What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[trundler]

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.

This is circular reasoning though. You're saying England were better because Warne didn't do as well against them and England were better because Warne didn't blow them away (relatively speaking).

But c'mon guys clearly 00s BD were the worst team since 1890s SA

 

[TheJediBrah]

Kapil would have averaged 4 wpm had he played in Miller's team

Haha very spurious speculation. Could just as easily say he would average 2 wpm because he wouldn't be needed as much.

Problem is you're judging Miller purely on wpm, which is at best a secondary stat of questionable valuable when rating the quality of bowling. He averaged 21 with the ball over a decent career, with a great strike rate and a perfectly respectable wpm. Along with how he is rated by his contemporaries his status as an ATG bowler is not in doubt. I don't get why you're trying so hard to deny that purely because he wasn't regularly needed to bowl 50 overs a game.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is circular reasoning though. You're saying England were better because Warne didn't do as well against them and England were better because Warne didn't blow them away (relatively speaking).

No, look at the context. Contention was that Warne statistically benefited from playing against England a lot in the 90s because they were worse against spin (warne) then. Patently false by looking at Warne's statistics, which was the whole point of the "argument"

Edit: also as I pointed out earlier, it's all irrelevant anyway because neither Warne nor Murali were that much better against England than their career marks anyway. Nothing compared to Murali v minnows. It's a dumb point to bring up for so many reasons

 

[akilana]

jedibrah, how do you know all of this?

 

[Burgey]

Well, he's just laid it out for you. Again.

 

[TheJediBrah]

jedibrah, how do you know all of this?

Statsguru m8

 

[TheJediBrah]

Let me say again btw, I'm not trying to claim that either Warne or Murali was better than the other. I have no issue with someone thinking Murali was better. I'm just correcting some unusually stupid comments.

 

[akilana]

Well, he's just laid it out for you. Again.

Better than ikki?

 

[h_hurricane]

No, look at the context. Contention was that Warne statistically benefited from playing against England a lot in the 90s because they were worse against spin (warne) then. Patently false by looking at Warne's statistics, which was the whole point of the "argument"

Edit: also as I pointed out earlier, it's all irrelevant anyway because neither Warne nor Murali were that much better against England than their career marks anyway. Nothing compared to Murali v minnows. It's a dumb point to bring up for so many reasons

Warne averages 23.2 against Eng but 26.2 against everyone else. A 3 run difference in average is significant.

Warne also benefitted immensely from playing India very less(14) compared to England(36). Had he played another 12-15 tests against India, maintaining the same average, he would have averaged around 28. And everyone would be debating what all the fuss about him.

Murali doesn't have a great record against India, but he played us more often than everyone else. Something which you conveniently ignore while also bringing up every now and then about how he performed against BD and Zim.

 

[Prince EWS]

All fair points.

However, aussie posters bringing up the chucking allegations again is actually pretty despicable. Considering how your country treated him his entire career, you all should be repenting instead of doubling down. And it seems to be the only CW contingent which does it. Dreadful behaviour.

Definitely not the case haha. The average cricket fan in Australia is much more stridently anti-Murali than the CW contingent.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Warne averages 23.2 against Eng but 26.2 against everyone else. A 3 run difference in average is significant.

Warne also benefitted immensely from playing India very less(14) compared to England(36). Had he played another 12-15 tests against India, maintaining the same average, he would have averaged around 28. And everyone would be debating what all the fuss about him.

Murali doesn't have a great record against India, but he played us more often than everyone else. Something which you conveniently ignore while also bringing up every now and then about how he performed against BD and Zim.

M8 that's great but it's still nowhere near as significant as Murali v bang and zim. It's a massive false equivalency, and extreme cherry picking. You could come up with such arguments for any player.

Murali v minnows isn't cherry picking. It's a quarter of his wickets at an average nearly 10 runs less per wicket. There's no comparison.

Edit: oh and Warne had really bad gastric reflux every time he played india

 

[akilana]

Let me say again btw, I'm not trying to claim that either Warne or Murali was better than the other. I have no issue with someone thinking Murali was better. I'm just correcting some unusually stupid comments.

