• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Muttiah Muralitharan vs Viv Richards

Who is the better test cricketer?

  • Total voters
    33
H

HouHsiaoHsien

International Debutant
capt_Luffy said:
What's the deal with Sachin and Sydney?? He has great innings in Adelaide and Perth as well.
Click to expand...
Yes but he averages 150ish at Sydney, and record outside is not nearly as good. Obv ATG in Australia, but guys like Viv have a better split and need to be given credit. Anyways even you agree Viv is one of the best touring bats to Australia
 
Last edited:
X

Xix2565

International Regular
HouHsiaoHsien said:
In his initial tours they were and he did brilliantly vs them, 75- very good, 79-best in Aus by a modern bat. And then one more good tour as well. And for WSC, we can agree to disagree, but his stuff in WSC vs Lillee on bowler friendly pitches is objectify more valuable than Gavaskar bashing weak Aussie attacks. And his SR was out of the world in Aus: 70+. And averaging 48 is close enough to 50. And he has a good split across venues, unlike Sachin. Everyone agrees Viv is one of the best touring bats to Australia, and pitches there in his time were horrible to bat on.
Click to expand...
I really don't see it that way but fine. That doesn't explain everywhere else apart from England. It can't all have been that bad given he wasn't facing the best bowlers all the time.
 
H

HouHsiaoHsien

International Debutant
Xix2565 said:
I really don't see it that way but fine. That doesn't explain everywhere else apart from England. It can't all have been that bad given he wasn't facing the best bowlers all the time.
Click to expand...
The way I see he was amongst the best batters to your Eng(as you stated yourself) and Aus(as I justified above). He was very good at home, not ATG(and didn’t have flat tracks like Sobers, so averaging 49 would be criminal). He was pretty good in India, and good in Pak(with one ATG tour). In Pak he always faced tough attacks too. Anyways that’s the way I see it, and I got no problem if you rank Murali above him.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Xix2565 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Before I respond to the bolded bit, you're saying Australia had the better bowlers, but didn't Pakistan have the 2Ws along with Saqlain and Mustaq Ahmed? So Australia's batting line up didn't have anything to do with it?

So towards the insane bolded part. What Hayden, Langer, Ponting, the Waugh's, Gilchrist, Martyn etc was less valuable because they had McWarne and Gillespie? Not more so? Judging by what they did to Murali, and what India did to Murali and Warne, you don't think it was an advantage to Wane, more than it was to the Aussie batters, that he didn't have to face his own team? They would have destroyed him.

Australia's blowing attack was never as great as the Windies, but they elevated themselves to that tier, by having a similarly slightly stronger batting lineup.

You don't think Punter and Gilly strongly contributed to wins based off foundations by their openers? Same way the WI had Richards and Lloyd after foundations by Greenidge and Haynes? Get off of it dude.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
HouHsiaoHsien said:
In his initial tours they were and he did brilliantly vs them, 75- very good, 79-best in Aus by a modern bat. And then one more good tour as well. And for WSC, we can agree to disagree, but his stuff in WSC vs Lillee on bowler friendly pitches is objectify more valuable than Gavaskar bashing weak Aussie attacks. And his SR was out of the world in Aus: 70+. And averaging 48 is close enough to 50. And he has a good split across venues, unlike Sachin. Everyone agrees Viv is one of the best touring bats to Australia, and pitches there in his time were horrible to bat on.
Click to expand...
Objectively and considerably more valuable.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Xix2565 said:
I can't have an ATG bat barely averaging over 50 over an ATG bowler with 800 wickets at 22.7. Viv was very clearly not that great all the time, so why should I not count his bad series and underwhelming record against him? There's no reason beyond vibes and feels.
Click to expand...
This statement alone shows everyone all they need to know about your understanding of the sport.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
HouHsiaoHsien said:
In his initial tours they were and he did brilliantly vs them, 75- very good, 79-best in Aus by a modern bat. And then one more good tour as well. And for WSC, we can agree to disagree, but his stuff in WSC vs Lillee on bowler friendly pitches is objectify more valuable than Gavaskar bashing weak Aussie attacks. And his SR was out of the world in Aus: 70+. And averaging 48 is close enough to 50. And he has a good split across venues, unlike Sachin. Everyone agrees Viv is one of the best touring bats to Australia, and pitches there in his time were horrible to bat on.
Click to expand...
Peak Thomson in Perth is like the opposite of a weak attack for me.....
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
kyear2 said:
So towards the insane bolded part. What Hayden, Langer, Ponting, the Waugh's, Gilchrist, Martyn etc was less valuable because they had McWarne and Gillespie?
Click to expand...
Great batters << great bowlers as a general rule in Tests.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Xix2565 said:
His record across countries isn't as dominant as his reputation suggests, which hurts his standing in my eyes. It's largely England where he was ATG, everywhere else it doesn't stand out as much as you want me to believe. This is telling given that he was largely on great teams throughout his career.
Click to expand...
Once you factor in WSC, he is easily ATG in Aus.

Xix2565 said:
Murali's 27 average away from home and minnow bashing aside aren't as big flaws as Viv's records vs his reputation of being dominant.
Click to expand...
Once you remove minnows, Muralis average jumps to nearly 25, and away average well over 28. This is well below ATG levels.

stats.espncricinfo.com

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com stats.espncricinfo.com
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
subshakerz said:
Once you factor in WSC, he is easily ATG in Aus.


Once you remove minnows, Muralis average jumps to nearly 25, and away average well over 28. This is well below ATG levels.

stats.espncricinfo.com

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com stats.espncricinfo.com
Click to expand...
WSC =/= Tests. Fantasize all you want, I don't really care. Viv's certainly got much bigger holes than minnow bashing like a GOAT should and being an ATG spinner.

25 is a great average, especially for a spinner. If you don't believe so you're absolutely as mad as Kyear. Like don't ****ing troll me here.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Xix2565 said:
WSC =/= Tests. Fantasize all you want, I don't really care. Viv's certainly got much bigger holes than minnow bashing like a GOAT should and being an ATG spinner.
Click to expand...
If you critique Viv in Aus but don't factor in WSC, can't take you seriously.

Xix2565 said:
25 is a great average, especially for a spinner. If you don't believe so you're absolutely as mad as Kyear. Like don't ****ing troll me here.
Click to expand...
25 ain't as great as 22 which you were flashing, is the point. And a 28 away average is somehow fine with you yet you critique Viv averaging 40 plus in a single country. Double standards man.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
subshakerz said:
No.
Click to expand...
Yes.
subshakerz said:
If you critique Viv in Aus but don't factor in WSC, can't take you seriously.


25 ain't as great as 22 which you were flashing, is the point. And a 28 away average is somehow fine with you yet you critique Viv averaging 40 plus in a single country. Double standards man.
Click to expand...
WSC is not Test cricket, so why should I factor it in when discussing Tests? I don't do it for everyone who participated. You still haven't really stated why Viv having mediocre series more often than not and not having better averages despite his situation is good enough to put him over Murali.

Viv faced easier circumstances than most great batters. 40 in that scenario is definitely not great. 28 on the other hand for a offspinner is fine in comparison given the context. He still took over 600 Test wickets. Viv barely averaged over 50 ffs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top