Murali v Warne

[handsome]

Well, Murali and Warne are two greatest spin bowlers undoubtedly. You really can't compare the two bowlers cause they have bowled agaist different oppositions and with different conditions. Murali for one has bowled to some of the great Australian batting era while Warne hasn't. But warne has more wickets agaist quality sides. I think both are great and comparison between them is srupid and incredibly childish. Both deserve the same honour and recognition. I'd say Warne could have been a better role model in terms of his social life where murali scores over him.

 

[Gilly Fan]

Murali at 2000 frames per second

Basically the ball of the century the opposite way round.

Murali vs Warne

Murali bowling leg Spin!!


All links for videos! They are both greats of the game!

How's the 2nd one the ball of the century? He didn't even play a shot.

And just wait for the Copyright police to get onto you.

It was a very tough decision, but I voted for Muttiah Muralidaran as the better bowler. Some may say it is irrelevant, but I think the amount he has had to deal with, like the rubbish about his action, affects his bowling and he has done brilliantly considering. Shane Warne didn't have to contend with that, as he created his own problems and most of the public liked him.

The number of wickets Muralidaran has taken against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe made me believe that Warne was the better bowler, but in all honesty Muralidaran has not had as many chances as Warne to bowl at the top teams. Warne had the chance to bowl at England every two years for example, Muralidaran every four years, if that. You can only bowl at what is in front of you!

Warne also seemed to crumble under pressure. Take the 2nd Ashes Test in 2005 for instance. He was being smacked around by the batsmen with ease and he looked clueless, looking to others for help. Muralidaran never looks to get in that sort of situation.

One of the most prominent and difficult questions in cricket, this one.

Crumble under pressure? Numerous times he has won Australia test.

2nd test of last Ashes, he won us the game.

And in that test mate, he fricken took 10 wickets!

England Second innings. 23.3 overs 6 wickets for 46 runs. You're funny.
First hinnings he went at around 5 an over, but still took 4 wickets. Everyone else got smashed that innings aswell.

I've seen that before, that's awesome!

 

[m_vaughan]

I don't think so, you have listed several reasons why Muralitharan is the better bowler - there is not one area of performance where Warne is better than Murali.

One area that I think Warne is better than Murali (as mentioned in my previous post) is his ability to outthink the batsman.

The Aussies keep saying that if you dont consider Murali's wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, then Warne has better (in terms of amount) stats. But my question is why shouldnt you consider?

Skateboarder is absolutely spot on when he says - you can only bowl at what is front of you. Australia get to play England, South Africa and New Zealand a lot more often than Sri Lanka, so Warne gets to bowl at them more.

And even against the top sides, Murali has been good.

Warne
[COLOR=red]Murali[/COLOR]
 
against England
Mat    O       R   W   BBI    BBM     Ave  Econ    SR  5 10
36 1792.5  4535 195  8/71  12/246  23.25  2.52  55.1 11  4
[COLOR=#ff0000]13  914.5  1836  93  9/65  16/220  19.74  2.00  59.0  6  4[/COLOR]
 
[COLOR=black]against South Africa[/COLOR]
24 1321.2  3142 130  7/56  12/128  24.16  2.37  60.9  7  2
[COLOR=#ff0000]15  984.4  2311 104  7/84  13/171  22.22  2.34  56.8 11  4[/COLOR]
 
[COLOR=black]against New Zealand[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000][COLOR=#000000]20  961.4  2511 103  6/31   9/67   24.37  2.61  56.0  3  0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000]12  630.2  1449  69  6/87  10/118  21.00  2.29  54.8  5  1[/COLOR][/COLOR]
 
[COLOR=black]against India[/COLOR]
14  654.1  2029  43  6/125  6/113  47.18  3.10  91.2  1  0
[COLOR=#ff0000]15  795.4  2176  67  8/87  11/196  32.47  2.73  71.2  4  1[/COLOR]
 
against Pakistan
15  675.1  1816  90  7/23  11/77   20.17  2.68  45.0  6  2
[COLOR=#ff0000]14  713.1  1842  79  6/71  10/148  23.31  2.58  54.1  5  1[/COLOR]

So Murali beats Warne in most occasions in terms of wickets per run conceded, wickets per number of deliveries and economy rate.


Also one must not forget that Warne was a part of a deadly bowling attack that constantly put the opposition under pressure. Murali, however, had to, on most occasions, create this pressure all by himself. Again this is not Warne's fault that he was in a very good team, but still it does give him an advantage. So both have had favourable factors which cancel out in the end.

Also since the ICC did change the rules (whether it was correct in doing so is a different matter altogether), I dont see any reason why his wickets must not be considered after 2004.

 

[mattfb]

Brilliant.

 

[aussie_ben91]

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.

It's probably a ploy from the other team if anything seeing as Murali is CLEARLY the best bowler in the team that it would only seem logical to see off his 10 overs and target the other bowlers in the team. Hence the low economy rate. Warne has had other great bowlers along side him so he has had to be attacked. When Murali was attacked and came up against Symonds & the rest of the Aussie unit a few years ago in a ODI against Australia in Australia he recieved figures of 0/99 off 10.

