Just before the rain came down here in Kandy, Muttiah Muralitharan drew level with Shane Warne as the leading Test wicket-taker of all time. Both men are now on 708 but the surest thing in cricket is that Murali will make it 709, 710, 711 and that's by tomorrow. He was running rampantly through England when the downpour arrived. It's like being in England in the 2007 summer. Angus, England still don't look as though they've got much of a clue how to play him, do they?
They should get a first innings lead as they're only two behind with four wickets left but it might not be enough.
England were looking quite good at lunch on 145-3, trailing Sri Lanka's first innings score of 188 by 43 runs, but you always fear Murali will suddenly come in to the match and change everything. His three late wickets have thrown the game wide open and England would now settle for a lead of 40 runs. But is this enough to make them favourites to win the game? It is doubtful.
England's batsmen do appear no closer to playing him well than they were but there is no disgrace in that. When Dennis Lillee, Curtley Ambrose or Wasim Akram were in their pomp batsmen struggled with them too. Sometimes there is no way of overcoming them, you just have to the best you can.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 02 December 2007 at 09:58 AM
Having said yesterday around this time that England were well in front I have to revise that opinion now. But that's the nature of the game for you. While taking your point about Murali - great bowlers are great bowlers - it was still disappointing to see the hesitant fashion in which England played him. Different team, different conditions but Australia had him for breakfast in Brisbane and Hobart last month.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 02 December 2007 at 10:02 AM
Ian Bell played him as well as anyone yet he fell attempting to take him on. Sadly there are times when batsmen are more worried about the way they get out than actually getting out. I am not saying this England side are in that state of mind but it was like that against the Aussies in the last eighties and early nineties. The one thing you dare not do was get out to a poor or irresponsible shot, then the dreaded media would have you for breakfast. Players were happy to get out to good balls because then they would receive less criticism.
Australian batsmen have never had that mindset and therefore they would have approached Murali with a completely different approach. However, I think they would have struggled to hack him around here on this pitch. Remember what Harbhajan Singh did to them on turning pitches in 2001.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 02 December 2007 at 10:12 AM
Ian Bell played Murali as well as anyone and he looked to be positive but such an approach eventually caused his down fall. Sadly, many batsmen are more worried about how they got out than getting out. I am not saying that is the mindset of the current England team but the attitude was prevalant in the last eighties and early nineties.
Then batsmen were happy to get out to bad balls because they would then not receive criticism from the dreaded media. Better to be caught blocking at bat/pad than stumped coming down the pitch. The attitude might sound rather pathetic but it exists.
Australian batsmen have rarely had such a mindset and they would have played Murali like a normal spinner in Shield cricket in Brisbane and Hobart. They would have struggled to play in such a way here. Remember what Harbhajan Singh did to them in 2000/01 on turning pitches.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 02 December 2007 at 10:20 AM
Well, yes and no. When Australia last played here three years ago - and don't tell me the pitches were that different - Murali took 28 wickets in the three matches. But Australia won them all because Damien Martyn and Darren Lehmann scored two hundreds a apiece, Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist made others. He is a wonderful and unqiue bowler. I just wonder, when the record goes and Murali is carried around the outfield by grateful colleagues, will the applause fromm elsewhere be completely wholehearted? Or will it be tempered by the belief that some of his wickets owe something to a dodgy action? Will that forever taint opinions of a man who should be feted forever?
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 02 December 2007 at 10:26 AM
Australia won 3-0 because they were a better side than England currently are. I know you will not like me criticising him because he is your columnist but Bell should have gone on to score a big hundred having played so well for more than three hours. His shot let Sri Lanka back in.
Sadly, there will always be people questioning Murali and I have a great deal of sympathy for him on that front. Most of the moaning will come from Australia, no doubt. A lot of their views are based on ignorance. Those of us fortunate enough to sit on the ICC committee that looked in to bowling actions were able to have a close look at his action and listen to people who know what they are talking about.
