Imran Khan vs Muttiah Muralitharan

[sayon basak]

Murali also failed in India.

Warne also failed in India.

 

[Bolo.]

Longevity only works if you can replicate baseline worldclass performance. They can't though.

Murali is very much not just longevity. 7+ WPM in his peak is way beyond what quicks can carry. He had a 5 or 600 wicket peak that is pretty comparable to what the best quicks managed over 250 or 300. When you have similar quality over twice as many wickets, you count the wickets.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

thought this would be closer

 

[kyear2]

Why? Because your double standards are getting exposed?

Becuse standards for pacers and spinners are different and any and everyone with a functioning brain knows that.

But alas.

 

[smash84]

Becuse standards for pacers and spinners are different and any and everyone with a functioning brain knows that.

But alas.

You're special though. You have a different standard for each bowler.

 

[kyear2]

You're special though. You have a different standard for each bowler.

I don't. But keep doing you.

Warne is a spinner, they are rated differently.

This shouldn't have to be explained differently.

You don't even argue points anymore, you just try to argue me.

Argue with another one of the 18 that voted Murali.

 

[smash84]

I don't. But keep doing you.

Warne is a spinner, they are rated differently.

This shouldn't have to be explained differently.

You don't even argue points anymore, you just try to argue me.

Argue with another one of the 18 that voted Murali.

Why would I argue them? None of them is as inconsistent as you are.

 

[shortpitched713]

But elite fast bowlers are more valuable in terms of the side's chances of winning

Depends on where, don't you think? Murali and Ashwin could singlehandedly win their countries games at home, at a level and consistency I don't think even the greatest fast bowlers could.

 

[subshakerz]

Why would I argue them? None of them is as inconsistent as you are.

He voted for Imran against Warne as bowlers last time. Would be interested to see his logic here for reversing himself again.

 

[subshakerz]

Depends on where, don't you think? Murali and Ashwin could singlehandedly win their countries games at home, at a level and consistency I don't think even the greatest fast bowlers could.

Murali would then be dismantled in India and Australia. So you'll get more home wins but never get the greater glory.

 

[Xix2565]

Murali would then be dismantled in India and Australia. So you'll get more home wins but never get the greater glory.

Never is a dumb assertion. Hadlee was an ATG but didn't exactly enjoy the same success as his bowling peers let alone some of his batting inferiors. It's a team game and to dismiss contributions simply because they didn't play as well/much/etc away from home is idiotic. Might as well say you don't like cricket at all. Seems to be a growing trend here for a certain group of posters anyway who can't appreciate cricket at all.

 

[subshakerz]

Never is a dumb assertion. Hadlee was an ATG but didn't exactly enjoy the same success as his bowling peers let alone some of his batting inferiors. It's a team game and to dismiss contributions simply because they didn't play as well/much/etc away from home is idiotic. Might as well say you don't like cricket at all. Seems to be a growing trend here for a certain group of posters anyway who can't appreciate cricket at all.

Hadlee led his team to historic away victories in Aus and Eng. I notice you don't seem to actually engage with the points of posters but endlessly complain and crib about things.

 

[Xix2565]

Hadlee led his team to historic away victories in Aus and Eng. I notice you don't seem to actually engage with the points of posters but endlessly complain and crib about things.

It's a dumb point to make because you have dumb standards for what is glorious and what isn't. I just call you and others out for having the temerity to post it as is rather than think for more than a millisecond before posting. Maybe people like you should try to actually make a sensible point more than once in a decade.

 

[subshakerz]

It's a dumb point to make because you have dumb standards for what is glorious and what isn't. I just call you and others out for having the temerity to post it as is rather than think for more than a millisecond before posting. Maybe people like you should try to actually make a sensible point more than once in a decade.

Pretty sure winning in Aus is glorious for NZ.

 

[subshakerz]

Murali is very much not just longevity. 7+ WPM in his peak is way beyond what quicks can carry. He had a 5 or 600 wicket peak that is pretty comparable to what the best quicks managed over 250 or 300. When you have similar quality over twice as many wickets, you count the wickets.

It's not similar quality though if you can't do much against the toughest opponents and 20 percent of your wickets are minnows.

 

[Slifer]

Hadlee led his team to historic away victories in Aus and Eng. I notice you don't seem to actually engage with the points of posters but endlessly complain and crib about things.

First time.....

 

[Slifer]

Murali would then be dismantled in India and Australia. So you'll get more home wins but never get the greater glory.

I actually agree with this. A bowler like Sir Richard was generally a handful wherever he played home or away. Also, imo the better cricketing batsmen tended to do well vs the great spinners: Lara, Sachin, Sehwag, Smith etc. But they'd come up much shorter relatively speaking vs the great fast bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

I actually agree with this. A bowler like Sir Richard was generally a handful wherever he played home or away. Also, imo the better cricketing batsmen tended to do well vs the great spinners: Lara, Sachin, Sehwag, Smith etc. But they'd come up much shorter relatively speaking vs the great fast bowlers.

The problem here is that the arguments they would use for Murali over Imran could conceivably be used to place them ahead of Marshall and Hadlee too.

 

[Xix2565]

Pretty sure winning in Aus is glorious for NZ.

I didn't say it wasn't. I just said you have poor standards because when stuff like Murali's record in England or Ashwin's record in SEA is provided with proper context you just dismiss it regardless.

 

[Xix2565]

The problem here is that the arguments they would use for Murali over Imran could conceivably be used to place them ahead of Marshall and Hadlee too.

I mean that's not wrong. I can always make a case to put Murali/Warne over the other great pacers. I don't generally, but it's not impossible or incomprehensible.