Originally posted by CrowleyI think the difference here though is that Shane Warne isn't the only class bowler Australia have. Brett Lee and Glenn McGrath manage to take rather a lot of wickets even before Warne strolls in to destroy everyone. Mind you, that Malinga the slinger looks like he might be useful at some point.
Muttiah Muralitharan has now taken 635 wickets in 106 tests - 5.99 wickets per test.
Shane Warne has taken 685 wickets in 140 matches - 4.89 wickets per test.
I would think a more useful statistic is how many overs each have bowled, not how many matches they have been in.
Originally posted by WheelyAgreed Wheely,
I think the difference here though is that Shane Warne isn't the only class bowler Australia have. Brett Lee and Glenn McGrath manage to take rather a lot of wickets even before Warne strolls in to destroy everyone. Mind you, that Malinga the slinger looks like he might be useful at some point.
I would think a more useful statistic is how many overs each have bowled, not how many matches they have been in.
Glen McGrath has the most test wickets for a fast bowler.
Also Australia don't play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as often as Sri Lanka.
😉
Originally posted by WheelySure, Australia have a much better balanced team, but that is not the issue here. The fact that Murali has had to struggle alone with only Vaas to help makes his efforts count even more.
I think the difference here though is that Shane Warne isn't the only class bowler Australia have. Brett Lee and Glenn McGrath manage to take rather a lot of wickets even before Warne strolls in to destroy everyone. Mind you, that Malinga the slinger looks like he might be useful at some point.
I would think a more useful statistic is how many overs each have bowled, not how many matches they have been in.
Murali has better stats in every category, including AVG, S/R and ECON:
http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/8166.html
http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/49636.html
Thus, Murali is a better bowler.
Originally posted by CrowleySo South Africa won one game of one day cricket on an oval the size of a postage stamp!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_in_South_Africa%2C_5th_ODI%2C_2006
Big whoop!
They were smashed in the tests were'nt they?
In both Australia and South Africa!
PS. Murali (your new hero) still chucks and plays inferior teams that artificialy inflates his stats.
Say what you like, thats facts.
😛
Originally posted by lordhighgusWhat the hell does the size of the field have to do with anything? Oz is rated 1 in the world - surely they should be able to beat any team on any size field?
So South Africa won one game of one day cricket on an oval the size of a postage stamp!
Big whoop!
They were smashed in the tests were'nt they?
In both Australia and South Africa!
PS. Murali (your new hero) still chucks and plays inferior teams that artificialy inflates his stats.
Say what you like, thats facts.
😛
We don't have a great test side, but at least we have the best ODI team in the world at the moment.
BTW. You talking about Murali playing inferior teams like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/4103576.stm
Originally posted by CrowleyBlah blah blah!
What the hell does the size of the field have to do with anything? Oz is rated 1 in the world - surely they should be able to beat any team on any size field?
We don't have a great test side, but at least we have the best ODI team in the world at the moment.
BTW. You talking about Murali playing inferior teams like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/4103576.stm
South Africa are playing good cricket at the moment and one day will be world champs.
But not now.
😛
I am not sure you can say Murali is better, they have both had things going against them and things going for them.
Warne was banned but he bowls in a good attack, however they don't play the minnows that often.
Murali also banned for a time, but bowls in a weak attack which plays against the minnows more often, however Murali's home ground in on the sub continent.
They are the 2 greatest bowlers of our time & maybe even ever.
As a cricketer I would prefer Warne but as bowlers I think you can't split them. I would like to see Warne finish as the leading wicket taker but I am not sure that is going to happen.
Dan