Curtly Ambrose vs Muttiah Muralitharan

[shortpitched713]

Ambrose for his batting.

 

[Migara]

No one disputes this, he a top 2 spinner and top 10 bowler of all time. But he's been thumped by two teams and Lara to an unprecedented degree. At least among ATG bowlers.

Lara had better of Murali only in a single series. That is also because of half a dozed of Vaas lbws were not given. Other two series were very modest for Lara who kept on getting out to no - name bowlers like Sajeewa de Silva.

Lara never had the dominance Sehwag had over Murali. Lots of extremally iffy shots played. Tendulkar was less prolific, but his strokes were proper risk free shots.

 

[subshakerz]

Lara had better of Murali only in a single series. That is also because of half a dozed of Vaas lbws were not given. Other two series were very modest for Lara who kept on getting out to no - name bowlers like Sajeewa de Silva.

Lara never had the dominance Sehwag had over Murali. Lots of extremally iffy shots played. Tendulkar was less prolific, but his strokes were proper risk free shots.

Lara also did well against Murali in WI in 2002, scored a double ton.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No one disputes this, he a top 2 spinner and top 10 bowler of all time. But he's been thumped by two teams and Lara to an unprecedented degree. At least among ATG bowlers.

He only got smashed by India and Australia away from home tbf. He still had a ton of success against those same lineups in home conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

He only got smashed by India and Australia away from home tbf. He still had a ton of success against those same lineups in home conditions.

Yeah but Kyear2 is right here.

Ambrose may have a limited away record and penetration issues but ultimately he didn't outright fail in two strong batting countries like Australia and India. Questionmarks over Ambrose in SC are not worse than objective failure.

I have Warne over Ambrose though since Warne just had a single problem with India so that is more forgivable. Murali has two countries I will rank Ambrose ahead of him.

 

[subshakerz]

And for those who argue Murali didn't fail in Australia since he only played a few tests, his record there in 5 tests is so bad that even if he had a spectacular series on top of that added he would still have bad figures.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Yeah but Kyear2 is right here.

Ambrose may have a limited away record and penetration issues but ultimately he didn't outright fail in two strong batting countries like Australia and India. Questionmarks over Ambrose in SC are not worse than objective failure.

I have Warne over Ambrose though since Warne just had a single problem with India so that is more forgivable. Murali has two countries I will rank Ambrose ahead of him.

Warne was also mediocre in WI(averaged 39)

 

[trundler]

And for those who argue Murali didn't fail in Australia since he only played a few tests, his record there in 5 tests is so bad that even if he had a spectacular series on top of that added he would still have bad figures.

This is like saying Ashwin has failed in Australia because of his average when he's been vital for 2 series wins there and averages better than Lyon in the same matches.

 

[OverratedSanity]

And for those who argue Murali didn't fail in Australia since he only played a few tests, his record there in 5 tests is so bad that even if he had a spectacular series on top of that added he would still have bad figures.

Kuch bhi.

What if Murali picked up 25 wickets for 5 runs in his last Australia tour?

 

[BazBall21]

This is close irrespective of Murali in Australia.

 

[Coronis]

Lara had better of Murali only in a single series. That is also because of half a dozed of Vaas lbws were not given. Other two series were very modest for Lara who kept on getting out to no - name bowlers like Sajeewa de Silva.

Lara never had the dominance Sehwag had over Murali. Lots of extremally iffy shots played. Tendulkar was less prolific, but his strokes were proper risk free shots.

So it was actually Vaas and de Silva dominating him not Murali? Good to know.

 

[kyear2]

This is close irrespective of Murali in Australia.

They're all close.

Steyn, Warne, Ambrose, Murali, Imran, Donald.

Really comes down to preferences and what one prioritizes.

 

[Migara]

Yeah but Kyear2 is right here.

Ambrose may have a limited away record and penetration issues but ultimately he didn't outright fail in two strong batting countries like Australia and India. Questionmarks over Ambrose in SC are not worse than objective failure.

I have Warne over Ambrose though since Warne just had a single problem with India so that is more forgivable. Murali has two countries I will rank Ambrose ahead of him.

Warne has a crap record in WI too.

 

[subshakerz]

Kuch bhi.

What if Murali picked up 25 wickets for 5 runs in his last Australia tour?

If you want to write off Australia from his record based on that expectation, go for it. I think even with a great tour he would still average in the late 30s/40s.

Warne was also mediocre in WI(averaged 39)

Warne was okay in his mid-nineties tour. His 99 tour is a clear injury case, much more so than his purported injuries in India for which I don't give excuses. He hadn't recovered from his surgery, everyone could attest to it and it was clear from his bowling.

This is like saying Ashwin has failed in Australia because of his average when he's been vital for 2 series wins there and averages better than Lyon in the same matches.

Yes but he would still be considered a fail there if we compare by ATG standards.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes but he would still be considered a fail there if we compare by ATG standards.

I agree it doesn't seem too impressive on the surface; but given enough thought, I came to realise Ashwin's record is actually pretty good in Australia (I used to thought it was okayishly bad). He played a huge role in team India's most underdog series victory in like 50 years (mind you, he still averaged almost 30, but I think the impact and wickets taken in important matches kinda overwrites the average) and took 6 wickets in the only match he played in on the previous series, which also was deceitful. So yeah, now I think overall he only flopped in South Africa.

 

[BazBall21]

Ashwin got big wickets on that tour.

 

[Jumno]

Close, but I'd give it to Murali.

 

[kyear2]

I agree it doesn't seem too impressive on the surface; but given enough thought, I came to realise Ashwin's record is actually pretty good in Australia (I used to thought it was okayishly bad). He played a huge role in team India's most underdog series victory in like 50 years (mind you, he still averaged almost 30, but I think the impact and wickets taken in important matches kinda overwrites the average) and took 6 wickets in the only match he played in on the previous series, which also was deceitful. So yeah, now I think overall he only flopped in South Africa.

What I don't think people realize is that you can have good performances, without performing well in or vs a country.

You can also contribute to a series win, but still not be excellent.

 

[capt_Luffy]

What I don't think people realize is that you can have good performances, without performing well in or vs a country.

You can also contribute to a series win, but still not be excellent.

Then what do you describe as a good performance if having significant contribution in an away series win isn't a measure of that? I think looking at averages and WPMs only doesn't always paints the proper picture always. If you are helping your country significantly in an away series win, I think that's a good performance.

 

[subshakerz]

What I don't think people realize is that you can have good performances, without performing well in or vs a country.

You can also contribute to a series win, but still not be excellent.

Yup. You can play a supportive role as well.

If you have disaster tours mixed with good tours, you will still be judged by your overall numbers.

Ponting had two decent tours to India but is considered a fail overall.