Murali v Warne

[stereotype]

How do you describe the fact that Murali has played better against every test country except a couple, than Warne? It doesn't matter that Murali has played X tests here and Y there because his very average suggests that he is going to level it out eventually, anyway.

of course it matters how many times you play who...Warne never really got to establish himself against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe who are always going to be cannon fodder to bowlers of this class..

Murali's average away from home is less than 1 lower than Warnes average away from home, which is more of a true comparison of how he goes across the board

 

[sohum]

of course it matters how many times you play who...Warne never really got to establish himself against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe who are always going to be cannon fodder to bowlers of this class..

Murali's average away from home is less than 1 lower than Warnes average away from home, which is more of a true comparison of how he goes across the board

Murali's average away from home is less than 1 lower than Warne's average way from home---that obviously tells you how much difference there is between the two. Murali gives away one measly run more away per wicket--something that I would be happy to give away if you gave me a wicket instead.

How about the fact that Warne got to play England in 5-match test series multiple times over his career whereas most of Murali's exploits were restricted to 2-test encounters. He wasn't really able to get into his rhythm because the series' were over before they started.

 

[stereotype]

Warne averages 21.45 in Sri Lanka, that has got to say something about the assistance Murali gets at home

Murali's average away from home is less than 1 lower than Warne's average way from home---that obviously tells you how much difference there is between the two. Murali gives away one measly run more away per wicket--something that I would be happy to give away if you gave me a wicket instead.

How about the fact that Warne got to play England in 5-match test series multiple times over his career whereas most of Murali's exploits were restricted to 2-test encounters. He wasn't really able to get into his rhythm because the series' were over before they started.

England are by no means minnows, Warne would probably have a better average if 20 of his 22 matches were against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe like Murali's

I dont always look at the average as it doesnt always tell you the complete story, Warne played in conditions that were tougher for leg spin more often, He played against stronger opposition more often, and he stood above everyone as our most influential player, when you consider Australia have had the like of Ponting, McGrath, Steve Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, Matthew Hayden, Jason Gillespie, Allan Border etc and he stands above them..Murali is on the otherside, I dont believe he carries his team mind you, Vaas, Sangakarra, Jayasuria, Jayawardena etc are all world class players

I always believe that Murali had things a bit easier than Warne but if i had to have one of them to bowl for my life there would be no hesitation

 

[Gilly Fan]

England were the number one team around 2005 and he took 40 wickeets against them. How can you compare them to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe?

 

[sohum]

England were the number one team around 2005 and he took 40 wickeets against them. How can you compare them to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe?

How? The simple fact that they are clueless against quality spin bowling, perhaps? If Murali were to play England as regularly as Warnie did, there is a pretty good chance that he would be miles ahead of the latter at this moment. I think Bangladesh, for one, are far better players of spin than England are, for the most part. It just has to do with the type of bowling they've grown up with. And that's how I can compare England with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Warne averages 21.45 in Sri Lanka, that has got to say something about the assistance Murali gets at home

England are by no means minnows, Warne would probably have a better average if 20 of his 22 matches were against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe like Murali's

Murali vs. England: Average of 19.74
Warne vs. England: Average of 23.25

Murali in England: Average of 19.20
Warne in England: Average of 21.94

Murali in Sri Lanka: Average of 19.12
Warne in Sri Lanka: Average of 20.45

Quite simply, Murali leads in all ratings categories. In fact, Murali's average against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and England combined is better against Warne's average against the same group. This in itself is enough to prove that Murali is more successful against England and would have more wickets if he played against them more (though 13 test matches is no small number).

I dont always look at the average as it doesnt always tell you the complete story, Warne played in conditions that were tougher for leg spin more often, He played against stronger opposition more often, and he stood above everyone as our most influential player, when you consider Australia have had the like of Ponting, McGrath, Steve Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, Matthew Hayden, Jason Gillespie, Allan Border etc and he stands above them..Murali is on the otherside, I dont believe he carries his team mind you, Vaas, Sangakarra, Jayasuria, Jayawardena etc are all world class players

I always believe that Murali had things a bit easier than Warne but if i had to have one of them to bowl for my life there would be no hesitation

Well, you are just switching things around to suit your argument. If you think Murali, with only Vaas and Jayasuriya around him, as well as allegations of chucking and whatnot, had it easier than Warne who always had the counterfoil of a superb batting line-up not to mention a great new-ball attack of McGrath and another world-class bowler, than it is quite a futile decision to attempt to debate with you. Also, Australia's batting has had a great part to do with their success. Keep in mind that though Warnie was a class bowler, he was usually bowling when Australia were well in the driver's seat, whereas this was not necessarily the case with Murali.

 

[aussie_ben91]

How do you describe the fact that Murali has played better against every test country except a couple, than Warne? It doesn't matter that Murali has played X tests here and Y there because his very average suggests that he is going to level it out eventually, anyway.

It'll never even itself out because Murali will never play that many Tests in Australia and minus that many Tests from the subcontient.

