• 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.

Is Murali the best bowler in history?

pasag

pasag

RTDAS
Tbh, I don't understand how people can call anyone the greatest with having not seen most of the cricket in history. Saying stuff like a player is greatest of the generation or the greatest that you have seen is one thing, but comparing to older players, who you only have stats and second hand reports to go on is abit miffy.

If you said statistically a cricketer is the greatest or he is the greatest modern player is one thing, but to make a statement that someone is GOAT, without having seen most of 'all time' – doesn’t hold alot of weight.

Just some of my thoughts.
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
Calling someone merely "the best I've seen" doesn't seem very significant IMO. :cool:

On a serious note, statistics and reports should be enough considering that statistics and reports generally tell you the whole story (ie Warne, Murali are the best, etc.).
 
Last edited:
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
No, I don't think he is.

I don't think there is any single "best" bowler in history because there's too many all at the top of the list who can have cases made for them (unlike with batsmen where Bradman is so clearly ahead of everyone that it's a clear case)
 
F

Francis

State Vice-Captain
On a serious note, statistics and reports should be enough considering that statistics and reports generally tell you the whole story (ie Warne, Murali are the best, etc.).
Click to expand...
Statistics are never enough. If they were Ponting would be better than Tendulkar and Lara as his average is higher and he's almost scored as many centuries as them, in less innings. People immediately point to the fact that he's had easier opposition with no Allan Donald, Wasim Akram, Curtley Amrbose etc. They also talk about pitch conditions, which I sort of agree on.

I've once considered writing a post where I list 100 reasons why stats shouldn't be trusted, but it would take too long. But in every cricket game, doesn't matter who plays, I find something that skewers stats. Averages aren't an authority on who's the best, they're just something someone thought of to keep track on one, of many, aspects of the game.

Off the top of my head you have to consider:

*Quality of competition
*Quality of the pitch
*How many times did the bowler beat the edge?
*Did the batsman do something wreckless that gave a cheap wicket.
*What scenario is the bowler in? Is he under pressure, or is the batsman under pressure?
*Did he gets wickets early on, or pad them up as time goes on?
*Are the other bowlers stealing wickets?
*Did he get a bad umpire decision?
*Did he just have bad luck in not getting good results?
*Was it the tail enders?
*Were the tail enders hard to dismiss and thus shouldn't be discounted?
*How wrecked is the ball?
*Did the captain give the bowler a chance with the ball?
*Were there any dropped catches?
*Was the bowler over-bowled (Dennis Lillee)?
*Did he improve his average by bowling a short spell and getting three quick wickets when a long spell would have been harder?
*Was the long spell helpful for his stats, but bad for his team as it took so long?
*Is he taking wickets at the right moment, when a wicket is really needed?

I'd better stop, but I swear I could get 50 reasons why bowling stats shouldn't be trusted and 50 reasons why batting stats shouldn't be trusted.

So how do we know who the best is? Simple, by watching them and not being guided by stats. Testimony is always the best guide too. Andrew Flintoff is the best example in my opinion. During the last Ashes his stats were good, but his performance was better because of how he impacted games. In the second test, he formed a 50-run partnership with Simon Jones that proved two runs too much for Australia. That was an amazing knock when England were collapsing, and the stats will only say he made a 50, when he saved the game and kept the series alive.

Stats are just ratios that don't take into account many, many different scenarios, and even when you hear about these scenarios, you can't judge because you didn't see the match itself.

I think it's silly an pedantic how some people will talk about the smallest different in average as proof one is better than the other, when just a few different scenarios would change all those silly little numbers.It's a famous saying: "There's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics."
 
A

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
murali and mcgrath have been the best bowlers in the world in the past five years or so...and murali is arguably the best spinner ever...but the best bowler ever, i doubt it....
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
JASON said:
Question - Is Murali the best bowler in history ?

Answer - Let History be the judge of that .

Afterall we are in the twilight of his career . So why not wait and see ... Let history judge him.

My personal opinion , he has singlehandedly won more Test matches than anyone else in the history of Cricket , he takes more Frontline batsmen for wickets [Not tailenders to boost his stats] , but for fear of starting another M v W thread ... I hold back and leave it there ... for history to judge him.:)
Click to expand...
He does take roughly 30% of his wickets from batsmen 8-11 though - which is very interesting. Warne takes a small 6-7% more than that, but think about it a little. Murali takes so many tail-enders despite being the team's main bowler and for bowling such a long spell. Warne's high percentage is somewhat forced upon him in some occasions where McGrath has taken 5-for (which has happened 29 times!) and Warne has to clean up the tail.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
KaZoH0lic said:
He does take roughly 30% of his wickets from batsmen 8-11 though - which is very interesting. Warne takes a small 6-7% more than that, but think about it a little. Murali takes so many tail-enders despite being the team's main bowler and for bowling such a long spell. Warne's high percentage is somewhat forced upon him in some occasions where McGrath has taken 5-for (which has happened 29 times!) and Warne has to clean up the tail.
Click to expand...
You can also construe that as Warne thriving on tail enders where Murali prizes out the top order.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
You can also construe that as Warne thriving on tail enders where Murali prizes out the top order.
Click to expand...
How so? It's mostly through lack of opportunity that Warne does not have a larger percentage in high-order wickets. He certainly has the ability as all the greatest players - or batsmen - attest to him being of the highest calibre bowler. Yet where Murali does have the opportunity he still takes close to Warne's percentage in lower order wickets. So such a generalisation - as the above - is quite exaggerating in terms of 'thriving' and 'prizes' considering Murali still takes so many lower order wickets. It would be more apt to say that Murali takes advantage of the lower-order wickets and weak opposition :D.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top