The Sir Don Bradman of bowling

It is not just his bowling that attracts attention, it is the general air he exudes – a toothy, warm smile, those big, expressive bulging eyes with a mischievous glint in them – one sensed sheer joy in the man when he is on the field. Read The Article

Continued 1 2  Next»

Author

Messages

Gavin Bruhn	Narottam.. Murali comes across as a wonderful gentlemen on tv, and is obviously a nice guy...but has played in a very weak team and comes on to bowl at one end usually very early in the innings and bowls about 40 - 50 overs per innings.He hasn''t had the stars like McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, McDermott, Hughes (all 200+ test wickets)taking wickets at the other end...Murali has had Vaas who can''t be compared to those bowlers..He has been the best bowler in a very mediocre team..and the laws of the game have been changed to accomodate his illegal action..He may have a deformity in his arm, but rules are rules ...if you can''t follow them, take up tennis or golf where a bent arm doesn''t matter.. ( Posted: Saturday , December 29, 2007 at 12:17 )
krishna	My opinion is murali is definitely one of the great bowler of his time but not the greatest simple, because his arm is bent by nature which gives him the undue advantage which others don''t have, even though it is not his fault he is an advantage, second murali is the leading bowler in his team so he takes all the wickets but shane warne plays alongside for more better team mates who do take loot of wickets, that is why i think shane warne is the best bowler of his times closly followed by kumble and McGrath and then it is murali with wasim akram in the last deacde and half. ( Posted: Friday , December 28, 2007 at 18:15 )
rohit	muralis comparision with warne is not fair.murali has one advantage that he doesn''t have a bowling team like shane warne has with australia.out of ten wickets aussies take warne will get a maximum of five or six coz he has other stalwarts operating with him whilst murali has only vaas with him who is not in the league of lee in test matches.if lanka takes 10 wickets murali gets a min. of 5 in it.definitely murali will top the figures.but then i am not downgrading muralis talent as a bowler.he has been phenomenal as a bowler and will always be regarded as one of the best if not the best in he world ( Posted: Friday , December 28, 2007 at 14:27 )
Kaiser	Dear Narottam, i think you have compared Muralitharan with Shane, thats too harsh, u cant compare Shane Warnes bowling to Muralitharan''s cos if u see the stats where shane Warne has bowled is different story, as far as Muralitharan has bowled much in sub-continent. Its not abt wickets Sir, its about Quality. Ofcourse Muralitharan is a legend but Warne is bigger legend. In bowling Departement only 3 bowlers have made the Mark and are larger than life. 1 Wasim Akram (fast bowling and variety), 2. Shane Warne(spin) 3. Muralitharan(spin). thanks ( Posted: Friday , December 28, 2007 at 03:38 )
Ajay Saluja	Doc, I have been a long admirer of your knowledge of the game. However, in this instance, it appears you are ''grey'' in your opinion about Murali. You seem to have called him a chapion and a chucker in the same breath. ( Posted: Tuesday , December 25, 2007 at 16:09 )
Muthuswamy	Mr. Puri By comparing Murali with Warne, your are making one of the most worst comparision in the history of cricket. Murali may take 1000+ wkts but most of the wkts he has taken in the home country, where the wkts are delibetely designed to suit murali. But for warne, no way. he almost bowled on the hard pitches in australia, baring Sydney. If he had a luxury of tailor made tracks he would have taken more than 1000 wkts by now. One more thing though murali has been cleared by the ICC, one must admit why then the angle was increased from 10 to 15. bcos murali has 15 degree bent. Chucker is a Chucker, Murali is the best chucker. Muthuswamy ( Posted: Tuesday , December 25, 2007 at 16:03 )
Deepak	Sorry Mr. Puri. Muralidharan is the biggest chucker of all time.... Doesn''t matter how many wickets he takes..He is not a genuine bowler. Thats it. ( Posted: Tuesday , December 25, 2007 at 13:08 )
Chandana	Cricket world has only three legend bowlers. 01. Muralidhran 02. Wasim Akram 03. Shane Warne ( Posted: Tuesday , December 25, 2007 at 07:58 )
Real secular-cum-real cricket lover	Dr. Naruottam Puri is 100% seudo-secularist. He just know how devaluation of our asian plyers. He always ready to glorified western cultural players. They always find out drawback in our asian player But never talk about western cultural player i.e. aussie & english players. This anit-nationalist cricket-reporter are more dangerious for our country as well as future of our country ( Posted: Sunday , December 23, 2007 at 18:09 )
janish	he is the best spinner i have seen no doubt , if someone says that he is a chucker then he is totally wrong and after so many investigations also his bowling was found to be of perfect norms. and who says one cant watch more than few overs when he is bowling? i can watch him allday long. shane warne was a good spinner but murali, he is the best as his no. of wickets that also in less matches than shane warne.And sheer entertainment value with the ball is always with the baller who takes more wickets in less matches. u can imagine a crowd cheering for every wicket a baller takes. in that way murali is the best and will remain best forever until someone good is sent by god himself. ( Posted: Saturday , December 22, 2007 at 18:10 )

Continued 1 2  Next»

Your Feedback

Maximum characters allowed

Name

Email

Country

Select Country Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo (Zaire) Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia Gabon The Gambia Gaza Strip and West Bank Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti The Holy See Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Islands Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe

Guidelines

• Do not be rude to other users/authors or disrupt an ongoing conversation/debate.
• Do not use ethnic slurs, engage in personal insults or use objectionable language.
• Criticism, when constructive and non-disruptive is always welcome.
• Comments with links in them won't be published other than in cases of rare exceptions.
• Comments that include personal details such as postal addresses and telephone numbers will not be published.
• Keep the comments relevant to the topic as much as possible.
• Do not impersonate another reader or a public figure.
• Do try to use English to write your comments.
• Comment Policy Explained

Disclaimer