by Squawk » Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:17 pm
by Peter Falconia » Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:21 pm
by Rik E Boy » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:55 am
by MightyEagles » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:18 am
by BPBRB » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:47 pm
....and to finish that arguement off, Warne has had to wait for a plethora of good fast bowlers who have all taken buckets of wickets to finish their spells before he gets a crack.. He also hasn't had the luxury of being able to have his home cricket authorities schedule every second series at home against the 'C" grade opposition of Ziimbabwe and Bangladesh on pitches doctored to suit Murali. Still what defeats that last part of the arguement to a degree is how many wickets would have been left for him in anycase once Mcgrath, Lee and the other quicks finished their spells?MightyEagles wrote:Murli the best spinner in the world? what sport has Sri Lanka been watching the last 15 years. There is a young Australian who has taken close to 700 wickets and 20 million Aussies who disagree with that. Warne is the best bowler the world has seen, at least Warne doesn't throw the ball down when bowling.
by Rushby Hinds » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:56 pm
Squawk wrote:
In Sri Lanka's 2nd innings, they were 9/169 with Sangakarra on 99. Sangakarra hits a scoring shot and they take a single. Murali, the other "batsman" (no 11) then turns around while the ball is still being thrown back to the keeper from fine leg and walks up the pitch to congratulate Sangakarra and gets run out! Talk about comical. As Fleming pointed out afterwards, if there had been a chance to take overthrows they would have so the run out was fair enough even though everyone knew what Murali was doing - he just didn't wait until the ball was dead!
by matt » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:01 pm
BPBRB wrote:
Near 700 wickets over a long period of time despite all the other distractions off field, injuries etc and playing with great fast bowlers puts him way above the curry munching chucker IMO.
by rod_rooster » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:08 pm
matt wrote:BPBRB wrote:
Near 700 wickets over a long period of time despite all the other distractions off field, injuries etc and playing with great fast bowlers puts him way above the curry munching chucker IMO.
poor form.
by mighty_tiger_79 » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:09 pm
Borat wrote:Squawk wrote:
In Sri Lanka's 2nd innings, they were 9/169 with Sangakarra on 99. Sangakarra hits a scoring shot and they take a single. Murali, the other "batsman" (no 11) then turns around while the ball is still being thrown back to the keeper from fine leg and walks up the pitch to congratulate Sangakarra and gets run out! Talk about comical. As Fleming pointed out afterwards, if there had been a chance to take overthrows they would have so the run out was fair enough even though everyone knew what Murali was doing - he just didn't wait until the ball was dead!
Did they cross over?
If so wouldnt the furst run have NOT counted?
by matt » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:11 pm
rod_rooster wrote:matt wrote:BPBRB wrote:
Near 700 wickets over a long period of time despite all the other distractions off field, injuries etc and playing with great fast bowlers puts him way above the curry munching chucker IMO.
poor form.
How so? Calling him a curry munching chucker? If so what part of the statement is incorrect? Certainly not the chucker part that's for sure. Does Murali not eat curry?
by Rushby Hinds » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:22 pm
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Borat wrote:Squawk wrote:
In Sri Lanka's 2nd innings, they were 9/169 with Sangakarra on 99. Sangakarra hits a scoring shot and they take a single. Murali, the other "batsman" (no 11) then turns around while the ball is still being thrown back to the keeper from fine leg and walks up the pitch to congratulate Sangakarra and gets run out! Talk about comical. As Fleming pointed out afterwards, if there had been a chance to take overthrows they would have so the run out was fair enough even though everyone knew what Murali was doing - he just didn't wait until the ball was dead!
Did they cross over?
If so wouldnt the furst run have NOT counted?
i THINK THE first run would have been counted as it was completed.
by Aerie » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:25 pm
by mighty_tiger_79 » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:26 pm
Borat wrote:mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Borat wrote:Squawk wrote:
In Sri Lanka's 2nd innings, they were 9/169 with Sangakarra on 99. Sangakarra hits a scoring shot and they take a single. Murali, the other "batsman" (no 11) then turns around while the ball is still being thrown back to the keeper from fine leg and walks up the pitch to congratulate Sangakarra and gets run out! Talk about comical. As Fleming pointed out afterwards, if there had been a chance to take overthrows they would have so the run out was fair enough even though everyone knew what Murali was doing - he just didn't wait until the ball was dead!
Did they cross over?
If so wouldnt the furst run have NOT counted?
i THINK THE first run would have been counted as it was completed.
i thought there was a rule that you need to at least cross for the next run for the first run to be counted, but i definitely may be wrong.
by Ecky » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:44 pm
Borat wrote:mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Borat wrote:Did they cross over?
If so wouldnt the furst run have NOT counted?
i THINK THE first run would have been counted as it was completed.
i thought there was a rule that you need to at least cross for the next run for the first run to be counted, but i definitely may be wrong.
by rod_rooster » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:12 pm
Aerie wrote:Statistically Murali is the better bowler. Even disregarding Test matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. In comparison he has a better average against all opposition except Pakistan. He has a better overall career average, strike rate and economy rate. Some may say he throws the ball, but others might say Warne is a drug cheat.
Interestingly, Lara averages mid 50's against both Warne and Murali and Tendulkar averages mid 50's against Murali and 39 against Warne.
Both bowlers have been brilliant for cricket and I'm sure all Sri Lankans would claim Murali the better bowler and all Aussies would claim Warne.
by rod_rooster » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:16 pm
matt wrote:rod_rooster wrote:matt wrote:BPBRB wrote:
Near 700 wickets over a long period of time despite all the other distractions off field, injuries etc and playing with great fast bowlers puts him way above the curry munching chucker IMO.
poor form.
How so? Calling him a curry munching chucker? If so what part of the statement is incorrect? Certainly not the chucker part that's for sure. Does Murali not eat curry?
you're now in the same boat. no need for me to explain it.
by MagicKiwi » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:20 pm
by rod_rooster » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:25 pm
MagicKiwi wrote:Murali grounded his bat and turned to go and congratulate Sangakara (sp). Ball came back to the wickey, he took the bales off. The Kiwi commentators asked is it within the spirit of the game to take of the bales when clearly, the batsman was not going for a run? They also asked, should the umpire have used more discretion before putting his finger up?
From my point of view, Murali didn't wait for the ball to come back to the wicket keeper (foolishly as it turns out), it's in the rules so he's out. Whether it's in the spirit of the game, well...
No doubt the Sri Lankan press are all over it.
by Rik E Boy » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:33 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |