My last post was one month ago and if a week is a long time in cricket, a month is worth a year. The English season has been in full swing and all the hot air that comes with it - I suppose we would've expected that - but the surprise has been developments in the southern hemisphere: the continuing Howard controversy (I will be devoting an entire post to this topic some time this week), admissions from Brendon McCullum in his new book and most importantly the changes to the domestic one-day cricket in Australia. With these three stories the entire cricketing world has plenty to fight over and the media is doing its part to inject opinions into the mess. These topics will continue to spin over the next few months but for now there is one positive to pause and admire
Muttiah Muralitharan has announced he will retire following the current series against India and like the man himself, this news rises above the everyday-pettiness of cricket to draw our attention. He will hope to conjure 8 wickets in his last match to pass 800 but if not his career will hardly be diminished (6996 anyone?). His influence on cricket in the last 20 years is such that many commentators currently struggles to say, without doubt, whether he or Shane Warne will go down as the greater practitioner of spin bowling.
Here is my best attempt:
Naturally there are stats to consider so best to get these out of the way first
Muttiah Muralitharan (1992-2010) (doesn't include this last series)
- 132 tests for 792 wickets @ 22.71 with 22 10WMs and 66 5WHs (SR: 55.1)
- 1000+ runs and 72 catches
- 145 tests for 708 wickets @ 25.41 with 10 10WMs and 37 5WHs (SR: 57.65)
- 3000+ runs and 125 catches
Both men dominated England and South Africa
- Murali took 112 wickets @ 20.06 (ENG) and 104 wickets @ 22.22 (SA)
- Warne took 195 wickets @ 23.25 (ENG) and 130 wickets @ 24.16 (SA)
- Murali took 97 wickets @ 33.34
- Warne took 43 wickets @ 47.18
- Warne didn't have the benefit of playing at home on turning pitches like Murali did
- Warne was definitely injured and below his best for the AUS v IND series of 1997/1998
- Warne's effort in India during the 2004/2005 season of 14 wickets @ 30 is perhaps more representative
The other elephant in the room when it comes to Murali's record is the effect that more games against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh have on it. There is definitely something to observe here but then it is not anymore his fault that Sri Lanka played them so much as it is Warne's that Australia played them so little. Here is the break down:
- Murali played ZIM in 14 tests for 87 wickets @ 16.86 and BAN in 11 tests for 89 wickets @ 13.37
- Warne played ZIM in 1 test for 6 wickets @ 22.83 and BAN in 2 tests for 11 wickets @ 27.27
Thus a judgement in the case of Muralitharan and Warne comes down to ones understanding of spin bowling and no small amount of opinion.
For instance, Warne had a complete mastery of leg spin and even when injury reduced the kinds of specific variations he could use, he instead developed a complete control of the degree of spin, accuracy and flight to become a better bowler in some respects; Richie Benaud, in listing him in his All-time XI singled out not his success but his ability to return and improve after every hurdle.
You might say that if Warne was the bowler in the spin bowling text book, Murali wrote one of his own. He mystified batsmen so completely with his doosra or off-spinner - perhaps even more than Warne - that he epitomised the whole point of spin bowling. However I think there is a good reason for this, although Warne reinvigorated spin bowling his success was (slightly) limited by the reinvigoration of 100-year-old methods of combating him - although new for a generation, this battle was old school cricket - Murali on the other hand benefited from being an unknown and only at the end of his career are batsmen wising up to him
Another area of difference would definitely be their on-field conduct: where Warne was aggressive, chirpy and dominating, Murali was calm, calculating and quietly menacing. There is no doubt that both were always up for the contest and even if their figures were 0-100 their intensity rarely dropped - characteristics essential for any spinner. I believe their contrasting on-field personas are closer to their true natures than perhaps others may think: Warne IS a true Aussie larrikin - not the stupid buffoon that normally is labelled as such - but a true competitor with a mischievous streak as well, Murali by all accounts is a wonderful person and by no means arrogant but in there is the fight-for-everything nature of an underdog.
Lastly there is the question of the off-field conduct. Warne's history is checkered and well documented and while Murali has nothing close to the pills, women or diet of a Shane Warne cocktail there is one word that will always haunt his record that starts with 'C' and it isn't Cute. Famously no-balled in a boxing-day test, the degree to which his arm bends during delivery has been questioned, tested, questioned and tested in a seemingly endless tale of suspicion and assurance. As a rational thinker I must believe the science that says there is an optical illusion to it all, but some commentators (scientists in their spare time?) question whether, under pressure in the middle of the cricket field, how conclusive these results can be. There may something there but the corollary is to accuse Murali of a malicious character-flaw that is evidenced no where in his career. The label of Chucker implies intent (as a clever friend said to this subject) and such an intent is simply not reconcilable with the Murali conveyed in all forms of media. If his arm does bend more in match situations I would contend that this results from greater effort of the body not the mind and is out of his control
As for Warne's indiscretions, although I don't think his on-field style could be possible without a personality that lent itself to such behaviour, his off-field achievements say nothing about his cricket record (if a little about him as a person) and to allow one to influence your opinion of the other would be unconscionable. Just like, say, if he were to commit a crime and one makes the defence 'well he is a good cricketer' - it goes both ways. Mr. Polanski I'm looking at you
In the end I think I prefer Shane Warne to Muttiah Muralitharan but not by much. Possibly I just saw more of the Australian play, perhaps my traditionalist bias is in play (actually this is quite likely) but if I label Warne as the best spinner I would have no hesitation in allowing Murali the title of most successful. Either way we can still enjoy the fact that the two best spinners operated in our lifetime and in that spirit here are some links to videos of their best efforts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uAO4KdY4n8 Warne in England 1993
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzBDoxdUS1A&feature=related Warne destroying South Africa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EebphFKyzwY Murali at the Oval in 1998
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDogBYlxtwY Murali - pitched outside leg, turned, defensive stroke, hit off stump - eat your heart out Shane Warne
Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now