Appreciate the free service.

M8 that's great but it's still nowhere near as significant as Murali v bang and zim. It's a massive false equivalency, and extreme cherry picking. You could come up with such arguments for any player.

Murali v minnows isn't cherry picking. It's a quarter of his wickets at an average nearly 10 runs less per wicket. There's no comparison.

isn’t it compensated by the fact he played against the greatest team of all time?

 

[TheJediBrah]

isn’t it compensated by the fact he played against the greatest team of all time?

Not even close, but I'm sure it could be taken into account

 

[OverratedSanity]

Definitely not the case haha. The average cricket fan in Australia is much more stridently anti-Murali than the CW contingent.

Ok but that wasnt my contention? Within CW, the Australian fanbase is significantly more anti-murali or atleast more noisy about the supposed chucking than the other nations' fans.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ok but that wasnt my contention? Within CW, the Australian fanbase is significantly more anti-murali or atleast more noisy about the supposed chucking than the other nations' fans.

True enough. How about you stop trying to blame it on racism though

 

[Prince EWS]

Ok but that wasnt my contention? Within CW, the Australian fanbase is significantly more anti-murali or atleast more noisy about the supposed chucking than the other nations' fans.

Yeah my bad, I read it as "only the CW contingent" rather than "the only CW contingent".

 

[OverratedSanity]

True enough. How about you stop trying to blame it on racism though

Who blamed it on racism? Seems you're a little triggered here which is pretty unsurprising.

My point is that Murali was treated dreadfully by both the umpires (mainly emerson) and the australian fans during his career whenever he toured the country. The officials and fans tried to discredit his entire career and the fans also hurled racial abuse at him. And now posters from the same country are the ones that continue to push those same flimsy chucking allegations (jokingly I guess?) to discredit his achievements. I think that's a little ****ed up but hey, if you dont agree thats fine.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Who blamed it on racism? Seems you're a little triggered here which is pretty unsurprising.

My point is that Murali was treated dreadfully by both the umpires (mainly emerson) and the australian fans during his career whenever he toured the country. The officials and fans tried to discredit his entire career and the fans also hurled racial abuse at him. And now posters from the same country are the ones that continue to push those same flimsy chucking allegations (jokingly I guess?) to discredit his achievements. I think that's a little ****ed up but hey, if you dont agree thats fine.

I possibly misread it but you did?

I'm pretty sure I get it, you live in an "OS reality" where Murali's was action was proven undeniably legal and any comment to the commentary is objectively bad and wrong and "flimsy". You can't even comprehend that maybe that's not entirely the case. If someone suggested to you that the veracity of the testing was bull**** and Murali's action should still be highly dubious you wouldn't even consider the possibilty. Hence your assumption that anyone who disagrees with your reality must be joking or fueled by racism, somehow?

There are probably Warne fanboys too who completely believe he never took any banned substances, and that his mum really did give him diuretics without him knowing it.

 

[h_hurricane]

M8 that's great but it's still nowhere near as significant as Murali v bang and zim. It's a massive false equivalency, and extreme cherry picking. You could come up with such arguments for any player.

Murali v minnows isn't cherry picking. It's a quarter of his wickets at an average nearly 10 runs less per wicket. There's no comparison.

Edit: oh and Warne had really bad gastric reflux every time he played india

If you take out Murali's wickets against bang and zim, and also take out his matches in India, he is averaging 23.46. And if you take out his matches in Australia as well, he averages 22.37. Pretty clear that Murali benefitted from playing the truly weak teams only to the same extent that he suffered from playing the topmost teams against spin in their territory.

 

[TheJediBrah]

@OverratedSanity that post came out more condescending than I intended. I'm not trying to say that you are out of touch with reality, your stance is perfectly reasonable. Just trying to get across that some things you might accept as unquestionable fact might not hold that same status for everybody, and judging others' comments through the lens of our own preconceived notions can lead to false assumptions like "they must be joking" or "they are racist/biased". We all do it to some extent.