Murali v Warne

[manee]

You know what, I said the opposite:

The instance you were referring too, you should also notice he wasn't the only bowler since it was a flat pitch on day 1.

I remember going to Edgbaston on Day 2 of the series against Sri Lanka last year and Murali open the bowling in the morning and Kevin Pietersen smacked him and after about three overs of his spell he had to be taken off.

Your quote in the post I have quoted is nonsense. If Murali could not handle being attacked, then he wouldn't have such a magnificent twenty20 or ODI economy rate.

 

[Will_NA]

But there is no way Warne retreats to his shell quicker than Murali. he's always up for a challenge. These are two very different bowlers so I can't decide.

 

[RoboRocks]

Your quote in the post I have quoted is nonsense. If Murali could not handle being attacked, then he wouldn't have such a magnificent twenty20 or ODI economy rate.

I'm not saying he can't handle being attacked.
I'm saying he doesn't handle it as well as Shane Warne does.
Their aren't many bowlers who can who can keep clear and know exactly know what to do when the bastmans attacking and thats where Warne is brilliant.

I say that because I have seen Australia in recent times look to attack him and put him under pressure because you can't let him bowl or else he will get wickets.

 

[nuffa]

Murali for sure.. he alone have won many matches for Sri Lanka.. he has taken less number of matches than warne for all those wickets..

 

[aussie_ben91]

Murali looked all at sea when Pietersen reversed-swept him over cover point for six; something which Warne never endured.

Just because Murali has had to bowl with a weak bowling unit shouldn't be counted as a disadvantage to him considering he has often played on spinning pitches against Ban/Zim where he has been able to hog the wickets.

Ahh, I think I wrote a post awhile back which justifys the stats in Warne's favour between Murali & Warne but I can't be arsed to find it.

 

[manee]

Murali looked all at sea when Pietersen reversed-swept him over cover point for six; something which Warne never endured.

Reverse sweep sixes are easier when the ball spins into the bat. Murali only looks at sea when someone dominates him because it rarely happens to him.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Yeah because 81 of his 113 matches have been played in the subcontient.

 

[manee]

Yeah because 81 of his 113 matches have been played in the subcontient.

Indian and Pakistani batsman (who he played 29 of those 81 games against) are reputed as the best players of spin.

I have to say that I have underrated you as a poster, you are bringing up some brilliant points.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I suppose, although Warne has had to bowl against Indian & Pakistani batsman in 17 matches on pacey Australian surfaces which is signifcantly more difficult then bowling on pitches in India, Pakistan & Sri Lanka against the best players of spin in the world.

 

[nightprowler10]

As I have said before, if you take out wickets against Zimababwe and Bangladesh not only is Warne a considerable way ahead of Muralidaran

Incorrect.

[B]Muttiah Muralitharan[/B]

87/1476 - Zimbabwe
76/908  - Bangladesh

163/2384 - Z+B

------------------------

537/12547 - ROW - 23.4


[B]Shane Warne[/B]

6/137 - Zimbabwe
11/300 - Bangladesh

17/437 - Z+B

------------------------

691/17558 - ROW - 25.4

 

[Dare]

thats a good post from nightprowler, muralis average is still better than Warne's against all the other sides except for zimbabwe and bangladesh.

 

[smssia0112]

Muralitharan is the far better bowler. He gets more wickets, spearheads the attack with noone to help him, goes for under 4 an over in ODIs. He is the better performer.

I'm sorry but you sound incredibly stupid talking like that. Anyone who says that either are much better is completely incorrect because they are very close.

No one to help him goes both ways, because it means that Muralidaran has no one to take wickets off him and benefit from his pressuring batsmen. And he certainly did not have no one to help him out, Chaminda Vaas is just one of his world class teammates. Australia has always had a strong attack that would often take wickets away from Warne. Consider both sides of an argument!

You have mentioned Aussies there and immediately you have admitted that few non Aussies rate Muralitharan as the better bowler.

Where on earth did you pull that out from? I said that the Aussies are obviously biased towards Warne, but I didn't say that no one else rates him? A hell of a lot of people rate Warne ahead of Muralidaran. Just like a lot rate Murali. But not many would say that Muralidaran is miles ahead of Warne, or even the reverse.

Why not? You don't pick a bowler to bowl the Gatting ball, you pick him to get wickets for a low cost, no matter how they do it.

Because there is no way that the highest wicket taker is a definitive decision. Every match is different, different opponents, different pitches etc. The best way to tell who is better is to watch how they bowl.

Maybe the pitches Warne played on were made to look tougher because he could not spin it on those pitches when it is highly known that Muralitharan can spin it on any surface. I would not like to see spin it on glass because with all the cracks, I feel it would be easy:

Warne can spin it on most surfaces too, but that doesn't mean that he is more likely to take a wicket on a hard pitch than a dusty one. For example, the GABBA has never been a spinners' pitch, but Warne has a fantastic record there.

You can't believe that two players in the same era (give or take 5 years) who have both played official test cricket have faced such different opposition on such different pitches.

Sure they have. Sri Lankan pitches are much more suited to spinners than Australia ones are. Other than the SCG, Australian pitches are generally much harder and less spin friendly than many others, including most subcontinent pitches.

And like I said before, matches against minnows plays a huge role. To give you an idea, Shane Warne has played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe 3 times in Test cricket, and has taken 17 wickets. Muralidaran has played 23 matches against them, and has taken 163 wickets.

True, in theory but I have rarely see batsman ever 'go after' a non spinner. Do batsman often get out slogging McGrath? No, they get out blocking the length ball.

Sure they can, if Warne is too hard to score off then they may target someone like Lee, who bowls a lot of loose deliveries. Even McGrath may at times seem easier and more predictable when Warne is on fire.

You talk about Warne building pressure but it is surely harder to take the wickets yourself considering the limited support Muralitharan has had. Chaminda Vaas is the closest thing to support and not only is he awful on his off day but he is also uneffective often without the new ball.

He may have had less support but Sri Lanka have never been very terrible. It goes both ways like I said, Warne's mental strength and bowling will often destroy batsmen, and they will often get out to other bowlers as well.

Small note that it is good to have an intelligent Aussie member for a change

There are plenty of intelligent members here, but I am certainly up there But you are also probably one of the few Indian members here who know cricket outside their own country.

Incorrect.

[B]Muttiah Muralitharan[/B]

87/1476 - Zimbabwe
76/908  - Bangladesh

163/2384 - Z+B

------------------------

537/12547 - ROW - 23.4


[B]Shane Warne[/B]

6/137 - Zimbabwe
11/300 - Bangladesh

17/437 - Z+B

------------------------

691/17558 - ROW - 25.4

That proves my point to its intended degree of certainty...

 

[charith]

This argument will go on forever. Its a riddiculus comparison both are world class and proven performers can't hold either ahead of the other and thats my opinion being a Sri Lankan myself.

According to many of the posts here and comments the only way they can be compared is if they played for the same country!!!

Obviously Murali is going to have most of his tests played in the subcontinent. Thats where he's from. And SL is not considered a big wig in cricket and no one can argue with that even though their talent remains undoubted. SL play so many 2 test series. The ICC really has to start being fair in its fixtures. How would you explain not a single summer test tour since 95/96 to Australia? SL play many tests against Bangladesh and ZIm coz thats what they get. Its what the ICC gives and being SL you can't be picky. Am sure none of the players like to play on a consitent basis against them but thats test cricket. You can't keep going on over and over about Murali getting wickets against minnows. He has to play what SL gets. Its not his fault.

 

[Hooper]

 

[nightprowler10]

That proves my point to its intended degree of certainty...

How so?