ataraxia
International Coach
He was 33rd, and I said something along the lines of it isn't good enough.Miller was a top 30 quick bowler when I did my fast bowler survival last year and that's probably fair.
He was 33rd, and I said something along the lines of it isn't good enough.Miller was a top 30 quick bowler when I did my fast bowler survival last year and that's probably fair.
They say that Miller was a better batsman and a worse bowler to what his statistics suggest. They also say that serving in the war put things in perspective to him which eventually led him to not to take the game with the same intensity as he did before serving in the airforceSo much drivel in this thread.
Warne vs Murali can early descend into removing stats in many different ways. If you remove Murali's stats against minnows, Murali fans will say to remove stats against Australia. Australian fans will then say if we do that, we should look at away records only because Murali played in a home county that favoured spin. If we do that Murali fans will say Warne got most of those wickets feasting on hapless English batsmen. By the time we're done removing stats, both of them took a dozen wickets at an advocate of 25 in a simulated game against ATG players.
Fact is that they were both fine bowlers who had similar weaknesses (record against India in India, periods of relative mediocrity (start of Murali's career, middle of Warne's)). They're both the top two wicket takers in history. Which one you pick is probably based more on how they did against/ for your team than anything else.
Also, wpm either means little or Lillee should be rated more highly by those on this site. It only seems to be used when denigrating an obvious ATG. Fact is it has more to do with bowling workload and support than much else.
Miller was a top 30 quick bowler when I did my fast bowler survival last year and that's probably fair. Extremely valuable player and only overshadowed by 25 other guys from half a dozen nations in a hundred years of cricket. Sounds like an ATG to me, especially when you factor in his batting and his war injury which meant he bowled with back pain for most of his career. Kapil was not as good with bat or ball, despite being a very fine bowler and clearly amongst the top two Indian pace bowlers ever.
I've seen people say that. Brainless argument. Warne only averaged slightly less against England than his career average. No where near as meaningful as Murali taking 180 wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at an average of 14 lolIf we do that Murali fans will say Warne got most of those wickets feasting on hapless English batsmen.
Anyone who suggest taking wickets against England is equal to beating up Ban/Zim is a moron. England is the most successful non subcontinent side in the subcontinent since the turn of the centuryI've seen people say that. Brainless argument. Warne only averaged slightly less against England than his career average. No where near as meaningful as Murali taking 180 wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at an average of 14 lol
We are all friends here. No need to go for personal insultsAnyone who thinks they were better than Bangladesh in the 00s is an absolute moron.
TIL I'm a moronEngland in the 90s were headless chicken against spin. Anyone who thinks they were better than Bangladesh in the 00s is an absolute moron.
We are all friends here. No need to go for personal insults
Meant when it comes to playing spin, BD in 2000s > England in 90s. Obviously exaggerated and used the same word Gob said earlier.TIL I'm a moron
Can you just not today? Such a dumb post. I even spelled out the averages for you earlier. Murali averaged 21 against England and 13-15 against Ban and Zim. You are completely and demonstrably wrong.England in the 90s were headless chicken against spin. Anyone who thinks they were better than Bangladesh in the 00s is an absolute moron.
Why though? Take the moral high groundMeant Obviously exaggerated and used the same word Gob said earlier.
Yeah but he was comparing them to 00s Bangladesh and those were 00s Bangladesh guys.HB's exaggeration is probably wrong, but Murali didn't actually play against the 90s England (his point was restricted to 90s England).
Murali played 2 tests against England in the 90s. Warne, of course, a ton. The 00 batch of England batsmen may have been better players of spin.
That is not an unreasonable position. The 90s England bats did look awful against spin plenty of times.
Incorrect, it definitely is an unreasonable position. Again, as I said earlier Warne's career average against England is only like 1 run lower than his overall average. It's barely significant. That alone nullifies the entire point as the context it's based on is it's affect on Warne's stats.HB's exaggeration is probably wrong, but Murali didn't actually play against the 90s England (his point was restricted to 90s England).
Murali played 2 tests against England in the 90s. Warne, of course, a ton. The 00 batch of England batsmen may have been better players of spin.
That is not an unreasonable position. The 90s England bats did look awful against spin plenty of times.
Yeah, makes sense. Memories probably don't serve us well in this case.Incorrect, it definitely is an unreasonable position. Again, as I said earlier Warne's career average against England is only like 1 run lower than his overall average. It's barely significant. That alone nullifies the entire point as the context it's based on is it's affect on Warne's stats.
To add to this, even further demonstrating how moronic that opinion is, Warne's average against England in the 90s (when they were supposedly worse) is 24.78 and his average against then post-2000 (when they were supposedly better) is 22.42.
No matter which way you look at it, it's evidently wrong and just a really stupid argument that does nothing other than demonstrate the ignorance and bias of whoever is making the statement.
Yes I'm probably overreacting. It's just that dumb a comment.
Was a one man army in 2005. Ridiculous seriesand his average against then post-2000 (when they were supposedly better) is 22.42.
One of Aus' best bats tooWas a one man army in 2005. Ridiculous series