Murali retiring after Galle test

[shravi]

Numbers Game: Murali v Warne - what the numbers say | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

It's too close to call tbh. When players are that closely matched, you just have to go ahead and say that you can't split them.

 

[sami ullah khan]

It looks like a debate now, does not it Gazza.

 

[drainpipe32]

It looks like a debate now, does not it Gazza.

Your point being?

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I don't see why the bangladesh/zim is still dragged up.

The spin friendly conditions, etc etc, ok, discuss that. But Murali's strike rate is better than warnes even if you take out zim/ban, warne played more than 40 more matches to get his extra 70-80 wickets. If murali had played 145 matches against all the other teams does anyone honestly think he wouldn't be on way over 800 wickets?

idiotic. And I don't really understand why some of the asian posters don't shoot down such a ridiculous arguement by flipping it to batsman. because it may have taken jayawardena many times the number of matches, but he has more than 3 times the amount of runs bradman got. does that make him better?

so anyway, I am not siding on the debate one way or the other, I am also not actually suggesting Jayawardena was better than bradman, I am just sick to death of that stupid zim/ban arguement against murali. it means nothing.

This is the problem with murali and which is why I'm inclined to say he was marginally better than Warne, most of the arguements against him are simply attempts to assassinate his reputation. "He was a chucker", "he only got wickets against bad teams", "he never got wickets in australia" (he only played there twice, the secon series I watched and the wickets were so flat and hard they ended stuart macgills career btw) If Warne is better, it is by the slimmest of margins, the stats at the very least bare witness to that.

 

[sohum]

Good summary post from StinkyBoHoon, there. People are obviously entitled to their personal opinions.

From a statistical perspective, the two are inseparable. Let's just leave it at that (and that's an order!).

 

[McLOVIN]

Here is another doubter.

'Murali doesn't deserve the record' - Emerson
Cricinfo staff
July 8, 2010
'Murali doesn't deserve the record' - Emerson | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

Now, that I do not agree with. I never thought he was a chucker. I know about his special ability or rather disability. I am glad ICC changed the rule, because I can't imagine being in his shoes. Not being able to play the game you love just because the way you were created?

 

[McLOVIN]

The Long Handle | Page 2 | Cricinfo.com :laugh

 

[rocky_g]

Murali is a legend. But i prefer Warne.

 

[angryangy]

It's really a difficult comparison, which is why people fumble over it. So much so, that you might as well throw Marshall and McGrath in for good measure.

I think Murali's record is flattered by Sri Lankan pitches more than anything, but he's still the best offie to have played. His record is let down a little by his performances on the bouncier pitches in Australia and South Africa, but that just makes him a real player rather than a fanciful work of fiction.

So too, the controversy over his action was complicated. I think it was wrong to try to ignore that he was different, because it took too long to learn from it. Umpires were not wrong to point it out; the old law was not concerned with 'degrees of flexion' and then when it did, the tolerance margin was enough to vindicate the no-balling of far straighter armed players. In the mean time, fans felt confusion. It was like the emperor's new clothes. It was ten years before the ICC brought science into the realm, to really work out whether their laws made sense.

 

[Vilander]

He'll need a miracle against India's supposed spin bowling expertise. Both he and Warne have struggled against India in the past so I suppose it's fitting he gets a chance to conquer them before he retires, albeit with fewer of their great spin-playing batsmen. Always did better against them at home though.

To be fair to him, he already did in 2008 SL home series, SL won 2-1 on the back of Murali and mendis magic, but yeah he never dominated Ind the way he did some of the other teams. Great player will miss him.

 

[Varun]

Congrats for the 800 wickets Murli! What a legend!

 

[Dare]

Good luck to him in the future. He was a great cricketer and seemed to be a genuinely nice person. It was a pleasure to watch him bowl and sometimes bat lol. He was the rare bowler that you could never leave the TV or Computer because anything could happen. A true master of spin and a true ambassador of cricket.

 

[Shaun Tait]

Warne was a great spinner, Lets not lie Murali went a lot longer than Warne no?

If they had played the same number of tests who do you reckon would have had the higher number of wickets?

 

[Mike23]

Warne was a great spinner, Lets not lie Murali went a lot longer than Warne no?

If they had played the same number of tests who do you reckon would have had the higher number of wickets?

Obviously Murali! Had he played the same no. of test matches Warne played he would've had atleast 900 wickets.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

by his performances on the bouncier pitches in Australia and South Africa, but that just makes him a real player rather than a fanciful work of fiction.

the figures back up the australian thing (though personally I think this had as much to do with missing the series when he was at his peak, he went from 1995 to 2005 without playing there,and the sheer brilliance of the aussie batting line up, especially at home that contributed to this) but saying saying 77 wickets at 26 (including one of his trademark 10-fers) shows he couldn't perform in south africa is extremely harsh. warnes average was 24.3, a whole 1.7 runs better. plus he destroyed england.