Shane Warne vs Muttiah Muralidharan.Who is better?

[VC the slogger]

Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralidharan.Two of the world's leading spin bowlers of all time,both cricketing legends and spin wizards.Whom do you think is better??

 

[Anjula]

Murali:
ODI Ave:23.08
Test Ave:22.72
ODI SR:35.2
Test SR:55.0
ODI Wickets:534
Test Wickets:800
ODI Econ:3.93
Test Econ:2.47

Warne:
ODI Ave:25.73
Test Ave:25.41
ODI SR:36.3
Test SR:57.4
ODI Wickets:293
Test Wickets:708
ODI Econ:4.25
Test Econ:2.65

Whats more to discuss?
Murali is the best in the two formats

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

oh god. you didn't.

which is the one true religion, islam, hindu, buddhism or christianity would be less controversial (obvioulsy not really)

 

[VC the slogger]

Murali:
ODI Ave:23.08
Test Ave:22.72
ODI SR:35.2
Test SR:55.0
ODI Wickets:534
Test Wickets:800
ODI Econ:3.93
Test Econ:2.47

Warne:
ODI Ave:25.73
Test Ave:25.41
ODI SR:36.3
Test SR:57.4
ODI Wickets:293
Test Wickets:708
ODI Econ:4.25
Test Econ:2.65

Whats more to discuss?
Murali is the best in the two formats

I prefer Shane Warne because he was capable of winning matches for Australia in many crucial matches like 1996 WC Semi-final,1999 Semi-final and Final and in many test matches.Stats don't tell you even half the story my friend

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

what will be interesting is to see how peoples choices pair up with the akram/mcgrath thread as I imagine a lot of mcgrath fans will also be warne fans.

wonder how many, for whom statistical success was imperative over style then will now become connoisseurs of the art of bowling over statistical lies.

 

[Cricketdude]

Murali:
ODI Ave:23.08
Test Ave:22.72
ODI SR:35.2
Test SR:55.0
ODI Wickets:534
Test Wickets:800
ODI Econ:3.93
Test Econ:2.47

Warne:
ODI Ave:25.73
Test Ave:25.41
ODI SR:36.3
Test SR:57.4
ODI Wickets:293
Test Wickets:708
ODI Econ:4.25
Test Econ:2.65

Whats more to discuss?
Murali is the best in the two formats

Warne played on pitches meant for pace.

 

[MUFC1987]

Murali is the best off-spinner of all time.
Warne is the best leg-spinner of all time.

Simples.

 

[Ahmad94]

Controversy, because some people class Murali as a chucker (not me) however in context I believe Shane Warne was harder to play because he seem to spin it big on some pitch, however Murali was the one who got the most wickets. The both came when the team had a few legends, and they stood out. You can't compare them. Its like someone saying who is better Afridi or Dhoni, it depends on the situation and what the did in they situation. Murali may have got more wicket but Warne performed better under pressure which makes him in my opinion a better bowler however you can't deny they are both legends

 

[ArcherMcKinley]

MUFC1987 deserves a pat on the back.
--
@Ahmad: I think Murali was harder to play against - because he bowled with a lot more consistency than Warne. I think you've got it mixed up a bit

Warne was quite in-consistent, at-least early on in his spell and him being hit for the most number of sixes proves my point. And pressure? Warne was barely under any pressure, except during the Ashes in 2005 & a few other occasions where he had to bat to save the team from some pretty crunchy situations.

But gosh, Warne is just so hard not to like though. And there are quite a few reasons why he's still my favourite cricketer. Warne also produced some of the best deliveries I've ever seen being bowled.
--
____
Oh and did I mention that Warne was extremely useful lower down the order, as a batsmen.

 

[Anjula]

I believe Shane Warne was harder to play because he seem to spin it big on some pitch

Murali can spin it bigger than Warne on any pitch.

 

[ArcherMcKinley]

Murali can spin it bigger than Warne on any pitch.

That is just wrong. Warne gets a-lot of turn on most pitches if not all.. and I don't think this even deserves a debate. He's the king of spin.

 

[Aswin8]

Murali can spin it bigger than Warne on any pitch.

but we know that warne had spinned the ball highest than anyone..isn't it?

 

[sifter132]

what will be interesting is to see how peoples choices pair up with the akram/mcgrath thread as I imagine a lot of mcgrath fans will also be warne fans.

wonder how many, for whom statistical success was imperative over style then will now become connoisseurs of the art of bowling over statistical lies.

Hmm yes exactly. If you are a stat rat, then McGrath and Murali should be your choices. If you are a lover of style, then Akram and Warne. If you are Aussie biased it will be McGrath and Warne, if you are anti-Aussie it will be Akram and Murali

Although in saying that, Murali's statistical record is often picked apart for his record away from home and his many wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, to the point where I personally think that statistically he and Warne are about equal (in Tests at least). I guess I tend to cop out and argue that if their bowling was about equal then Warne was the better cricketer because of his extra batting and slips catching, plus his captaincy too I guess.

 

[Anjula]

Hmm yes exactly. If you are a stat rat, then McGrath and Murali should be your choices. If you are a lover of style, then Akram and Warne. If you are Aussie biased it will be McGrath and Warne, if you are anti-Aussie it will be Akram and Murali

I like all three of them.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I guess I tend to cop out and argue that if their bowling was about equal then Warne was the better cricketer because of his extra batting and slips catching, plus his captaincy too I guess.

I often wonder why murali was never ever in the frame for the sri lanka captaincy. warne similarly never came into the equation for captaining australia but australia also have a policy of retaining a captain for a long stretch, once he missed out to ponting he never had a look in, but sri lanka have a much shorter turn over and he was so obviously their best player for long stretches.

from what I've heard he's hardly a shrinking violet, most players, both sri lankans and team mates at lancs have said in training and the dressing room he never shuts up.

also, it's pretty obvious he had some tactical nous, and I think for most of the 00s I never saw his captain once set his field, he was left to do as he pleased.

was it that sri lanka never wanted to burden their star player? or his dressing room demeanor was too jovial and light hearted (although surely not more jovial than warne's who was regarded as fine captaincy material)?