I have to admit, during the recent Ashes series, I held a faint hope that England could somehow scrape out a draw in the end (I was never delusional enough to think they ever had a chance of winning), only because I believed that could have triggered Shane Warne’s return to one-day cricket just for the World Cup. Between his Leviathan-sized ego and pathological sense of competitiveness, I knew Warne would never have allowed himself to end it all on a sour, or even unresolved, note.
Now, I’m not sure if that would have meant he’d come back from retirement for yet another pyjama party, or simply grind it out a little while longer in Test cricket until he found that perfect “This Is Your Life” moment on which to leave. But I think the odds would have been high on an ODI-comeback, due to convenience and timing, if nothing else.
Even though his presence would have made the task of beating Australia a whole lot harder, I still wish Warne was here for the World Cup. I know it’s been said many times, in many ways, but the guy really is a sporting genius. It’s still a joy to watching him weave those intricate webs of deceit around unsuspecting batsmen. But more than that, I just love the practice of spin-bowling in itself -- it is one of the most unique and captivating facets of cricket.
As opposed to fast bowling, or even batting, where players of average skills can excel simply because of physical advantages, accomplishment in spin bowling is almost totally defined by a player’s skill and mastery of the form. Think about it: would there be much of a difference if Shane Warne or Muttiah Muralitharan were three inches shorter? Maybe, but it’s doubtful. Now compare that to a Glenn McGrath, or a Steve Harmison. Or even a Matthew Hayden. Take away Hayden’s Gulliverian front-foot stride and Chesty Bond torso, and all you’re left with is a compulsive driver with thinning hair and an impeccable posture.
That is one of the reasons why the constant underappreciation of Muralitharan’s greatness really pains me. The guy could be cleared of wrongdoing by every tenured biomechanical expert in the civilised world, but that damn asterisk that hangs next to his name will never quite go away. There are some in the cricket world who have had a contract on the guy’s head, and have decided that nothing can or will remove the tarnish across Murali’s achievements. They will dismiss the experts and reject the science like a horde of deranged creationists -- all because they can’t have anything, or anyone, coming through and somehow diminishing the power of the almighty Myth of Shane, taking form in its countless collector’s-edition lithographs and its gushing Parkinson love-fests.
I know it’s a futile exercise (bordering on the “sacrilicious”, as Homer Simpson would say) to try to compare Warne and Muralitharan, simply because, to everyone but the most partisan of Sri Lankan fanatics, Warne will always come out on top.
I know it doesn’t matter that Murali’s bowling average, total wicket count, strike rate, economy rate, and number of five- and ten-fors will ultimately be better than Warne’s, perhaps by a large margin.
I know it doesn’t matter that these achievements were all accomplished in a significantly weaker team with fewer resources, a team that exerts little physical or psychological intimidation on its opponents, with no other bowlers who can apply constant pressure at the opposite end (barring Chaminda Vaas, who for all his hard work and banana-swing nous, is still just a short dude bowling lollipop medium-pace on grassless pitches most of the time), as well as fewer opportunities to employ the attacking fields that help a spinner’s cause.
I also know it doesn’t matter that Muralitharan has been an exemplary role-model throughout his career; a national hero, and a true inspiration to his ilk. That he has battled adversity with grace and dedication, never failing to flash that impish, broken-toothed smile to teammates and opponents alike.
Conversely, I know it doesn’t matter that Warne has often behaved like a petulant, insecure child -- both on and off the field – or that he was actually accused, convicted and banned from cricket for a doping offence. Or that time and time again he has… wait, hang on a sec. I forget, why doesn’t all this matter again? Why aren't we seriously making the case for the Sri Lankan? Oh that’s right -- because “Murachuckaran” sounds kinda funny and, well, the little dude sure looks like he’s bending his elbow, right?
The point of this is not say that either one player is better than the other –- worth in the cricket field is as much a measure of objective and subjective qualities, and where one lays the emphasis ultimately defines what the results will be. In answer to the Ultimate Question in cricket lore (a variation of that old batting chestnut): “who would you rather have bowling for your life?”, a valid case could easily be made for either Warne or Murali.
But those cases will never even be made, and that’s the problem here. They will never be made (at least not seriously… Warne is no danger of having his Wisden Top-5-Players-Of-The-Century spot revoked anytime soon) because of that damn asterisk that hangs about like an unwanted sore on the corner of one's mouth. Which leads to the whole point of this post –- why, oh why should spinners have limits to their bowling actions at all? Why 15 degrees? Why not any number of degrees they see fit? A spinner could never endanger a batsman in any way and all his wickets are achieved through nothing more than a combination of guile, ingenuity and patience. How would declaring a moratorium on bowling restrictions affect the game in anything but a positive way?
Instead of just brandishing our Fake Indignation wands and labelling one the greatest cricket players in history a CHEATER simply because the man happens to be, er, congenitally deformed, why don’t we celebrate his myriad achievements and try to learn from him. You know, find out how the hell he actually does what he does. Is there anyone out there who can explain to me why the doosra is more conducive to a bending of the elbow than a normal off-spinner? Or anyone who can even explain how a doosra works in the first place? Every random and his uncle (from Richie Benaud all the way down to the yobbo at the local pub with the stained wife-beater and the missing tooth) can give you a detailed spiel on the subtle differences in hand-position-at-release between Warnie’s stock leggie and his flipper, but is there anyone who can even clarify how Muralitharan gets his offies to spin in first place? We shouldn’t be condemning this man; we should be wide-eyed at his feet hoping he’d divulge even a few of his secrets.
I know the lazy thinkers and the reactionaries out there will always be quick to resort to the Church Lady yell of, “What about the tradition? Will someone please think of the tradition!” But ‘tradition’ is a relative term. What tradition do they deem we should be concerned about? The ‘no-throwing’ tradition? Why not the 8-balls-per-over tradition? Or the no-LBW tradition? Or the ‘unlimited bouncers’ Bodyline tradition? Hey, by ‘traditional’ standards, Glenn McGrath, Shaun Pollock, Brett Lee (and most probably Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Andy Roberts, etc.) were all chuckers.
I’ve never understood that conservative, dogmatic streak that runs through many hardcore cricket followers. If a law is stupid and works to the detriment of progress in the game, change it. What’s so complicated about that? If the change works and it improves the quality of the game, we can all give ourselves a hearty pat on the back and call each other visionaries. If it doesn’t work, we can change it back (ahem, Supersubs, anyone?). In less than a decade, no one will even remember the change. It might show up as a footnote, or a tiny asterisk, in esoteric stats books or the Wisden Almanack.
Just don’t let true visionary genius be relegated to that same status just because of the rigidity and myopia of a select few in the current establishment. Happy 35th, MM.
Well, this is so late to be commenting on this. But to find a westerner putting these thoughts on Murali vs Warne is heart warming. You healed me of some wounds there - wounds caused by pig-headed, small-minded western commentators and cricketers belittling Murali.
Posted by: raj | December 09, 2008 at 09:03 AM