Best performance streaks

[smash84]

I reckon he's a match for them regardless TBH.

Definitely.

 

[JBH001]

Murali, good heavens, what a peak! If you can call a period of years and numerous test matches longer than most careers a peak...

Sobers, the greatest all-rounder in my book. His peak of 1961 - 1968 is enough to set him apart in my eyes. Kallis would be up there too, as well as Botham, Kapil, and Imran. I don't really rate Miller as an all-rounder although I may have to revise that opinion having done a little more research on the man.

 

[kingkallis]

So does this prove that Murali > Warne?

 

[smash84]

So does this prove that Murali > Warne?

lol

 

[ankitj]

So does this prove that Murali > Warne?

Taking advantage of the fact that Ikki is banned?

 

[The Sean]

I don't really rate Miller as an all-rounder although I may have to revise that opinion having done a little more research on the man.

I always knew you'd come around eventually JBH.

 

[smash84]

I don't really rate Miller as an all-rounder although I may have to revise that opinion having done a little more research on the man.

May we know what prompted this epiphany??

 

[Teja.]

I agree with Wisden's assessment that Murali is the greatest bowler of all-time. Post-Barnes, at the very least. Averaging 6 wickets a game if ****ing insane. I think it's very unfair to compare him fast bowlers who average 4-4.5 wickets a game and take wickets @ for the same runs per wicket and around the same number of balls per wicket. You can say they are different styles of bowlers, but from a practical standpoint, It's not even that close for mine on who is more a more effective addition to the side.

Also, Considering that if you consider only Murali's peak which is about the length of a typical ATG pacer's career, He averages over 7 wickets a game at below 20. Would you say a bowler who averages 2 wickets a game is as good a bowler as a specialist bowler who takes 4? I wouldn't. The difference between Murali and most great bowlers is that much, IMHO.

I don't think it is setting in how good Murali was. Just freakish.

 

[smash84]

I agree with Wisden's assessment that Murali is the greatest bowler of all-time. Post-Barnes, at the very least. Averaging 6 wickets a game if ****ing insane. I think it's very unfair to compare him fast bowlers who average 4-4.5 wickets a game and take wickets @ for the same runs per wicket and around the same number of balls per wicket. You can say they are different styles of bowlers, but from a practical standpoint, It's not even that close for mine on who is more a more effective addition to the side.

Also, Considering that if you consider only Murali's peak which is about the length of a typical ATG pacer's career, He averages over 7 wickets a game at below 20. Would you say a bowler who averages 2 wickets a game is as good a bowler as a specialist bowler who takes 4? I wouldn't. The difference between Murali and most great bowlers is that much, IMHO.

I don't think it is setting in how good Murali was. Just freakish.

Murali is one of the best bowlers ever to play the game. No question about it. Is he the greatest post Barnes bowler is quite debatable. Wickets per match is somewhat misleading in the sense that he bowled the lions share of the overs. With that much bowling you would expect an ATG bowler to have higher wpm. The same goes for Richard Hadlee who has a wpm of over 5. The SR does count for a bit IMO and only wpm is somewhat misleading.

 

[honestbharani]

Murali is one of the best bowlers ever to play the game. No question about it. Is he the greatest post Barnes bowler is quite debatable. Wickets per match is somewhat misleading in the sense that he bowled the lions share of the overs. With that much bowling you would expect an ATG bowler to have higher wpm. The same goes for Richard Hadlee who has a wpm of over 5. The SR does count for a bit IMO and only wpm is somewhat misleading.

Average?

 

[smash84]

Average?

obviously average also matters

 

[ankitj]

obviously average also matters

Average is more robust to the lone warrior phenomenon, I think, than either WPM or SR.

 

[smash84]

Average is more robust to the lone warrior phenomenon, I think, than either WPM or SR.

meaning???

 

[smash84]

Average is more robust to the lone warrior phenomenon, I think, than either WPM or SR.

and wouldn't wpm be a function of the SR???

 

[Prince EWS]

Wickets per match is somewhat misleading in the sense that he bowled the lions share of the overs.

I think that misses the point somewhat. One of the many great things about Murali is the very fact that he can get through so many overs without tiring and bowling to a lesser standard.

Obviously this doesn't matter much when you're picking an all-time team because the other bowlers in the team will be of similar quality, but in terms of who'd be more useful to a typical Test team, it's a massive advantage. Having your best bowler able to consistently bowl 35% of the overs without tiring will give you a much better overall bowling attack than having him only able to bowl 20-25%. Obviously it's unfair to compare him with someone like Warne on this front as Warne played in a team with multiple great bowlers, meaning he probably didn't bowl as much as he actually could, but overall it's still definitely something that should count in his favour.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah, number of wicket you take per match may not grow linearly with the number of overs you bowl per match due to tiredness etc. In that sense, Muralis and Hadlees desreve a massive kudos for maintaining that rate of wicket taking despite the burden they carried.

 

[morgieb]

Murali FTW!

Muralitharan's career had three distinct parts, as outlined below.

34 Tests 135 wickets 3.97 @ 31.16
90 Tests 631 wickets 7.00 @ 19.94
10 Tests  34 wickets 3.40 @ 40.88

Haha, **** me that 90 test period is ridiculous.

 

[smash84]

I think that misses the point somewhat. One of the many great things about Murali is the very fact that he can get through so many overs without tiring and bowling to a lesser standard.

Obviously this doesn't matter much when you're picking an all-time team because the other bowlers in the team will be of similar quality, but in terms of who'd be more useful to a typical Test team, it's a massive advantage. Having your best bowler able to consistently bowl 35% of the overs without tiring will give you a much better overall bowling attack than having him only able to bowl 20-25%. Obviously it's unfair to compare him with someone like Warne on this front as Warne played in a team with multiple great bowlers, meaning he probably didn't bowl as much as he actually could, but overall it's still definitely something that should count in his favour.

fair point.

Yeah, number of wicket you take per match may not grow linearly with the number of overs you bowl per match due to tiredness etc. In that sense, Muralis and Hadlees desreve a massive kudos for maintaining that rate of wicket taking despite the burden they carried.

Obviously Ankit wpm does not grow linearly. After all career SR is an average figure too. But we assume that a bowler takes wickets after every x number of deliveries throughout his career and we don't take into account injuries, tiredness etc.