Each time he has been reported he has passed the tests, whether they be on his off-break or his doosra. It's amazing how adultery and failing a drugs test are considered lesser crimes than having an apparently suspect bowling action.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 02 December 2007 at 10:35 AM
Well, he's your columnist too, Gus. Yes, he should have gone on and isn't odd that having scored 83 he will cop the flak.
I agree about Murali but that doosra - sparingly used here -looks suspicious. And he's taken a lot of wickets with it. Readers may have a view on that. Nothing divides opinion like Murali.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 02 December 2007 at 10:38 AM
Murali's doosra does look suspicious but everything about his bowling action looks suspicious. Allan Border thought he was a leg-spinner when he played against him on his Test debut.
Initially people said that he could only bowl his doosra slowly within the limit but when he was tested the quaicket he bowled the straighter his arm was. I am wary of the doosra too because it is a ball people used to throw when we were playing cricket with a tennis ball in the dressing room. But what is the point of having testing if you then don't want to believe the results. I have seen balls bowled by bowlers with apparently perfect actions showing 17/18 degrees of straightening, two or three degrees more than the 15 degree limit.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 02 December 2007 at 11:02 AM
All true. However - isn't there always a however where the great Murali is concerned - I interviewed Paul Hurrion, the scientist and bio-mechanics expert a few weeks ago. He works for the ICC and assesses bowling actions. He invented the scheme whereby a degree of latitude might be allowed. He said, and I thought tellingly, that he would like to see Murali checked again and wondered aloud about the wrong 'un. I suppose the point is that Murali is the best slow bowler - yes including Shane Warne - there has ever been, like Bradman was the best batsman. But it will never be as simple as that and that's sad for him and sad for the game. But your earlier point about Warne and the drugs ban was spot on. That was shoved under the carpet pretty quickly. And just to show how easy it is to change your mind in a day, Murali and Sri Lanka will go on to win this now. Of course, I reserve the right to amend that opinion.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 02 December 2007 at 11:14 AM
You're a braver - or more foolish - man than me. I think England's seamers will be difficult to face on this pitch in Sri Lanka's second innings. The bounce is indifferent and the Sri Lankans look out of touch.
Ideally you want to be able to test a bowler in the middle, during match conditions so that you can then judge whether the odd ball is thrown when the game gets tight and something special is needed. But, sadly, that is not possible even when sysyems and special cameras are put in place. When this is done there is a 3-5 degree error level. Using a system with a 20-35 per cent error is useless. You could not end someones career on that. I am happy with Murali, he has provided me with great entertainment and I would rather watch him bowl than a straight armed bore who keeps getting slapped in to the stands. Long live Murali and congratulations. Sidebottom or Collingwood? Who will it be?
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 02 December 2007 at 11:22 AM
Sidebottom. Foolish I may be, Sri Lanka still to win.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 02 December 2007 at 11:24 AM
Well, at the risk of becoming your Special Respondent, I would say that Murali's regular delivery looks fine to me, especially bearing in mind the congenital distortion of his arm. I wouldn't dare to claim that I could pick the doosra, and replays are not very helpful on this point. I admit to not being totally sure about that one delivery, but unless some scientific proof of chucking is provided, I would give Murali the benefit of the doubt. He seems transparently honest, is humble enough to admit that his record-breaking delivery did not go according to plan, and, in general, comes across as an honourable, perhaps even slightly naive man. On the comparison to Warne, I felt that a number of Warne's wickets came from pressure being put on the umpire, rather than the merits of the delivery. Funny that his admirers seem to neglect that aspect of his performance, and of Australia's success in general. For me, Warne was a great, if often somewhat repellent bowler, while Murali is a genius. Long live the Kandyman! (And please would he stop taking so many English wickets in such a nice way!)
On a related note, do you feel happy with Malinga's action? To the naked eye, he looks closer to throwing than Murali ever has. Occasionally it really looks like a javelin throw when he bowls. Or is this an effect of perspective and a sideways action?
Posted by: olympian | 03 December 2007 at 07:51 AM