Will Murali's absence be good for Sri Lanka ?

[Richard]

Irrelevant of figures in that game, Murali significantly improves any attack in the world, and with the Sri Lankan only possessing half a very good bowler (depends on which Chaminda turns up) - he much more than significantly improves it.

How are figures in that game irrelevant?
If Murali had taken 0-60 in that game would you still be saying he made a massive difference?
The fact is, in both the India games in NWS2002 and the India game in WC2003 Sri Lanka's attack was equally poor. Chaminda bowled well in 3 out of 4, Murali didn't have a huge influence on his one game so didn't make a very poor attack into a reasonable one.

 

[marc71178]

The threat of Murali in a bowling attack changes how a side approaches their innings.

 

[Richard]

Oh, it does, now, does it?
So it stops them hammering rubbish bowling around the park?
No, thought not.
It makes them more likely to go after Chaminda?
Maybe, but if he's bowling well the chances are they'll pay for going after him - we've seen that plenty of times.

 

[marc71178]

With Murali in the side, teams have to rethink - he is the sort of bowler who can easily take 4 or 5 wickets in his overs, so they want to ensure survival against him, even if it means he only concedes 25-30 runs.

Therefore they need to make up the runs in the other 40 overs.

If Murali isn't there, then they can approach all 50 overs in a more positive manner.

 

[Richard]

And if they approach batting against Chaminda with an over-positive attitude when he's bowling well they'll pay for it.
However, if it merely makes them more keen to punish wayward bowling then that's all well and good.
However, the rates India scored against the poor bowling in NWS2002 suggests otherwise to me.

 

[marc71178]

How often does he bowl well though, and I wonder how often it is when Murali is in the team?

He is so inconsistent.

 

[Richard]

Well, Murali is far more often in the team than not, and Chaminda bowls well about half the time.
4 for 32 is as likely as 1 for 55, though, 'tis true.

 

[dude]

i think the results are already showing., chandana is blossoming, SL cricket never really had a good leg spinner and with confidence and more overs/exposure chandana is looking good. the other two herath and loku will also grab this chance. a murali less SL team in a one day game gives 10 more overs to a new bowler who can use the oppotunity to gain some much needed big match experience. some of these guys have been on the bench for the last 5 years as the SL management felt they had no need for a specialist spinner with murali there and all the other part time spinners bowling around murali.
whats most interesting is most teams tend to relax when murali is not playing, usually a opposition team's game plan revolves around murali and when they play SL without murali they dont appear to be aggressive enough towards the other spinners.

 

[marc71178]

Problem is, this blossoming is only really one innings (when incidentally SA were looking to slog), and at 32, he's hardly part of the future.

 

[Richard]

He did take 10 wickets in the previous-but-one game, too, though.
Though I agree he's hardly the future.

 

[marc71178]

I'd forgotten his good Test.

However needs to be replicated.

 

[dude]

Problem is, this blossoming is only really one innings (when incidentally SA were looking to slog), and at 32, he's hardly part of the future.

marc, leg spinners have always been known to take some tap. its normal its happened in tha past and will continue to happen., i think chandana is a big part of SL cricket in the future.

 

[marc71178]

Warne doesn't.

And it wasn't the tap so much as the fact that SA were desperately lookinfg for quick runs that I was talking about.

Now his one "good" Test, that was some tap (and again looks like wickets when a side were chasing quick runs.

 

[Richard]

leg spinners have always been known to take some tap. its normal its happened in tha past and will continue to happen.

And the best wristspinners have always been the ones who don't take the tap.
There have been plenty of bowlers who've tried to bowl wristspin, have bowled too waywardly (a recent example being MacGill) and have been shown-up as substandard.
Only those with exceptional talent have become good wristspinners (Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud, Qadir, Mushtaq Ahmed, Murali, Warne).

 

[dude]

Warne doesn't.

And it wasn't the tap so much as the fact that SA were desperately lookinfg for quick runs that I was talking about.

Now his one "good" Test, that was some tap (and again looks like wickets when a side were chasing quick runs.

umm.. warne has taken some serious tap in the sub continent early in his career. however i shall not indulge in a childish debate with marc.
the point is yeah, i do agree that murali's absence is good for sri lanka. not only does it give more oppotunity to the new talent, it also boost the morale of the team, who now realize they are no longer reliant on murali.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And the best wristspinners have always been the ones who don't take the tap.
There have been plenty of bowlers who've tried to bowl wristspin, have bowled too waywardly (a recent example being MacGill) and have been shown-up as substandard.
Only those with exceptional talent have become good wristspinners (Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud, Qadir, Mushtaq Ahmed, Murali, Warne).

Murali's not a wristspinner. haha

 

[Son Of Coco]

I am astounded to hear that there is apparently another Murali in Pakistan.
I always said I never believed there could possibly be another one ever.
If Tareq Mahmood really can turn the ball the same amount with the same accuracy, regardless of whether he chucks or not, that really is incredible.

If he chucks it then it's not incredible in my opinion, you'll turn it more if you chuck it when bowling off-spin - especially with a bit of practice. Chucking should confine you to the "Will never ever play cricket at a high-level" bin.

 

[JollyWood]

If SL authorities get the motivation NOT to prepare 'just-for-murali' pitches, that would be better for SL cricket in the longer run.

 

[dude]

Murali's not a wristspinner. haha

good lord

 

[Son Of Coco]

good lord

Ah, dude, wristspinner is a term that has been traditionally used to describe legspinners. Murali, while there has been much debate about how much his wrist plays a part in the delivery, is an off-spinner and thus would traditionally be referred to as a finger spinner.

Of course we could throw that out the window and refer to each bowler depending on how much their individual wrists/fingers have been found to play a part in their deliveries, but I feel that this would complicate things and lead to a lot more of this