Murali's played well over half of his career in the subcontient and his record shows for it while Warne's played a chunk of his career in Australia and not nearly as much subcontient matches as Murali has.

If you're going to be that subjective, than what about the fact that Warne has ALWAYS had a battery of support bowlers to back him up while Murali has only had a bit of Vaas at any given time? Surely that eases the pressure on Warne to bowl more attacking deliveries than only bowl ones that keeps the runs down? The difference in bowling in the subcontinent is more than made up by Murali when you consider the team he bowls with. Besides the fact that Murali has been far more successful against subcontinental teams IN the subcontinent than Warne. This in itself shows that Warne may not be as effective on turning tracks as you suggest.

Yeah his had the support of world-class fast bowlers bowling on pitches which suit pace bowlers more then they do spin bowlers and guess what they do? THEY TAKE WICKETS!

How the other pace bowlers bowl in Sri Lanka in tandom with Murali is irrevelent because he can bowl plenty of attacking bowls because it is a TURNING pitch and hence spinners are more dangerous then a pace bowler so it would logical to be cautious against the spinners and are more likely to play a rasher shot off of the pace bowlers. I doubt his statistics would suffer at all because of it.

Murali's record in the subcontient isn't compareable with Warne's because it's flawed due to all of his matches played against Bangladesh & Zimbabwe, so of course his going to have a better record. Murali's extra experience on subcontient tracks is also a factor.

If you're going to keep pulling figures out of your ass, I'm going to be happy to ignore you. I mean, there are just so many things up to subjective opinion in your statement that is no use trying to objectively argue them.

It's logical statistics though. Every innings Murali has bowled in Australia he has conceeded well over 100 runs bar one. Even look at the domestic records, all Sri Lankan spinners have superb FC bowling averages of under 25 whilst bar MacGil all of the Aussie domestic spinners have FC bowling averages of over 40.

Thilan Samaraweera is an example. He averages 23 in FC cricket but is only considered a 'part-timer' in International Cricket while someone like Stuart MacGil who averages 30 in FC cricket is considered a World Class leg-spinner who could've played over 100 Test Matches for any other country but has had to settle for a higher FC bowling average due to the riggers of Australian conditions.

It's also based on some of the innings Warne has bowled where he has collected figures of 0/100+ while bowling on flat surfaces whilst Murali can always relie on assistance from subcontient tracks and pick up very tiddy bowling figures on a quiet day.

 

[Sureshot]

How? The simple fact that they are clueless against quality spin bowling, perhaps? If Murali were to play England as regularly as Warnie did, there is a pretty good chance that he would be miles ahead of the latter at this moment. I think Bangladesh, for one, are far better players of spin than England are, for the most part. It just has to do with the type of bowling they've grown up with. And that's how I can compare England with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Quality spin bowling? Warne and Murali have destroyed practically every single attack iin their time. We're far from clueless against quality spin bowling, we aren't as good as India, but to put us in the same boat as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh is quite frankly, rude.

 

[manee]

Quality spin bowling? Warne and Murali have destroyed practically every single attack iin their time. We're far from clueless against quality spin bowling, we aren't as good as India, but to put us in the same boat as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh is quite frankly, rude.

The correct way of putting it is that English county batsmen are often clueless against the best spin bowling of subcontinental nations, more specifically wrist based off spin. England's national team are fine (not brilliant) at playing any type of spin.

 

[Sureshot]

Murali and Harbajan have had big success granted, Mushy too. I think the teams that have a world class spinner (Us, Lancs with Murali and Surrey when they had Bhajji) all play spin quite well, so I think that if a team has a quality spinner they tend to play spin better. We're improving against spin, the batsman have no choice, more and more pitches are spinning more.

 

[Ponting_14]

Warne, for a few reasons which I'm not going to bring up here.

 

[SciD]

Murli is low on count becauyse of only one reason-----CHUCKING. If I was allowed to bowl with that action I could have had 1000 wickets by now in same tenure.
Another thing in consideration is the quality of attack. Aussies have had best attack for 15 years and have many bowlers who can take wickets in match but for Sri Lanka it has always been Murli and Vaas sharing the scalps.

 

[Sureshot]

Warne, for a few reasons which I'm not going to bring up here.

Why bother posting then, seems a little pointless if you aren't going to give reasons.

I'll also point out that Slats opinion was changed on Murali after viewing the bio-mechanical footage, I believe he was one of the panel who decided the "new" changes.

 

[manee]

Murli is low on count becauyse of only one reason-----CHUCKING. If I was allowed to bowl with that action I could have had 1000 wickets by now in same tenure.

Murali's action is legal...go on, take 1000 wickets...

No! Didn't think so.

 

[SciD]

Murali's action is legal...go on, take 1000 wickets...

No! Didn't think so.

Man if u have ever played cricket and bowled with this type of action you will know that you can bowl doosra, teesra and even chowtha with this action. he should be banned.

 

[Leicester Fox]

You can't bowl with his action without starightening your arm unless you've got a weird arm anyway.