Muttiah Muralitharan vs Viv Richards

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Yeah, but both somewhat similar. Murali also had the minnows and custom made home surfaces.

If Murali had played as many matches in England as Warne, his record would be freakier

 

[Coronis]

I mean, you can’t compare a top 5 bowler to a top 15 batsman. That’s just silly.

 

[subshakerz]

Never said he never had great series. Wouldn't even intimate that.

Except you said he didn't dominate series.

 

[subshakerz]

I get that, but again, he only toured once. Had he toured there twice, I would consider that a much more major issue. For now, the biggest blemish on Murali for me is his record in India, just because he has multiple tours here.

He toured twice.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, you can’t compare a top 5 bowler to a top 15 batsman. That’s just silly.

Viv as a top 15 bat is silly.

 

[Xix2565]

Viv is basically further from the peak of a less impactful Test cricket role than Murali is from the peak of a more impactful one. And Viv had the great benefit of being part of one of the greatest sides ever unlike Murali, with an ATG attack doing most of the matchwinning. To vote for Viv is to be ignorant of what Tests are and how they function.

 

[subshakerz]

Viv is basically further from the peak of a less impactful Test cricket role than Murali is from the peak of a more impactful one. And Viv had the great benefit of being part of one of the greatest sides ever unlike Murali, with an ATG attack doing most of the matchwinning. To vote for Viv is to be ignorant of what Tests are and how they function.

Pretty sure it's much easier to be impactful if you are the only worldclass bowler in your bowling attack.

 

[Xix2565]

Pretty sure it's much easier to be impactful if you are the only worldclass bowler in your bowling attack.

You can't really argue against Murali's numbers that way, else Viv's numbers then become meaningless as he's largely superfluous vs the impact of Marshall/Holding/Roberts/Walsh/Garner/Ambrose on the WI successes. A slightly worse batter would've still been fine with that bowling attack, SL with a worse spinner would've been hopeless. He provided more value overall, and in a more impactful position. There is no argument for Viv beyond vibes and feels.

 

[subshakerz]

You can't really argue against Murali's numbers that way, else Viv's numbers then become meaningless as he's largely superfluous vs the impact of Marshall/Holding/Roberts/Walsh/Garner/Ambrose on the WI successes. A slightly worse batter would've still been fine with that bowling attack, SL with a worse spinner would've been hopeless. He provided more value overall, and in a more impactful position. There is no argument for Viv beyond vibes and feels.

Again I judge based on the player ability and performance, not on their net value to a team which is about the strength of the side that they don't have anything to do with.

 

[Xix2565]

Again I judge based on the player ability and performance, not on their net value to a team which is about the strength of the side that they don't have anything to do with.

Their net value is their ability and performance in the proper context. Even without context, someone taking 800 wickets at 22.7/55.0 is easily greater than Viv's batting performance. Viv isn't even far superior to any of the batters he's compared with.

 

[subshakerz]

Their net value is their ability and performance in the proper context. Even without context, someone taking 800 wickets at 22.7/55.0 is easily greater than Viv's batting performance. Viv isn't even far superior to any of the batters he's compared with.

Not when you discount home factor and minnow bashing.

 

[Xix2565]

Not when you discount home factor and minnow bashing.

Viv was far more inconsistent against everyone, minnows or not and he generally faced weaker opposition across his career. Do you really think SL were among the top 2-3 Test teams during Murali's tenure? Be real please.

 

[subshakerz]

Viv was far more inconsistent against everyone, minnows or not and he generally faced weaker opposition across his career. Do you really think SL were among the top 2-3 Test teams during Murali's tenure? Be real please.

Viv wasn't. He averages 40.plus in and against everyone except a single series in NZ.

If Murali did better in India or Aus, he would be ahead of Viv for me

 

[kyear2]

Viv is basically further from the peak of a less impactful Test cricket role than Murali is from the peak of a more impactful one. And Viv had the great benefit of being part of one of the greatest sides ever unlike Murali, with an ATG attack doing most of the matchwinning. To vote for Viv is to be ignorant of what Tests are and how they function.

Are you saying you're going to penalize players for being parts.of successful teams? Somehow figure it should be the other way round, but hey.

Why do you think Warne makes the Cricinfo (unanimously) and Wisden teams? One of 7 men to do so?

Murali played on tailor made pitches, and when faced with the big guys on the road, didn't exactly fare well, he did correct with a decent helping of minnows from during his day however.

Now Murali is a well in my 2nd tier of bowlers, along with Warne, and he was fabulous. His share number of wickets and five and 10 wicket hauls are Bradmanesque in their scope, but just too many "incompletes" to quite feature in my absolute top tier of guys.
And again, for me it's Bradman, the guys who fall into the best after Bradman conversation and the 3 bowlers vying for best ever.

Viv falls into the category for me, Murali doesn't.

 

[kyear2]

You can't really argue against Murali's numbers that way, else Viv's numbers then become meaningless as he's largely superfluous vs the impact of Marshall/Holding/Roberts/Walsh/Garner/Ambrose on the WI successes. A slightly worse batter would've still been fine with that bowling attack, SL with a worse spinner would've been hopeless. He provided more value overall, and in a more impactful position. There is no argument for Viv beyond vibes and feels.

Glenn McGrath was a better bowler than Murali, yet you're saying that because he played in a team with Warne and Ponting, that he's a less valuable cricketer that Murali. Despite being the key cog in making Australia one of the two best teams ever?

By that argument Lara was better and more valuable than Tendulkar.

No cricket doesn't work that way.

