Premium
This is an archive article published on July 23, 2010

A Bradmanesque career,except for the ending

Its almost impossible to compare players between two eras separated by six decades,let alone when one is a batsman and the other a bowler.

Its almost impossible to compare players between two eras separated by six decades,let alone when one is a batsman and the other a bowler. But Muttiah Muralitharan managed to do something the great Donald Bradman couldn8217;t: sign off on a magical number.

Bradman missed his 100,Murali snared his 800th. 1661 Test matches have passed since Bradman walked back to the old pavilion at The Oval with a duck against his name on the scoreboard. A fortnight short of his 40th birthday,Bradman had announced that the fifth and final match against England,would be his last in Test cricket.

With the next Test series on the calendar against South Africa a good sixteen months away and with age catching up quickly,Bradman took guard to face the wrist spin of Eric Hollies on a healthy average of 101.39.

Things always seem easier in retrospect,but all Bradman had to do was score four runs to retire with an average of 100 in Test cricket. And,as the fable goes,he was bowled second ball for as many runs short.

Unlike Bradman,Murali didn8217;t have the numbers on his side to play the maintaining game. He had eight wickets to scalp in one match. And unlike Bradman,Murali called it quits after the first Test of a three match series,fighting the temptation to lurk around to achieve the milestone.

But eight wickets seemed a fair distance away after two and half days of the Test one washed away,the remaining a Sri Lankan batting fest. While the five wickets in the first innings hogged a hungry chunk away from the figure,it came down to one Indian wicket remaining on the final day,with Murali stuck on a Bradmanesque 799.

The Will he,wont he? continued for a while,before Murali tangled Pragyan Ojha in his web of deceit and Galle heaved more than just a sigh of relief. Something The Oval could never do 62 years back.

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement