Shane Warne vs Muttiah Muralidharan.Who is better?

[sifter132]

Well I think the point is that Malinga's not breaking the law, but his unique action helps him. I think it's the same for Mitchell Johnson, who is a bit round arm himself and it seems batsmen fish after the ball a bit more frequently when he's bowling. Casting aside the throwing issue - then I think Murali would have been similar. Just something unique in his action that throws off the batsmen just that little bit. Paul Adams wasn't particularly good, but got a lot of wickets because of his uniqueness.

Anyway, I don't see why it's a reason to look down on someone. A) it's hard to measure what advantage these 'weird' bowlers get - so to say they get some advantage is an unmeasurable claim - might be true, but no one can prove it, and B) the fact that these guys got to the top despite their unorthodox style is actually a great reflection on their determination and ability to defy coaches and critics.

 

[Owzat]

Well I think the point is that Malinga's not breaking the law, but his unique action helps him. I think it's the same for Mitchell Johnson, who is a bit round arm himself and it seems batsmen fish after the ball a bit more frequently when he's bowling. Casting aside the throwing issue - then I think Murali would have been similar. Just something unique in his action that throws off the batsmen just that little bit. Paul Adams wasn't particularly good, but got a lot of wickets because of his uniqueness.

Anyway, I don't see why it's a reason to look down on someone. A) it's hard to measure what advantage these 'weird' bowlers get - so to say they get some advantage is an unmeasurable claim - might be true, but no one can prove it, and B) the fact that these guys got to the top despite their unorthodox style is actually a great reflection on their determination and ability to defy coaches and critics.

Spot on, it isn't necessarily that the laws make their bowling 'illegal' but doesn't mean they don't gain an advantage. Just imagine a right arm quick bowling round the wicket with the ball out at 90 degrees to the body to a right hander. The ball would start maybe 1-2 metres behind the batsman's legs, he'd probably be advised to adjust his stance which is immediately an advantage to the bowler and have the ball coming across him at a very unusual angle. If the batsman had faced a lot of such bowling in county cricket and as a youngster then he might be ok.

I don't think there's much doubt they gain an advantage due to lack of familiarity, you do wonder if they'd be as 'potent' if they had to bowl 'orthodox' style. Is it really 'fair' that they bowl that way when everyone else bowls 'textbook' ? I suppose you could say the same of dyslexics who get help and extra time in exams.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

that's a completely weird way of looking at it though. you'd never hear chanderpauls stance talked about as an advantage because it's not orthodox. hell, it's not that far from saying a left handed player as an unfair advantage because left handed bowlers and batsmen are (or were anyway) less common.

saying it's the same as dyslexics is downright silly.

 

[sifter132]

Well actually, before the last 20 or so years where left handers became way more common, left handers WERE seen to be worth more than right handers. I remember Richie Benaud (perhaps? - damn memory...) talking about it. He was saying that if a left and right hander were of equal ability, then the leftie would always get a spot, and sometimes even if the leftie wasn't quite as good.

 

[cric xfactor]

definitely WARNE because he spinned too much that means if he bowled at the end of leg side it would turn to off stump
he was he greatest spinner of all time

 

[Sahil 7]

for me murali is the best in the world and best spinner of all time

 

[vorgaphe]

Shane Warne had to share with McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and more, he also had to bowl on more difficult pitches against better sides in a shorter career. Warne was also a good batsman and slip fielder. Also, no matter how much I want to like Murali everytime I look at his action it does look like he's chucking and it doesn't seem fair. I don't support either team so I have an unbiased view but I think that Warne's ability to change the game in an instant makes him more valuable than Murali.

 

[Owzat]

One thing we'll never know is whether or not Murali would have taken as many/any wickets if he didn't have his bowling action as was. Whether you consider it chucking or not, it cannot be entire coincidence he took 800 wickets.

Helped of course that he took 90+ wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and played so much in Sri Lanka, outside his comfort zone he was no more deadly than Warne.

 

[Satan666]

I will go with Warney since he is a bowler while Murali is not.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

One thing we'll never know is whether or not Murali would have taken as many/any wickets if he didn't have his bowling action as was. Whether you consider it chucking or not, it cannot be entire coincidence he took 800 wickets.

we could ask the same of literally any bowler ever.

 

[Paki007]

I'll simply go with Warne being a more experienced player.

Yeah Murali has started his career just yesterday


Well BTW i would also go with Warne because of his massive swings

 

[Epic]

Murali for me.

 

[Ahmad94]

You can't compare them. Murali performed better for Sri Lanka, while because of GIlchrist,Hayden, Ponting, Mcgrath. Less pressure on Warne so he performed better

In my opinion it has to be Murali

 

[AnasK]

Murli for me! He has better average than Shane.