Precisely...I mean, does it occur to anyone why slow bowlers numbers (except econ rate) are almost always worse than their pace bowling counterparts? Batting wins in Asia, slow bowling is very much a second priority. I still do not think I have received a satisfactory rejoinder.

How does Muralitharan having less support help him take wickets? Your theory therefore, is that Enamul Haque Jr for instance, should be taking 6 wickets a match, that such a performance is to be EXPECTED and somehow not extraordinary? Murali's WPM is the highestin history, by a LONG, LONG WAY, there have been many poor attacks in that time, and the attack isn't even that bad, Chaminda Vaas has over 300 wickets at 29.43 (in one of the best batting eras of all time, arguably THE best batting era). But that's immaterial. being in a good bowling attack helps a bowlers numbers, there's almost no debating this, it's patently true that consistant pressure brings down bowling averages for all bowlers involved. And the average difference is still large, even without Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. So are the econ numbers, so is every single relevant statistic.

This is so reaching it's ridiculous.

One last thing, I will generally agree that spinners are primary wicket takers, or at least equal to pace bowlers (whereas outside Asia their role is often unnecessary - I am a promoter of the theory that outside Asia if your four best bowlers are pace bowlers, do not force a spinner, in general), but look at the averages...

Bedi (almost definately the best Asian slow bowler before the 90's) - 28.71
Prasanna - 30.38
Chandrasekhar - 29.74
Qadir - 32.80

And those were the BEST OF THE BEST in Asia. No one averages even 28.50! And that was in one of the darkest eras of batting since the first world war. Murali's average is 21.77 against either the strongest batting era or second strongest (after 1930-1948) in 130 years. The difference here is astronomical. For the last time, BOWLING IN ASIA IS NOT FUN, it doesn't matter what you bowl.

Ok. Maybe you need to bowl a ball to be treated as a great bowler then ?

Well if you had have re-worded that opening statement to read "In my oppinion I consider Muralitharan is/was a better bowler than Shane Warne"

I think this worthy debate will progress better.

Both guy's are on their own above 700 test wickets, and obviously a few of us do see ways that Shane Warne is in the same class as Murali. And possibly a slightly better bowler.

I think if we take the word "class" out of here we will probably invite and get a pretty good and informative debate.

You see, I like Lara better than Tendulkar, think he was a better player for a lot of reasons, but there is a good case that can be made for Tendulkar, that's fair enough. Probably no right or wrong answer though I do love arguing for Lara.

Think Greg Chappell was clearly the best batsman of his generation and does not get nearly enough plaudits compared to Richards. I feel more strongly about this but still, case can be made for Richards (particulary arguing for the period they batted togther, ie. 1978-1984), there's an argument there, even if I don't agree with it.

But this isn't close...it's not moderately close in anyway. The statistical evidence precludes any reasonable person, who is looking at the data to come to any other conclusion, I really believe this though I'm sure many do not. There is a vast gulf here, that doesn't exist in say, Wasim vs Allan Donald or whatever.

As for the throwing thing, well #1 first of all, but beyond that, let me go into greater detail (not that seeing evidence of professional insight into this issue is likely to change your mind which you have already made up).

Goniometer (positioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) - electro-goniometer, I'm thinking it's a bit better at judging what an elbow does than any of us, but again, I'm sure you'll disagree, what do professionals who have spent years judging this exact issue know?

Warne was the first to 700

Yes he was...

Not so fast clwalcott. I've been busy with the Ind/Aus drama. That's died down now.

Well, most people would agree that Muralitheran struggled when batsman went after him. This applied probably to most of the "greats" - Warne and in particular McGrath being no exception.

The fact that Muralis fellow bowlers were considered a better option to score against by the batsman, they naturally fell into a more defensive mode when facing him. That played into his hands certainly. Also, he was "the goto man" As a result, he recieved a hell of a lot of overs.

Really???

Bangledesh
Warne
11wickets @ 27.27
Muralitharan
76 wickets @ 11.94

Zimbabwe
Warne
6 wickets @ 22.83
Murali
87 wickets @ 16.86

Are those two nations known for their "strong batting?" Were the English powerful prior to 2004? Give me the lists of some Kiwis batting linups that can be considered strong. Were the West Indies weaker in batting prior to Murali's debut in 1992.

Sorry, this statement does not add up.


Well this was not the case vs Australia
Murali:
Versus Australia in Sri Lanka
47 wickets @ 26.02
Versus Australia in Australia
12 wickets @ 75.41

And both bowlers' averages playing in Sri Lanka are considerably lower than their career averages

In Sri Lanka
Warne
48wickets @ 20.45
Muralitharan
432 wickets @ 19.12

__________________

McGrath is an exception actually, as maybe the only bowler who could even partly tame Lara. Lara killed Murali, killed Warne, but Warne fared FAR FAR worse against Dravid and Tendulkar, there's no real debate their, the averages are seperated by 15 runs!

I don't even know what this means...Murali was benefitted by bowling in a poor attack...he and Richard Hadlee would be the only two "proofs" of this theory as almost every other great bowler was surrounded by other very good bowlers. This simply flies in the face of what is intuitively obvious about bowling throughout Test history.

Quote:

Bangledesh

Dealt with the minnows issue too - it's bringing nothing new to the table, they represent approximately 15% of Murali's total wicket haul, and without these numbers Murali is still, on every conceivable measure, the superior cricket player. He didn't play ALL his Tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Wait, so again, what are your sample sizes here? Particulary for vs Australia in Australia? Two series? That's what we're basing "how hard is it to bowl in Asia"? Wow. And again, Warne's figures in Sri Lanka are ALWAYS against the Sri Lankan batting card which varied tremendously through his career from extremely strong to below average, so those figures are not trustworthy at all, I went through this the first time Seamer, it's not anything resembling a comprehensive summary - my understanding of Asian pitches in necessarily limited, but it does cover some 400 odd Test matches...a little more legitimate, wouldn't you say, than two bowlers performance against a limited set of opponents over like 10 Test matches.

I'm nearly out of credit at this cafe, will review this again in a few days.