And just for perspective, the player of the series is usually the best player from the winning team.
Even MVPs are the best player from the best team.

 

[capt_Luffy]

He toured twice.

More so the reason actually; while his first tour in 95 he was hardly the bowler he will become and Australia won both matches he played by an innings. He played only two matches in Australia were he should had definitely succeeded, but couldn't make a dent. Not to mention, I believe had Murali had some decent support he won't had failed that hard.

 

[kyear2]

More so the reason actually; while his first tour in 95 he was hardly the bowler he will become and Australia won both matches he played by an innings. He played only two matches in Australia were he should had definitely succeeded, but couldn't make a dent. Not to mention, I believe had Murali had some decent support he won't had failed that hard.

So in the battle of who was the best against the best, who was better?

In ViV's first tour when Australia were manhandling us, did Viv have support? In fact he was pushed up to open the batting vs Lillee and Thompson.

 

[Xix2565]

Are you saying you're going to penalize players for being parts.of successful teams? Somehow figure it should be the other way round, but hey.

Why do you think Warne makes the Cricinfo (unanimously) and Wisden teams? One of 7 men to do so?

Murali played on tailor made pitches, and when faced with the big guys on the road, didn't exactly fare well, he did correct with a decent helping of minnows from during his day however.

Now Murali is a well in my 2nd tier of bowlers, along with Warne, and he was fabulous. His share number of wickets and five and 10 wicket hauls are Bradmanesque in their scope, but just too many "incompletes" to quite feature in my absolute top tier of guys.
And again, for me it's Bradman, the guys who fall into the best after Bradman conversation and the 3 bowlers vying for best ever.

Viv falls into the category for me, Murali doesn't.

Glenn McGrath was a better bowler than Murali, yet you're saying that because he played in a team with Warne and Ponting, that he's a less valuable cricketer that Murali. Despite being the key cog in making Australia one of the two best teams ever?

By that argument Lara was better and more valuable than Tendulkar.

No cricket doesn't work that way.

And just for perspective, the player of the series is usually the best player from the winning team.
Even MVPs are the best player from the best team.

I penalize Viv for not having as much of an impact as Murali. That's all. Viv in no way can be justifiably comparable because he had more help in general and a better team, and still didn't have as much of an impact as other batters from weaker/comparable sides, let alone an ATG bowler like Murali who had to carry a weaker Test side.

I hold most great bowlers/ARs above batters in general, because bowlers are more valuable in Tests and they were the best at their professions. If you can't understand that then why are you even here in the first place? This has been clear for almost everyone else from my posts. The WIs "MVPs" were clearly the bowling attack, not Viv. Viv could've averaged the same numbers but if the bowling was dogshit he wouldn't be highly rated because his team would've been losers a lot of the time.

 

[kyear2]

I penalize Viv for not having as much of an impact as Murali. That's all. Viv in no way can be justifiably comparable because he had more help in general and a better team, and still didn't have as much of an impact as other batters from weaker/comparable sides, let alone an ATG bowler like Murali who had to carry a weaker Test side.

I hold most great bowlers/ARs above batters in general, because bowlers are more valuable in Tests and they were the best at their professions. If you can't understand that then why are you even here in the first place? This has been clear for almost everyone else from my posts. The WIs "MVPs" were clearly the bowling attack, not Viv. Viv could've averaged the same numbers but if the bowling was dog**** he wouldn't be highly rated because his team would've been losers a lot of the time.

Kinda convinced that you don't understand the game, but have hardly watched it, especially the older players.

Why was Australia one of the two greatest teams ever? They had two ATG bowlers, but for quite some time Pakistan had two as well. SL had Murali and Vaas. No, what made them great was possibly one of the greatest of not the greatest batting lineup of all time to pair with them. The Windies at their absolute leak had Greenidge, Lloyd and the incomparable Richards.
I don't know who you think sets the targets that the bowlers get to defend? Richards and Marshall, Chappell and Lillee, Kallis and Steyn, Ponting and McWarne, even Somers and Hall and Harvey and Lindwall. To quote Yoda, always two...
On, and all of those guys could catch, good as hell really, ATG levels actually. I mean, someone has to take those edges.

Please learn about the history of the game, and try to look at it from a broader lens.

 

[Xix2565]

Kinda convinced that you don't understand the game, but have hardly watched it, especially the older players.

Why was Australia one of the two greatest teams ever? They had two ATG bowlers, but for quite some time Pakistan had two as well. SL had Murali and Vaas. No, what made them great was possibly one of the greatest of not the greatest batting lineup of all time to pair with them. The Windies at their absolute leak had Greenidge, Lloyd and the incomparable Richards.
I don't know who you think sets the targets that the bowlers get to defend? Richards and Marshall, Chappell and Lillee, Kallis and Steyn, Ponting and McWarne, even Somers and Hall and Harvey and Lindwall. To quote Yoda, always two...
On, and all of those guys could catch, good as hell really, ATG levels actually. I mean, someone has to take those edges.

Please learn about the history of the game, and try to look at it from a broader lens.

Australia were great because they had the better bowling attack. SL outside of Murali had no one else comparable. Same goes for the WIs vs the rest. Anything else requires you to disrespect the work of these great bowlers in favour of the great batters, which is bizarre in a game dictated by the better bowling of the better teams.

The great batters of said great sides had a much easier time setting targets compared to their opposition, hence their efforts are less valuable in comparison to their batting peers. They didn't have as much opposition since they never had to face the best bowlers of their time (on their own teams).

I think I'm fine with where I am, you clearly aren't given what you overrate and underrate.