Muttiah Muralitharan: Bunger?

[littlebabyjesus]

It doesn't invalidate, but it certainly shows that it's far from the only metric of a batman's ability - and going in at 11 means you only have to survive one break of partnership, if it isn't you to go then whatever you've scored positively contributes to your average.

You only have to survive 1 break of partnership to be left stranded/not out. You still make no sense, I'm afraid.

 

[mattie]

You only have to survive 1 break of partnership to be left stranded/not out. You still make no sense, I'm afraid.

An average should be the number of runs a team should get from you before you lose your wicket - if we are going to compare like for like. If you bat in such a position that it's a strong possibility you will not lose your wicket, then it's going to skew the average. Of course, you may lose the opportunity to score a few more, but this doesn't matter as they're free runs for your average.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

An average should be the number of runs a team should get from you before you lose your wicket

That's not the usual definition, but put like that, Murali's average will almost certainly go up as he, like many tailenders, scores his runs slowly, so the average last-wicket partnership while he's been playing will be higher than his average.

actually, scratch that - I've just looked it up and Murali's strike rate is 69. Matthew Hoggard he ain't.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Probably because he doesn't actually score any runs. McGrath is pretty much the worst batsman I've seen who isn't Chris Martin, but Murali is closer to that end than to Warne.

I think you might overestimate Warne a bit. He's a good slogger but he's not, for instance, in all-rounder class.

 

[mattie]

That's not the usual definition, but put like that, Murali's average will almost certainly go up as he, like many tailenders, scores his runs slowly, so the average last-wicket partnership while he's been playing will be higher than his average.

It's the only way in which it makes sense to contrast - otherwise where you bat is as important to your average as how you bat. Not sure what you're getting at with the slow scoring.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's the only way in which it makes sense to contrast - otherwise where you bat is as important to your average as how you bat.

Sorry, but that simply isn't true.

 

[mattie]

I think you might overestimate Warne a bit. He's a good slogger but he's not, for instance, in all-rounder class.

Quite, but that's a lot more than can be said for Murali.

 

[mattie]

Sorry, but that simply isn't true.

Why not? Did I not just go through it all?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Quite, but that's a lot more than can be said for Murali.

What, a strike rate of 69 and not a good slogger? 'Blocker' Warne's strike rate was a meagre 57.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Quite, but that's a lot more than can be said for Murali.

Well, I think in that case we're some way off "infinite": we're talking about a decent lower-order bastman against a decent number eleven. And a different of six in the averages doesn't make your case for you.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, I think in that case we're some way off "infinite": we're talking about a decent lower-order bastman against a decent number eleven. And a different of six in the averages doesn't make your case for you.

Yeah, but his average isn't as valid as Warne's because of all the not outs, remember.

 

[mattie]

What, a strike rate of 69 and not a good slogger? 'Blocker' Warne's strike rate was a meager 57.

Sigh. No, I stated that Warne isn't an all-rounder batsman. You mentioned something about tailenders scoring slowly (which I still don't follow) and then show me where one scores more quickly than a higher-order batsman. Genius.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why not? Did I not just go through it all?

Could someone else explain?

 

[mattie]

Well, I think in that case we're some way off "infinite": we're talking about a decent lower-order bastman against a decent number eleven. And a different of six in the averages doesn't make your case for you.

So that's your argument. Fine, I withdraw - Warne is a better batsman, but not infinitely.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sigh. No, I stated that Warne isn't an all-rounder batsman. You mentioned something about tailenders scoring slowly (which I still don't follow) and then show me where one scores more quickly than a higher-order batsman. Genius.

I was mistaken about Murali scoring slowly.

 

[mattie]

Yeah, but his average isn't as valid as Warne's because of all the not outs, remember.

wahay.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

wahay.

I was being ironic. I forgot the .

 

[mattie]

I was being ironic. I forgot the .

 

[Flashman]

Arguing about two legendary bowlers' batting average.



For fucks sake, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Both all-time great and importantly clever bowlers, whom developed as time went on; if it was all about spinning the ball then Ian Salisbury might have been up there, but it isn't it's about landing it in the same place thousands of times and performing under the greatest pressure, which is what a lot of Mu Mu critics are too stupid to realise.

 

[mattie]

Arguing about two legendary bowlers' batting average.



For fucks sake, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Both all-time great and importantly clever bowlers, whom developed as time went on; if it was all about spinning the ball then Ian Salisbury might have been up there, but it isn't it's about landing it in the same place thousands of times and performing under the greatest pressure, which is what a lot of Mu Mu critics are too stupid to realise.

And who's questioned that? I'm arguing Warne is a much more complete cricketer.

 

[liquidlunch]

and the laws of the game were altered to accomadate murali's action whilst the laws of text messaging should have been changed to keep shane away from the feckin mobile

 

[Idaho]

and the laws of the game were altered to accomadate murali's action

The laws of the game were updated after research into Murali's action showed that the current laws didn't take into account the action of most bowlers.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Did you know Don Bradman only took two Test wickets? Not really a complete cricketer...

 

[JTG]

The laws of the game were updated after research into Murali's action showed that the current laws didn't take into account the action of most bowlers.

absolutely

people shouting 'chucker' at bowlers who take loads of wickets legally are idiots

Brett Lee, he's different

 

[agricola]

The laws of the game were updated after research into Murali's action showed that the current laws didn't take into account the action of most bowlers.

It was far more than most - of everyone tested, it was only Sarwan who didnt break the rules as they were then laid down.

 

[mattie]

Did you know Don Bradman only took two Test wickets? Not really a complete cricketer...

Which means what in the context of this thread?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It means that one cannot really judge great batsmen on their ability to bowl, nor vice versa.

 

[mattie]

It means that one cannot really judge great batsmen on their ability to bowl, nor vice versa.

As batsman, no.

But you'd appreciate that if there were two batsman as good as Don Bradman, only one of whom could bowl a bit and was also a reliable slip fielder, that it would be fair to say one is a more complete cricketer than the other?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

No. If we were comparing all-rounders that might be the case. But as we're talking one tail-ender against another, I think it's like discussing the frame of a great painting.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

it's like discussing the frame of a great painting.

Very true.