The grate day is imminent: "CRICKET'S most controversial bowler, Muthiah Muralidaran, could have the last laugh on the crowds who have delighted in tormenting him by eclipsing Shane Warne's world record in Australia this summer."
The last laugh? That all depends on how you look at it.
Concessions to the contrary - "I don't know how much I will get to bowl in Australia because our fast bowlers could grab most of the wickets." - the chances are Murali will break Warne's record in Australia. Sure, he has piss poor figures here, but he only needs eight poles (yes, I hate that word, too) in two Tests and although we're not Bangladesh he's going to bowl the majority of Shree overs.
Queensland's the state with the highest per-capita pisshead ratio in the country (I've seen the research), so I'd prefer to see him break the record in the first Test at the Gabba. The crowd there would give him a bigger razzing than the crowd in the second Test at Bellerive where the punters are a little more genteel and a little less numerous than elsewhere in Wide Brown Land.
Pity he won't break the record in Melbourne, Warne's hometown, where 80,000 disgruntled Melburnians could give him a right old bollocking. As well as bring out the very worst in bombastic reportage.
Interesting juxtaposition of sports stories at the moment - Murali after Warne's 708, and Barry 'Balco' Bonds going after Hank Aaron's 755 home runs.
Both of them deserve a massive asterix in the record books.
Posted by: Mark | 16 July 2007 at 19:35
To paraphrase: "It was the best of times, it was the cheat of times."
Billy Dickens, a bloke.
Posted by: Tony.T | 16 July 2007 at 19:55
On reflection, it would be more effective as a protest if Murali broke the record at the MCG and the stands were empty because NO ONE showed up.
Posted by: Tony.T | 16 July 2007 at 20:08
Hair Update:
Working for the Cricket Community Trust allows Hair to Collect $50 From Every Player.
Posted by: Tony.T | 16 July 2007 at 21:15
Awwwww, shucks Tone! My very own post. I dips my lid.
I don't think it's that important who ends up with the most wickets at the end of the day - it's just not a proper indicator anymore of what a great bowler is. Ten years or so ago, Richard Hadlee and/or Kapil Dev had the most wickets in test cricket, at around the 430 mark. Think about how many have passed them now, and by how much! Careers are longer by consequence of better sport science, and there's MUCH more cricket played. Think how many Lillee would have ended up with had he have played more.
I think that history should remember Warne for being the vastly superior bowler, whether Murali chucks or not. I've mentioned this before - and I think someone else has recently as well - Warne faced SO MUCH MORE competition for his wickets than Murali has. As Tony has pointed out, he will bowl the majority of the Sri Lankan overs, largely because the other guys aren't good enough to take wickets consistently. Even Chaminda Vaas, who is a decent bowler (nothing more though, despite the fact that he's taken 300+ wickets, see above) has never taken swags and swags. Warne had to compete with Hughes, McDermott, Gillespie, McGrath and Lee, amongst others. Murali has also conceded a lot more 100-run innings than Warne ever did, and bowled a lot more overs. He's just statistically not as good, provided you look at the right statistics.
Everyone's getting their knickers in a knot about an irrelevant statistic in my book.
Posted by: Carrot | 16 July 2007 at 23:04
Carrot: Sure, Warne faced more competition for wickets, but that also means that he got to bowl to tailenders more (which should have improved his average), whereas Murali was bowling more to top-order players. And batsmen can play safe to Murali knowing that there are weaker bowlers at the other end, so that would mean Murali concedes less runs, but should have a higher strike rate, and so you keep arguing about which factors are most important.
Ignoring Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and the World XI:
Murali: 89 Tests, 532 wickets, avg 23.3, strike rate 56.8
Warne: 141 Tests, 685 wickets, avg 25.5, strike rate 57.7
Most ways you slice things statistically (just looking at the bowling), Murali comes out just ahead, as Charles Davis showed in Wisden Australia recently.
Also of interest is Davis's analysis of bowlers against batsmen who average more than 45. You can see the table at the bottom of this page:
http://www.sportstats.com.au/blogarchive.html
McGrath came out streets ahead of everyone else bowling at the time, with an average of 25 against the "great" batsmen. Second was Shoaib at 41. Warne and Murali were mid-pack at 50.
Posted by: David Barry | 17 July 2007 at 10:56
"Record"?
Pigs arse.
Posted by: PQ | 17 July 2007 at 11:58
Sangarkara just scored 430 odd runs for one out against Bangladesh. There should be asterisks all over Wisden's stats at the moment, Gillespie's 200 aside......
Posted by: RT | 17 July 2007 at 14:37
What were Sri Lanka doing playing a three-Test series against Bangladesh anyway? It was bad enough when the Bangladeshis were playing all these two-Test series.
Posted by: David Barry | 17 July 2007 at 15:19
Statistics schmatistics. I'll happily acknowledge that Murali, despite being a frequent bender of the rules, is still exceptional at what he does. But comparisons with Warne only tell you that they are both very, very good. Any comparison needs to take into account not just the teams they played against but where they played (note that Sri Lanka is a spinning paradise compared to Australia), the game situation, the bowlers they bowled with and any number of in-game variables that make a difference (like the state of the pitch, and how set the batsmen are).
Perhaps if someone is bored they can run a regression against all these variables to see which make the most difference. What you'll likely find is what we already know. There is not much between them, but they generally bowled in very different situations.
The main reason I think Warne is better though, is not statistical. Someone - and I forget who - said that Murali goes out there and game after game tries to spin the ball as far as he possibly can. Warne needed more to get him going. I wouldn't say Warne wasn't trying, but he had an extra level he could go to when the game needed something. Look at the World Cup in '99, or the Ashes in 2005. Good as Murali is, Warne is a more compelling and competitive player, and that's what ultimately makes him great.
Posted by: Russ | 17 July 2007 at 20:37
Agree with Russ.
What Warne also did was make spin bowling exciting and 'sexy'. He took the art of leg spin, that was effectively dying outside the sub-continent, and totally revolutionised it into an aggressive method of bowling. Effectivley he had a fast bowlers attitude and aggression impressed on a very subtle form of bowling.
Reminds me of the statement someone made about the difference between Rodney Marsh and Alan Knott - being stumped by Knotty was like having your pocket picked - being stumped by Marsh was like being mugged.
Warne has had a greater impact on cricket than almost any other player - ever. WG perhaps? You readily use the word 'extraordinary' to describe Warne, you'd never use it to describe Murali.. apart from maybe in the context that it's 'extraordinary that he's still allowed to play test cricket...'
Posted by: Mark | 17 July 2007 at 22:08
As usual Russ hits the sweet spot. Comparisons between Warne & Murali are as pointless as comparisons between Stanley Matthews and David Beckham. Or between Tura Satana and Chuck Norris.
I don't give a toss who has the "better" record - Warne bowls, Murali chucks.
But Murali DOES have one thing over Warne. Thankfully, I've never seen Murali stripped and cavorting with naked slappers.
Posted by: Tony T. | 18 July 2007 at 10:44
Too bad murali wont break the record in melbourne. With 60000 strong sri lankan comunity i don't think too many people would be booing him.
Posted by: Em | 05 August 2007 at 02:48
Yeah, whatever you reckon, Em.
Posted by: Tony T. | 05 August 2007 at 12:53