*Official* Australia in Sri Lanka 2016

[viriya]

Knocking over the tail quickly is also an extremely valuable skill. So many series won because of runs after the 6th wicket

Agreed, but I pointed that out specifically because there was a Lehmann interview a few years ago where he said Murali mostly just took tailender wickets compared to Warne in that series.. I found that the opposite was true.

 

[DriveClub]

Murali had the burden of being the main offensive and defensive weapon, and even when he was tired and the batsmen were getting used to him he had to keep bowling. I agree that his mindset was more defensive than Warne, but considering how effective he was at getting wickets I don't think it can be inarguably claimed that he would've had better results if he was more aggressive. With Warne, if he was proven to be relatively ineffective, the Australians usually had the luxury of not overbowling him and giving him a break. Murali did not have that option.

Sri Lanka lost that series in the 3rd innings in all 3 tests, murali and captaincy were extremely negative and let Australia off the hook in all 3 tests. Despite murali getting wickets he was very disappointing in the 3rd innings everytime. There's an interview of mahela in cricinfo now how he had to completely change muralis mindset during his captaincy for him to attack with murali. He was an extremely defensive bowler early on in his career and it took someone like mahela to rectify that issue. 2004 series is a perfect example of despite the wickets he let down sl badly in the 3rd innings every time because of being an extremely defensive bowler. Murali even used to convince past captains hashan to not declare early because he was the one who had to bowl out the opposition.

 

[viriya]

Sri Lanka lost that series in the 3rd innings in all 3 tests, murali and captaincy were extremely negative and let Australia off the hook in all 3 tests. Despite murali getting wickets he was very disappointing in the 3rd innings everytime. There's an interview of mahela in cricinfo now how he had to completely change muralis mindset during his captaincy for him to attack with murali. He was an extremely defensive bowler early on in his career and it took someone like mahela to rectify that issue. 2004 series is a perfect example of despite the wickets he let down sl badly in the 3rd innings every time because of being an extremely defensive bowler. Murali even used to convince past captains hashan to not declare early because he was the one who had to bowl out the opposition.

I watched the interview.. I also watched that series. Murali didn't let Aus off the hook by being defensive. Aus batting was just ATG level and even Murali couldn't bowl them out on his own twice. To say he let down SL after he averaged almost 10 wkts/match for the series at an average of 23 is just plain ridiculous imo.

If SL batting was better they could have at least drawn the first and third matches and got a big enough lead in the 2nd test to pressure the Aussies in the 2nd innings there as well. But that Aus team was near GOAT if not the GOAT so that's easier said than done.

Also Murali never changed from his defensive mindset - it was his preferred way of going about things. Hard to argue that it was the wrong method when you consider how successful he was.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah but you're still using the numerical argument when, really, it's more about how he was played in that particular series. Fact is, against very good players of spin, he came up short on a couple on pretty helpful decks he usually dominated on. Warne's bowling in India dents his rep, this should count against Murali irrespective of how successful he was elsewhere and in other series. It doesn't make him any less an all-time great, just not invincible.

It's not that much of a knock, really, just shows that as good a bowler he was, with the right method, bats could still succeed against him. That's Test cricket.

 

[DriveClub]

I watched the interview.. I also watched that series. Murali didn't let Aus off the hook by being defensive. Aus batting was just ATG level and even Murali couldn't bowl them out on his own twice. To say he let down SL after he averaged almost 10 wkts/match for the series at an average of 23 is just plain ridiculous imo.

If SL batting was better they could have at least drawn the first and third matches and got a big enough lead in the 2nd test to pressure the Aussies in the 2nd innings there as well. But that Aus team was near GOAT if not the GOAT so that's easier said than done.

Also Murali never changed from his defensive mindset - it was his preferred way of going about things. Hard to argue that it was the wrong method when you consider how successful he was.

Go watch cricket on statsguru and spreadsheets, I'm not going to waste my time anymore

 

[viriya]

I wasn't saying he was dominating the aussies the whole time, but in the first innings of those matches he almost ran through them. The aussies were good enough to not fail twice in a row to him though.

I brought in the numbers to show that it was far from a rout - not sure how to show that simply without the numbers. Maybe I should bring up the 6/59 in the galle test and other examples instead?

Equating Warnes record in India where he was barely effective to a series in which Murali was played well by the Aussies but still managed to be very effective while getting little support is a huge stretch imo, but I'm sure you know that as well.

 

[viriya]

Also, it's quite hilarious that bringing up the series average and the wickets taken is considered "spreadsheets and statsguru"..

As a good friend once said, I use my eyes, not spreadsheets

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think we settled that Warne and Murali both suck and that Herath is the king. More Rangana talk, please.

 

[viriya]

I think we settled that Warne and Murali both suck and that Herath is the king. More Rangana talk, please.

Agreed. Herath at home has been so good for so long that performances like this are almost expected of him now..

 

[DriveClub]

I wasn't saying he was dominating the aussies the whole time, but in the first innings of those matches he almost ran through them. The aussies were good enough to not fail twice in a row to him though.

I brought in the numbers to show that it was far from a rout - not sure how to show that simply without the numbers. Maybe I should bring up the 6/59 in the galle test and other examples instead?

Equating Warnes record in India where he was barely effective to a series in which Murali was played well by the Aussies but still managed to be very effective while getting little support is a huge stretch imo, but I'm sure you know that as well.

