Now tell me he isn't a chucker?!

[angryangy]

They are not the best players of spin, are they? People argue that Murali gets cheap wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and that's why he is going to cross Warnie's records. How about the fact that Murali has only played 13 tests against England compared to Warne's 36 in roughly the same career span? Murali's average against England is also better than Warne's though his strike rate is marginally worse. One can go as far as to say that if Muralitharan played 5 test-match series' against England every 2 years, he would have had considerably more wickets than Warne at this stage.

What is the point you're making? Are you saying that Warne's wickets against England are worth as much as Murali's wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe? That's an incredulous argument to defend.

Consider Kumble, Vettori and Kaneria. All competitive spinners, none have exceptional averages against England. Vettori has 26 wickets each against England and Bangladesh; his England wickets averaging 36, his Bangladesh wickets averaging 14. Kaneria has 34 wickets @ 16 against Bangladesh and 28 @ 45 against England. Kumble averages an acceptable 30 against England, but over 40 in England.

Consensus would hold that England are not the best team against spin bowling, however, it is clear that they are far from the worst. Zimbabwe's batsmen, for example, were even bamboozled by the part-time chinamen of Simon Katich.

We can magically add a number of Ashes tours to Murali's record, but doesn't that mean we remove a few? If we don't, we are proving nothing. His matches vs Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and England total to 36. A straight swap means 256 wickets replaced by Warne's 195.

On the other hand, we could extrapolate the data. Murali has bowled 915 overs against England in 13 matches, about 70 per match. Spin that through the time machine and that is 15,200 balls after 36 matches, divide by the strike rate and you find 257 wickets, more than Warne, but only just covering the wickets we took away. In fact, if Murali bowled 15,200 balls against Bangladesh he might have more than 500 wickets against them.

For a start, that does suggest Murali would not have 'considerably more wickets', but what is it proving?

It is ignoring Australian conditions, which are often regarded as the most unkind to spin bowling and also where Murali has found harshest opposition. Also, if you look at Warne's record of 1793 overs against England, you realise he only bowled about 50 overs a match against England, hence why he would take 60 less wickets with a better strike-rate.

All something like this proves is how much Murali is worth to Sri Lanka. We can not prove that Murali would be a success in Australia any more than we can prove Warne would be a success against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

However, 163 wickets at 14.57 against the two least competitive test teams is not something that can be argued against. There remains a distinct gap between these teams and the rest, even if they do occasionally play well. No, it is not Muralidaran's fault, but if he took all of his wickets against them, how could you compare him to bowlers who never played against them?

 

[Gilly Fan]

Guys, I'm not a staff member, but this is a thread about whether Murali chucks or not, not who is better out of Warne or Murali. Maybe we should create a new thread for this discussion.

 

[manee]

You can if you want, I am happy for the topic to evolve into a Warne Vs Muralitharan thread. If you want to create a new thread for it, that would be fine, as would be bumping the old Warne Vs Murali thread from 2004.

 

[Gilly Fan]

You can if you want, I am happy for the topic to evolve into a Warne Vs Muralitharan thread. If you want to create a new thread for it, that would be fine, as would be bumping the old Warne Vs Murali thread from 2004.

This one? I was looking at that before, but it is only about who would get to 500 wickets first.

 

[Hooper]

Well, make it into one about 708 wickets.

 

[sohum]

What is the point you're making? Are you saying that Warne's wickets against England are worth as much as Murali's wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe? That's an incredulous argument to defend.

That is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that Murali should not be labeled as worse than Warne because he has taken so many wickets against the weaker nations because he plays stronger nations far less. Warne has been extremely successful against England and Muralitharan has shown that he is a task for them as well. What I am saying is that had Murali played England regularly over his 15 year career span and other nations for longer test series, his wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe would not even had to be counted. In fact, his strike rate with all Bangladesh and Zimbabwe matches removed is still marginally lower than Warne--56.9 compared to 57.7.

It is ignoring Australian conditions, which are often regarded as the most unkind to spin bowling and also where Murali has found harshest opposition. Also, if you look at Warne's record of 1793 overs against England, you realise he only bowled about 50 overs a match against England, hence why he would take 60 less wickets with a better strike-rate.

A better strike rate of less than 1 over is not really a huge advantage. One more thing that is being overlooked when Australia is being mixed into the factor is opposition. For example, and we can obviously not test this, I think if Muralitharan played a 5-test series against England in Australia, the conditions would not have had a hugely negative effect on him. This is of course my opinion, but I do not think it is fair to claim that Muralitharan doesn't have as good a record in Australia as Warne as being a valid reason that Warne is better because Warne never had to bowl against Australia. This, of course, apart from all the controversy surrounding him touring there.

All something like this proves is how much Murali is worth to Sri Lanka. We can not prove that Murali would be a success in Australia any more than we can prove Warne would be a success against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

However, 163 wickets at 14.57 against the two least competitive test teams is not something that can be argued against. There remains a distinct gap between these teams and the rest, even if they do occasionally play well. No, it is not Muralidaran's fault, but if he took all of his wickets against them, how could you compare him to bowlers who never played against them?

I don't understand the argument you make in the final stages of your post. I am not equaling Warne's English wickets with Murali's Bangla and Zimbabwean wickets. But claiming that Warne's wickets were better and hence he is better is overlooking the situations where Murali bowls.

 

[evertonfan]

Please do not close this thread again, just because one person form the other side has admitted defeat does not mean that the can of worms has been sealed.

 

[Gilly Fan]

Please do not close this thread again, just because one person form the other side has admitted defeat does not mean that the can of worms has been sealed.

And who is that?

 

[evertonfan]

Hooper. By refusing to post again he's show that he's been defeated, as he can't back up his claims that Murali chucks, because he doesn't.

 

[Hooper]

What?! I I can back up my claims that Murali chucks ~ Using my own God damn eyes!

He officially legit and that is a fact ~ but he is a thrower.

Iam not accepting defeat, it's just that I have already made my points crystal clear and I have said all I need to. Its just that you want an argument.

 

[andrew_nixon]

He officially legit and that is a fact ~ but he is a thrower.

Eh? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Hooper]

Sorry. When I said "But he is a thrower", I meant "You can see he is a thrower".

 

[BigCrickNan]

What?! I I can back up my claims that Murali chucks ~ Using my own God damn eyes!

He officially legit and that is a fact ~ but he is a thrower.

Iam not accepting defeat, it's just that I have already made my points crystal clear and I have said all I need to. Its just that you want an argument.

Well you've come up with a somewhat controversial topic and made a statement which you believe is 100% correct with no real evidence to back it up, you should expect people to argue tbh.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Sorry. When I said "But he is a thrower", I meant "You can see he is a thrower".

You can, but then you're obviously not looking correctly, as he is completely legit. Sadly, you're incapable of understanding basic facts.

 

[AbBh]

What?! I I can back up my claims that Murali chucks ~ Using my own God damn eyes!

He officially legit and that is a fact ~ but he is a thrower.

Iam not accepting defeat, it's just that I have already made my points crystal clear and I have said all I need to. Its just that you want an argument.

You have no scientific proof at all. Under your definition of chucking, Murali might be one. But the world doesn't follow your definition and the fact is that Murali doesn't chuck, unless proved otherwise. Warne might be better than Murali but saying that Murali chucks to discredit him is baseless.