You can't judge who the better bowler is via from statistics anyway because Murali's bowled nearly all of his career on turning wickets while Warne hasn't had that priviledge all that often.

Even Stuart MacGil who has been considered a world-class spin bowler and who could've easily wrapped up 100 Tests caps if he had've played in any other country by now has a bowling average of 30 in First-Class cricket (And this is against FC opposition not Test opposition) and other spinning options in Australia really struggle to have a bowling average of under 40 in FC cricket whilst their are many spinners in Sri Lanka who average around 20 with the bowl in FC cricket who can't seem to make the Sri Lankan side. I think this indicates how much more difficult it is to bowl in Australia then it is in Sri Lanka.

 

[Hooper]

One area that I think Warne is better than Murali (as mentioned in my previous post) is his ability to outthink the batsman.

The Aussies keep saying that if you dont consider Murali's wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, then Warne has better (in terms of amount) stats. But my question is why shouldnt you consider?

Skateboarder is absolutely spot on when he says - you can only bowl at what is front of you. Australia get to play England, South Africa and New Zealand a lot more often than Sri Lanka, so Warne gets to bowl at them more.

And even against the top sides, Murali has been good.

Warne
[COLOR=red]Murali[/COLOR]
 
against England
Mat    O       R   W   BBI    BBM     Ave  Econ    SR  5 10
36 1792.5  4535 195  8/71  12/246  23.25  2.52  55.1 11  4
[COLOR=#ff0000]13  914.5  1836  93  9/65  16/220  19.74  2.00  59.0  6  4[/COLOR]
 
[COLOR=black]against South Africa[/COLOR]
24 1321.2  3142 130  7/56  12/128  24.16  2.37  60.9  7  2
[COLOR=#ff0000]15  984.4  2311 104  7/84  13/171  22.22  2.34  56.8 11  4[/COLOR]
 
[COLOR=black]against New Zealand[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000][COLOR=#000000]20  961.4  2511 103  6/31   9/67   24.37  2.61  56.0  3  0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000]12  630.2  1449  69  6/87  10/118  21.00  2.29  54.8  5  1[/COLOR][/COLOR]
 
[COLOR=black]against India[/COLOR]
14  654.1  2029  43  6/125  6/113  47.18  3.10  91.2  1  0
[COLOR=#ff0000]15  795.4  2176  67  8/87  11/196  32.47  2.73  71.2  4  1[/COLOR]
 
against Pakistan
15  675.1  1816  90  7/23  11/77   20.17  2.68  45.0  6  2
[COLOR=#ff0000]14  713.1  1842  79  6/71  10/148  23.31  2.58  54.1  5  1[/COLOR]

So Murali beats Warne in most occasions in terms of wickets per run conceded, wickets per number of deliveries and economy rate.


Also one must not forget that Warne was a part of a deadly bowling attack that constantly put the opposition under pressure. Murali, however, had to, on most occasions, create this pressure all by himself. Again this is not Warne's fault that he was in a very good team, but still it does give him an advantage. So both have had favourable factors which cancel out in the end.

Also since the ICC did change the rules (whether it was correct in doing so is a different matter altogether), I dont see any reason why his wickets must not be considered after 2004.

Because before 04 he was breaking the rules and then they extended the rules so conveniently to one more degree then he bowled (15 degrees).
Yeah, but 10 wickets are taken in a match to end an innings. Warne had to contend with awesome wicket takers like McGrath, Gillespie, McDermott and co. for them 10 wickets. Murali has a license to kill and normally bowls to all 11 batsman, doesn't have to contend with another great wicket taker in the SL bowling attack.

 

[Gilly Fan]

It's probably a ploy from the other team if anything seeing as Murali is CLEARLY the best bowler in the team that it would only seem logical to see off his 10 overs and target the other bowlers in the team. Hence the low economy rate. Warne has had other great bowlers along side him so he has had to be attacked. When Murali was attacked and came up against Symonds & the rest of the Aussie unit a few years ago in a ODI against Australia in Australia he recieved figures of 0/99 off 10.

You can't judge who the better bowler is via from statistics anyway because Murali's bowled nearly all of his career on turning wickets while Warne hasn't had that priviledge all that often.

Even Stuart MacGil who has been considered a world-class spin bowler and who could've easily wrapped up 100 Tests caps if he had've played in any other country by now has a bowling average of 30 in First-Class cricket (And this is against FC opposition not Test opposition) and other spinning options in Australia really struggle to have a bowling average of under 40 in FC cricket whilst their are many spinners in Sri Lanka who average around 20 with the bowl in FC cricket who can't seem to make the Sri Lankan side. I think this indicates how much more difficult it is to bowl in Australia then it is in Sri Lanka.

Really? Because I do remember that Murali was smashed for 99 runs once in an ODI against us.

 

[Cricketdude]

Yeah and look at the overs Murali had to ball

 

[Ollie_H]

Genius whoever made it!

How's the 2nd one the ball of the century? He didn't even play a shot.

And just wait for the Copyright police to get onto you.

