The Greater Cricketer: Tendulkar vs Muralitharan

[Burgey]

I'm sure @Burgey would have loved for SL to tour here more often.

Yeah would have been great to see him average 70 per wicket across more matches. Diabolical. Wish he could have "bowled" at both ends. If they'd toured more often Aus could have gone >20 test wins in a row instead of being capped at 16 a couple of times.

Also. Tendulkar is orders of magnitude greater than Murali as a cricketer. As great with his primary skill as Murali was with his without an * next to his name; a better fielder and a handy part time bowler. Murali was a woeful fielder and barely knew which end of the cue to hold.

 

[Prince EWS]

>inb4 @Migara chiming in to talk about young Murali being a gun fielder.

@TheJediBrah always enjoys that debate.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Tendulkar wasn't a particularly good fielder but Murali was just awful. Definitely no comparison in that regard

 

[Prince EWS]

You must be on the weed. Murali simply was a brilliant fielder of TM DIlshan or Sanath Jayasuriya class. Don't think even the current Indian team has a quick mover as Murali (in his younger days), or may be Sir is as good as him. He formed the core fielding group of SL in late 90s with Mahanama, Jayasuriya, Dharamasena and Upul Chandana.

Weed.

 

[Burgey]

Weed.

All that shows is the disparity in standards across countries. It's quite possible Murali was simultaneously one of the best fielders in Sri Lanka and of such a standard his fielding would have excluded him from Australian selection. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, given how woeful SL was in the field, they're perfectly consistent.

 

[CricAddict]

Tendulkar wasn't a particularly good fielder but Murali was just awful. Definitely no comparison in that regard

You won't be discussing Tendulkar when you discuss about top fielders in history but he wasn't bad either. A safe fielder. Not being defensive, just saying the fact.

 

[CricAddict]

All that shows is the disparity in standards across countries. It's quite possible Murali was simultaneously one of the best fielders in Sri Lanka and of such a standard his fielding would have excluded him from Australian selection. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, given how woeful SL was in the field, they're perfectly consistent.

Srilanka during his time were the best fielding side from Asia and even taking Australia and South Africa as better fielding sides, they were comfortably the third best fielding side in the world during Murali's time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You won't be discussing Tendulkar when you discuss about top fielders in history but he wasn't bad either. A safe fielder. Not being defensive, just saying the fact.

No I agree, he was fine. Just hard to measure up to some of the greats of his time

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Srilanka during his time were the best fielding side from Asia and even taking Australia and South Africa as better fielding sides, they were comfortably the third best fielding side in the world during Murali's time.

I disagree. NZ were clearly better than SL in the field and on a par with Aus and SA. Either Zimbabwe or SL were 4th best.

NZ had the likes of Chris Harris, Lou Vincent, and Hamish Marshall in the ring, Fleming in the slips, and quality outfielders.

 

[Burgey]

Sri Lanka was the best ODI side in the world for six weeks when it mattered most in 1996. Which is great, but this revisionism that they were suddenly full of superstars with the bat, ball and in the field is deluded nonsense.

A SL tour anywhere was then and remains now the worst, most boring test series in world cricket. They are a monumental non-event away from home and always have been. The ICC should give them special dispensation to only play at home so they offer up a competitive series instead of getting ritualistically bent over wherever they go in the world.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Burgey is mostly on the money but they were still a very good ODI side for a while. Made the Semis in 2003 and final in 2007 and 2011 (only one of those was in Asia)

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I disagree. Murali's wpm and number of 10 fors is unreal. Sachin has the most 100s but then he's played the most tests. Ditto his runs aggregate. Do I think Murali is the better cricketer? No. He failed vs toughest tests of his time ie away to India and Australia. Whereas Sachin had passable tours home and away McWarne.

Sachin’s long term peak of averaging 60 across 18 years and 150 odd tests, and averaging 45+ in and against every opponent country, also puts him ahead of Murali IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

Migara over emphasizes this, but it is true Murali was a gun fielder for a while before he had his first set of injuries. Also, SL were the first side in the SC to take fielding and fitness seriously and IIRC, they were the first to hire an overseas physio and trainer as well. They realized (or maybe Whatmore did) the need and necessity of fitness and fielding esp. for LO cricket long before Ind or Pak did.

Burgey's salt over perfectly legal stuff notwithstanding, I still do think Sachin was probably a more important and rounded cricketer than Murali.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fielding was what really held India back in the late 90s/early 00s more than anything. Even their fast bowling wasn't as bad as is often made out (though it wasn't great). For a team with the batting they had they should have done a lot better than they did. Wasn't until guys like Yuvraj and Kaif came in that they started paying attention to fielding and it helped them immensely

Sachin was probably a more important and rounded cricketer than Murali.

Both were pretty rounded as they got older. Neither as well-rounded as Herath though

 

[Coronis]

Both were pretty rounded as they got older. Neither as well-rounded as Herath though

Surprised we went 3 hours without someone making a rounded joke.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sri Lanka was the best ODI side in the world for six weeks when it mattered most in 1996. Which is great, but this revisionism that they were suddenly full of superstars with the bat, ball and in the field is deluded nonsense.

A SL tour anywhere was then and remains now the worst, most boring test series in world cricket. They are a monumental non-event away from home and always have been. The ICC should give them special dispensation to only play at home so they offer up a competitive series instead of getting ritualistically bent over wherever they go in the world.

Bat ball no. Field yes. Mahanama was as good a fielder as any I've seen in odis. Chandana was great, jayasuriya had a rocket arm, young murali was solid. You had a few fatty liabilities in ranatunga and gurusinha but they could be hidden easily back then. Some of this is /migara but they were genuinely a great fielding side in limited overs. It's one of the things that made them successful.

They've also produced some gun slippers at test level. Mahela especially is one of the best I've ever seen. Safe as a house.

 

[Jumno]

Close

I'd opt for Tendulkar

 

[Migara]

I disagree. NZ were clearly better than SL in the field and on a par with Aus and SA. Either Zimbabwe or SL were 4th best.

NZ had the likes of Chris Harris, Lou Vincent, and Hamish Marshall in the ring, Fleming in the slips, and quality outfielders.

Chandana and Mahanama were better than anything NZ managed to field during that time.

Murali's time we were s good as Australia or South Africa in the field giving run for their money.

 

[Prince EWS]

All that shows is the disparity in standards across countries. It's quite possible Murali was simultaneously one of the best fielders in Sri Lanka and of such a standard his fielding would have excluded him from Australian selection. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, given how woeful SL was in the field, they're perfectly consistent.

You must be on the

W E E D
E
E
D

Weed.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The greatest runscorer and wickettaker head to head.

The greatest runscorer is actually Andy Ganteaume.