Not this **** again, I'm not talking about Warne, I watched the 2004 series live and very well know what happened. Sl captain hashan and murali spread the fields and let the aussie batsmen take all 3 tests out of the reach of sl in the 3rd innings. If murali had attacked when aus were in the ropes especially in galle where they had a deficit of 150+ it could have very well gone sl's way. Its a series full of missed opportunities. Without even watching any matches, just follow them on cricinfo and make a useless website with laughable rankings using spreadsheets and statsguru. Let me know if you need timeout.

 

[vcs]

Not this **** again, I'm not talking about Warne, I watched the 2004 series live and very well know what happened. Sl captain hashan and murali spread the fields and let the aussie batsmen take all 3 tests out of the reach of sl in the 3rd innings. If murali had attacked when aus were in the ropes especially in galle where they had a deficit of 150+ it could have very well gone sl's way. Its a series full of missed opportunities. Without even watching any matches, just follow them on cricinfo and make a useless website with laughable rankings using spreadsheets and statsguru. Let me know if you need timeout.

What exactly is your grand contribution to cricket, out of interest?

 

[Burgey]

What exactly is your grand contribution to cricket, out of interest?

The first rule of DriveClub is no one talks about DriveClub.

I often don't agree with viriya's analysis, but credit to him in that he puts a fair bit of thought into his posts and, frankly, doesn't deserve the spray he copped tbh.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Does anyone know of any cricket podcasts that cover cricket around the globe like this test?

CricketWeb podcast when they are not being lazy

 

[Migara]

Credit to Mendis, Herath, Sandakan, Nevill, and SO'K. SL could look at replacing Perera, maybe with an all-rounder to shore up the batting a little more.

MDK Perera IS an all rounder. But never lived up to expectations after his first knock of 95 against Pakistan. HE was once used to open the batting in ODIs too.

 

[Migara]

Sri Lanka lost that series in the 3rd innings in all 3 tests, murali and captaincy were extremely negative and let Australia off the hook in all 3 tests. Despite murali getting wickets he was very disappointing in the 3rd innings everytime. There's an interview of mahela in cricinfo now how he had to completely change muralis mindset during his captaincy for him to attack with murali. He was an extremely defensive bowler early on in his career and it took someone like mahela to rectify that issue. 2004 series is a perfect example of despite the wickets he let down sl badly in the 3rd innings every time because of being an extremely defensive bowler. Murali even used to convince past captains hashan to not declare early because he was the one who had to bowl out the opposition.

The series was lost at Kandy, when Gilly wandered at #3 in the second innings and tillekaratne kept bowling pacemen. just because they cleaned up Australia in the first innings. Considering Gilly was especially vulnerable against Murali before he gets in, it was stupid to keep bowling Vaas and Zoysa at him. Even after Gilly got a hundred, next day, in 2nd over, misread Murali and was lbw. If Tillekaratne bowled Murali when Gilly strode in, things would have been very much different.

 

[Migara]

I watched the interview.. I also watched that series. Murali didn't let Aus off the hook by being defensive. Aus batting was just ATG level and even Murali couldn't bowl them out on his own twice. To say he let down SL after he averaged almost 10 wkts/match for the series at an average of 23 is just plain ridiculous imo. If SL batting was better they could have at least drawn the first and third matches and got a big enough lead in the 2nd test to pressure the Aussies in the 2nd innings there as well. But that Aus team was near GOAT if not the GOAT so that's easier said than done. Also Murali never changed from his defensive mindset - it was his preferred way of going about things. Hard to argue that it was the wrong method when you consider how successful he was.

Biggest issue was Hashan Tillekaratne was out of for, as a batsman, and as a captain. Historically, he is the batsman who took on the premier opposition spinner, either attacking or grinding down to dirt. His cheap dismissals hurt us big time. And his captaincy became plain rubbish.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not this **** again, I'm not talking about Warne, I watched the 2004 series live and very well know what happened. Sl captain hashan and murali spread the fields and let the aussie batsmen take all 3 tests out of the reach of sl in the 3rd innings. If murali had attacked when aus were in the ropes especially in galle where they had a deficit of 150+ it could have very well gone sl's way. Its a series full of missed opportunities. Without even watching any matches, just follow them on cricinfo and make a useless website with laughable rankings using spreadsheets and statsguru. Let me know if you need timeout.

This is absolutely correct

 

[Black_Warrior]

The only reason Australia were an ATG side back in the early 00s was because they played positive and attacking cricket while the ROW were playing negative and defensive cricket. That is what separates the great teams from the mediocre/crap ones.

In fact the main reason Australia lost his was because they were playing such cowardly defensive cricket especially Keefe and Nevill. WTF were they thinking trying to play for a draw. If Australia want to win in SC, they need to get back to their aggressive and positive mindset of the earlier generations.

 

[Daemon]

The only reason Australia were an ATG side back in the early 00s was because they played positive and attacking cricket while the ROW were playing negative and defensive cricket. That is what separates the great teams from the mediocre/crap ones.

In fact the main reason Australia lost his was because they were playing such cowardly defensive cricket especially Keefe and Nevill. WTF were they thinking trying to play for a draw. If Australia want to win in SC, they need to get back to their aggressive and positive mindset of the earlier generations.

not sure if sarcastic

 

[OverratedSanity]

Definitely sarcastic but not over the top enough