Who is Sri Lanka's best ever cricketer?

[viriya]

But how is either better than Bill O Reilly or Glenn McGrath?

Neither have anything close to a dominant period like that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I've heard this before and I guess it's because you play more at home than any one country by far. I think what that logic fails to account for is that it's not just easier batting at home for the best batsman; it's also easier for almost all the batsmen in the line-up. Whereas away from home that's not the case. It could be argued that there's more value for performing away because of how less likely your teammates are to perform; whereas even if you don't perform at home it's more likely someone else from the line-up will pick up the slack.



Didn't Aravinda play for longer?

Exactly, I don't know why people don't get this point. Lots of players bat well at home, the real value is the players who do it in the most foreign of conditions.

Yeah I'm with you guys. People can be massive hipsters on that subject. Everyone knows the value of overseas runs , and while of course being a HTB is hugely valuable, there's a reason why overseas performances are so sought after by players themselves. Yet people will continue to act as though home runs are equally valuable. I get that you play more than half your matches at home, so you need to do well in known conditions, but victories away from home have always been so rare and precious (even moreso these days) but overseas is the bigger test of quality. Always has been. Always will be.

 

[Pratters]

Neither have anything close to a dominant period like that.

McGrath was a fast bowler. How can you expect a fast bowler to take so many wickets? Doesn't mean he is any less than Murali.

 

[viriya]

McGrath was a fast bowler. How can you expect a fast bowler to take so many wickets? Doesn't mean he is any less than Murali.

You can expect fast bowlers to have lower averages.. but McGrath never had an extended period where he averaged even <19. Murali managed 7.2 wkts/test @ 19 for 6 years.

 

[Pratters]

You can expect fast bowlers to have lower averages.. but McGrath never had an extended period where he averaged even <19. Murali managed 7.2 wkts/test @ 19 for 6 years.

But that means McGrath was more consistent. Murali was **** for most of the 90s only to become better later. Wasn't consistency the argument whereby you said Jayawardene>Aravinda?

 

[Red]

but McGrath never had an extended period where he averaged even <19. .

WGAF? If you want to compare apples and oranges, over their whole careers, McGrath was consistently better against all opponents in all conditions than Murali was.

And no one is saying Murali isn't good, he clearly is. He's just not clearly the GOAT bowler.

 

[viriya]

Of course McGrath consistently had a lower average.. The point is that a fast bowler is supposed to. But he didn't have a 6 year period where he averaged 19 - ignoring the 7 wickets/test part.

 

[Red]

Of course McGrath consistently had a lower average.. The point is that a fast bowler is supposed to. But he didn't have a 6 year period where he averaged 19 - ignoring the 7 wickets/test part.

Seriously, so what? He had a whole career averaging 21. Why is it suddenly important to have a 6 year period averaging 19? Cos it's an arbitrary requirement that Murali just happened to achieve?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Of course McGrath consistently had a lower average.. The point is that a fast bowler is supposed to. But he didn't have a 6 year period where he averaged 19 - ignoring the 7 wickets/test part.

Here you go. Big ****ing deal

March 1999- July 2005: 64 matches, 306 wickets @ 19.4

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

What do I win?

 

[AldoRaine18]

For a 6 year period, he took 441 wickets over 62 games averaging 7.2 wickets/game at an average of 19:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

This is the most Bradmen-esque stretch of bowling that has ever been (a dominant stretch similar to Bradman's career length of 52 tests).

No one in the history of the game was a bigger match-winner (clear when you compare post-Murali SL Test W/L with the W/L during his career).

Whether Murali is the GOAT is a separate thread topic though, and I'd rather not this thread turn into that and just focus on SL's best.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

6 years. 184 wickets in 35 tests. Average 15.92.

 

[viriya]

Here you go. Big ****ing deal

March 1999- July 2005: 64 matches, 306 wickets @ 19.4

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

What do I win?

I said 19 not 19.4

 

[OverratedSanity]

You're a parody

 

[viriya]

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

6 years. 184 wickets in 35 tests. Average 15.92.

Bradmenesque period means it has to be at least as long as 52 tests.

 

[Pratters]

I said 19 not 19.4

This was coming.

 

[AldoRaine18]

I said 19 not 19.4

 

[Pratters]

Bradmenesque period means it has to be at least as long as 52 tests.

Who makes these rules?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Bradmenesque period means it has to be at least as long as 52 tests.

wut

 

[AldoRaine18]

Bradmenesque period means it has to be at least as long as 52 tests.

 

[viriya]

Seriously, so what? He had a whole career averaging 21. Why is it suddenly important to have a 6 year period averaging 19? Cos it's an arbitrary requirement that Murali just happened to achieve?

You must have missed the part where I answer the question on why I consider Murali the GOAT.

He had a period of time equivalent to a Bradman career where he completely dominated by any measure (7 wkts/mat @ 19)

You're free to have different criteria to pick the best - I just gave mine.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Here you go. Big ****ing deal

March 1999- July 2005: 64 matches, 306 wickets @ 19.4

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

What do I win?

Only 11 wickets against Bangladesh/Zim btw.