding standards all that much... Sachin's ability as a 5th bowler is much more valuable to us.

I still remember in the Hero Cup semifinal when South Africa needed 6 off the last over, no one wanted to bowl it, Sachin went and grabbed the ball from Azhar's hands. He was willing to put his balls on the line even as a part-time bowler that early in his career. In the final where Kumble took 6-12, it was Sachin who dismissed Lara.

Yes, this chap WON us one days with his bowling ALONE.

 

[marc71178]

the workload should count in favour of Murali.

Not for this comparison it shouldn't.

As a bowler in a weaker line-up Murali gets a lot more chances to get wickets than the equivalent batsmen do to get runs (as the batsmen still only get 2 innings a game)

 

[Sir Alex]

Not for this comparison it shouldn't.

As a bowler in a weaker line-up Murali gets a lot more chances to get wickets than the equivalent batsmen do to get runs (as the batsmen still only get 2 innings a game)

strike rate?

 

[akilana]

Not for this comparison it shouldn't.

As a bowler in a weaker line-up Murali gets a lot more chances to get wickets than the equivalent batsmen do to get runs (as the batsmen still only get 2 innings a game)

What stops a equivalent batsman from scoring a double hundred or triple hundred? It's much easier to be a batsman(Ponting) in a team of batting superstars than be a bowler(Murali) in a weaker bowling line up.

 

[marc71178]

Not in terms of getting the greater chances.

A batsman can only have one slip and that's it. If Murali bowls a bad spell, he gets another 3 or 4 spells.

 

[Sir Alex]

Dearie me, are we seriously comparing both disciplines??