FBU
International Debutant
Sorry you're right. I didn't change his top order figures.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Rank your Top 20 Bowlers of the modern era
- Thread starter centurymaker
- Start date
ankitj
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And Murali earned a better result for a much weaker team.Well considering he had better Average, SR, Econ, Yes.
Those are generally the parameters I use to judge bowlers, but I am curious to know what you use other than one series being "The uber cool ASHES".
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't see anything from Marshall.So Murali's performance against England in 06 was better than Warne's Ashes in 05?
LOL, I've heard it all now.
One of them - arguably the best of them - says it's Warne, so there
Athlai
Not Terrible
Just because an excellent performance in a series is deemed as more "important" doesn't by any means mean it has to be "better".
It's hardly laughable to say that Murali may have played better in 06 than Warne did in 05, it would be laughable to say that his performance was more memorable or important though.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Exactly, so you missed the entire point and you obviously did not watch the Ashes in question. Thanks for clarifying.Well considering he had better Average, SR, Econ, Yes.
Those are generally the parameters I use to judge bowlers, but I am curious to know what you use other than one series being "The uber cool ASHES".
In another thread where performances are being discussed, I'll be sure to watch out for you only considering the person with the best stats the best performer - since you seem to disregard how important the wickets or runs made are in the context of a match, you only care about the strict stats. Good to know.
Last edited:
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Statistically, there is nothing to separate the two. Winning in England is as important to Sri Lankan fans as the Ashes is to the Australians. Both carried their attacks in those particular series. I pretty much agree with what Athlai said, except that different people define "memorable" and "important" in different ways, and that should not come in the way of judging their performances, really.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
It is, pretty much the same thing in my eyes. If one bowler for example takes the best 3 batsman in the opposing side and the other takes 3 tailenders and comes away with better figures; I wouldn't say the latter bowler was "better" even if his stats were. Not saying that is the difference between the two series but Warne's impact on that series was enormous; even if it wasn't an Ashes. For me the person with the most important contributions is the better bowler - that bowler may not be the most statistically appealing, however. It should also be noted that England were a better side in 05 than in 06.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
Actually I never checked it before (your e.g. gave me the idea) but both these guys have a huge proportion of wickets for batsmen 8-11
HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph
HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph
Warne 37.1%
Murali 32.5%
ankitj
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Why do you guys bother. Just refer to my thread (promotion yet againActually I never checked it before (your e.g. gave me the idea) but both these guys have a huge proportion of wickets for batsmen 8-11
HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph
HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph
Warne 37.1%
Murali 32.5%
). Takes into account value of each wicket and compares against bowling averages. Just looking at % of top order or lower order doesn't tell you enough.
ankitj
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, 8-70 to win the test and draw the series was not enough impact. Should have taken all 10.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Well, they are somewhat disadvantaged in being spinners. They are almost automatically left with more tailenders to take than upper order wickets, in comparison to paceman. Especially Warne.Actually I never checked it before (your e.g. gave me the idea) but both these guys have a huge proportion of wickets for batsmen 8-11
HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph
HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph
Warne 37.1%
Murali 32.5%
And what about the rest of the series? What of 05 Ashes? Should I quote innings by innings performances there? Did you watch the series in question? I'm guessing no. Maybe you should stick to logical inconsistencies.
Last edited:
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
4 tailenders make up 36% (4 divided by 11) of the team so I don't see anything wrong with their respective proportion of wickets against tailenders.
Lostman
State Captain
Murali's "performance" was statistically better than Warne's and it also let led his team to a tied series.
Lostman
State Captain
He would probably have required all 10 to be bowled as well.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Collingwood got an MBE for Ashes 05.Murali's "performance" was statistically better than Warne's and it also let led his team to a tied series.
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Do you really think Collingwood's case is in any way remotely comparable to the series Murali had? Wow.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I am not equating the two. I am providing an extreme example to make clear a pretty vivid point. Unfortunately, the person in question doesn't seem to demonstrate that they actually watched the series in question so I thought it necessary. One can have an amazing series and their team still lose through no fault of their own.
Quote ironic that this is coming from a Murali fan, of all people.
Last edited: