Tony Greg on his show said
"Kumble is not as good as Murali or Warne"
I beg to differ. Why is Kumble inferior to either of them?
The current generation of spinners have achieved things that most spinner earlier did not achieve. Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan and Anil Kumble have claimed more than 600 wickets. They are all great spinners in their own right. However, whenever the question about who is the best spinner comes the argument is always between Warne or Murali. What I find unbelievably hard to consider is Kumble is not even considered . The argument goes like, well he does not spin the ball. I will simply put it this way - Is it because his way of getting wickets is not glamorous. He might not be as good a showman as Warne, but he never got so badly trashed by the best team he came across (check Warne's average versus India and corresponding figures for Kumble against Australia and Murali against Australia). Kumble performs way better than Murali when he plays Australia (even if you look at home and away separately!!)
In fact if you are looking only at the number of tests Murali took lot fewer tests compared to warnie and Kumble to claim the wickets that he did. But among Kumble and Warne - surprise surprise - Kumble did it faster. So why is it so obvious that Kumble is inferior to Warnie? Another important aspect often neglected is McGrath was there for Warnie to pick the top order and get middle order exposed to warnie. Kumble had to face the brunt of every top order batsman. But I will never just say that Kumble is better than Warne. They are three different bowlers with contrasting styles of their own and genuinely great players in their own right. There is no reason to compare them and no logic to say one is better than the other. All I am asking for is treat the three equally. Everybody has their personal favorites but that does not mean you cannot appreciate other great players!!
An open mind when talking will help.
"Kumble is not as good as Murali or Warne"
I beg to differ. Why is Kumble inferior to either of them?
The current generation of spinners have achieved things that most spinner earlier did not achieve. Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan and Anil Kumble have claimed more than 600 wickets. They are all great spinners in their own right. However, whenever the question about who is the best spinner comes the argument is always between Warne or Murali. What I find unbelievably hard to consider is Kumble is not even considered . The argument goes like, well he does not spin the ball. I will simply put it this way - Is it because his way of getting wickets is not glamorous. He might not be as good a showman as Warne, but he never got so badly trashed by the best team he came across (check Warne's average versus India and corresponding figures for Kumble against Australia and Murali against Australia). Kumble performs way better than Murali when he plays Australia (even if you look at home and away separately!!)
In fact if you are looking only at the number of tests Murali took lot fewer tests compared to warnie and Kumble to claim the wickets that he did. But among Kumble and Warne - surprise surprise - Kumble did it faster. So why is it so obvious that Kumble is inferior to Warnie? Another important aspect often neglected is McGrath was there for Warnie to pick the top order and get middle order exposed to warnie. Kumble had to face the brunt of every top order batsman. But I will never just say that Kumble is better than Warne. They are three different bowlers with contrasting styles of their own and genuinely great players in their own right. There is no reason to compare them and no logic to say one is better than the other. All I am asking for is treat the three equally. Everybody has their personal favorites but that does not mean you cannot appreciate other great players!!
An open mind when talking will help.
No comments:
Post a Comment