Demented Hamsters
14-07-2007, 20:39
so, Muralitharan has taken his 700th wicket finally, and is only 8 victims behind Shane Warne:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/6898657.stm
Which brings the inevitable: Who is the best spinner?
Personally, I think Warne is better than Murali for 4 reasons:
1. His career coincided with a certain Glen McGrath's (and others - Brett Lee with 230 wickets, Jason Gillepsie with 239 wickets or Merv Hughes with 212) - the best seamer of recent times, having taken over 560 wickets. Thus, there was compettiion for wickets. With the exception of Vaas (who has taken 319 wickets) Sri Lankas bowling attack has been atrocious- 20 wickets have to fall somehow.
To put this in perspective just those three bowlers (Lee, Gillepsie and Hughes) have taken almost the same amount of wickets as Warne - and that's ignoring every other Ozzie bowler, including McGrath. For the Sri Lankans, every other bowler whose played with Murali over the years has taken just 995 in total (and remember Vaas has taken 319 of those). Had Warne played for a different Ozzie side (or any side) that didn't include those players mentioned above, he would have got far more. For eg. NZ has just two players in the last 15 years that have taken 200 wickets or more (and just 3 in total, which is embarassing!).
2. His home pitches tended to suit seamers e.g. McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and there was only really turn on the 4th and 5th days, unlike the sub-continent.
3. Murali's action is dubious.
4. Murali has taken 532 wickets versus Warnes 691 excluding Zimbabawe / Bangladesh.
What do you lot who live in the civillised areas of the World (ie. The Commonwealth) think?
Boonytopia (if you're still around - I haven't seen you here for ages, where are you?) - you're not allowed to vote because we know what you think!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/6898657.stm
Which brings the inevitable: Who is the best spinner?
Personally, I think Warne is better than Murali for 4 reasons:
1. His career coincided with a certain Glen McGrath's (and others - Brett Lee with 230 wickets, Jason Gillepsie with 239 wickets or Merv Hughes with 212) - the best seamer of recent times, having taken over 560 wickets. Thus, there was compettiion for wickets. With the exception of Vaas (who has taken 319 wickets) Sri Lankas bowling attack has been atrocious- 20 wickets have to fall somehow.
To put this in perspective just those three bowlers (Lee, Gillepsie and Hughes) have taken almost the same amount of wickets as Warne - and that's ignoring every other Ozzie bowler, including McGrath. For the Sri Lankans, every other bowler whose played with Murali over the years has taken just 995 in total (and remember Vaas has taken 319 of those). Had Warne played for a different Ozzie side (or any side) that didn't include those players mentioned above, he would have got far more. For eg. NZ has just two players in the last 15 years that have taken 200 wickets or more (and just 3 in total, which is embarassing!).
2. His home pitches tended to suit seamers e.g. McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and there was only really turn on the 4th and 5th days, unlike the sub-continent.
3. Murali's action is dubious.
4. Murali has taken 532 wickets versus Warnes 691 excluding Zimbabawe / Bangladesh.
What do you lot who live in the civillised areas of the World (ie. The Commonwealth) think?
Boonytopia (if you're still around - I haven't seen you here for ages, where are you?) - you're not allowed to vote because we know what you think!