Ok well the second is like the Warne's ball to Strauss.
Copyright Police- Come get some!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is a heated debate and a very good debate at that. Warne is 37 years old and has now retired. Murali is 34 years old and says he has a few years in him.
Lets take a look at the facts;
Warne has bowled 40,705 balls and has taken 699 wickets this means that he takes a wicket every 57 balls. Murali has bowled 37,382 balls and has taken 700 wickets this makes that he takes a wicket every 53 balls. Clearly murali will then take more wickets than shane warne if he retires at the same age.
So Warne has bowled 40,705 balls and murali has bowled 37,382 this means warne has bowled more balls then murali.So if we take these 3,323 more balls and divide that by murali's wicket per how many balls avergae murali will have taken another 62 wickets by the time he gets to the amount of balls warne has bowled by now surley this means murali is on course for an amazing feat.
Warne averages about 5 wickets per match, Murali averages 6 wickets per match. This is another stat where murali is greater.
Records Against teams:
Team Murali Warne
Bang 12.52 27.27
Engl 19.74 23.43
Indi 32.47 47.18
NewZ 21.00 24.37
Pak 23.31 20.17
S.A 22.22 24.16
W.I 17.34 29.95
Zimb 16.86 22.83
(all are bowling averages of home and away series as of Dec21st 2006. They're probably nearer the same as neither will have played many more)
This means that on avergae murali wins that with 7 better averages than shane only beatimng murali once(7-1)

Both careers have been marred by controversy with murali and his chuck personally i think its fine as he has been checked over and over again and even took himself down there without being told to the thing that seems to slip everybodys mind is warnes ban for drugs some more controversy in warnes career is his over apealiing which some umpires seem to complain about.

Also in the sub continent with over 100 wickets comin against Minnows (india pakistan and sri lanka) murali has taken 406 wickets in sri lanka,49 in pakistan, 31 in india and 3 in australia(only played 2 tests there)
warne has taken 37 wickets in sri lanka,18 against pakistan,35 against india and has taken 310 wickets in australia

This was an article i wrote on 606 on BBC.

 

[charith]

Because before 04 he was breaking the rules and then they extended the rules so conveniently to one more degree then he bowled (15 degrees).
Yeah, but 10 wickets are taken in a match to end an innings. Warne had to contend with awesome wicket takers like McGrath, Gillespie, McDermott and co. for them 10 wickets. Murali has a license to kill and normally bowls to all 11 batsman, doesn't have to contend with another great wicket taker in the SL bowling attack.

Actually he only started bowling the doosra around that time in 2004 when he had to get tested again and they found it was 14 degrees. before that he only had the offie and the top spinner both which were comfortably under 5 degrees. Based on that i don't think you should ask 12 years of international test wickets 1992-2004 taken away. quite absurd.

 

[Monty57]

Warne- Because he changed the world of spin bowling and looks alot better than Murali does. Also becuase some of the balls he balled are amazing hes a character and a stand out player.

 

[Dare]

So because Murali can get wickets against Zimb and Bang, he is the best? I don't think so!

well if he strugled against those 2 sides and his average against Zimb/Bang was lets say 25 all of you Murali haters would be quick to point that out and say "hes not so great he cant get wickets against the weakest test nations", all im saying is that a great player is expected to dominate weak sides. just like the US in basketball is expected to dominate everyone but at almost every championship one side comes along beats them and they question if the US is relaly that good.

and also Warne played about 20+ tests more than Murli. Murli has caried a national side ever since he played his 1st test, he almost singe handedly put Sri Lanka on the map and brought them numeruos victories.

to those who say the ICC changed the rule to make his action legal, just remeber that if things stayed as they did even Warne and McGrath actions wouldnt be legal as they bend their arms too and just about every bowler out there does.

this topic was created to argue about what these 2 great players did and which one is better and some of you cant read because the 1st thing you posted was "he chucks", "his action isnt legal", read the 1st post it says leave all the drugs and throwing isues out but some of you are too hard headed to understand that. i didnt see that many people who suport Murli bring up Warnes drug problem thing and whatever hapend with that. and whoever made that pic dont know crap about baseball.

 

[Adarsh]

To most of the Aussies out there, do you know that McGrath and Lee were also chucking under the previous law ?

 

[Animator!]

Personally I believe its Warne. I feel he's more of a skilled bowler, and a greater bowler for the want of a better phrase. Both of them deserve all the plaudits that they get of course, they're both giants and legend of the modern game. I just feel the Muralitharan, to his credit, exploits a genetic deformity that he has enabling him to do things that normal off-spinners simply cannot even dream of. Whereas Warne doesn't have that as a trump card, so I believe on the basis, that Warne is a "normal human being" he is the better of the two.

 

[Hooper]

To most of the Aussies out there, do you know that McGrath and Lee were also chucking under the previous law ?

To all people who have seen Murali live know he still chucks?

Seriously, it doesn't matter what the ICC did for him (extending the degrees allowed when bowling) you can still tell that he chucks. But anyways, yeah, as Animator said, Warne wasn't blessed with a crook arm that let him do extraordinary things with his arm and wrist. He had to learn and teach himself to rip big leggies and bowl well. I think Murali has had it easy with his wacky action and dodgy arm helping him..