Murali v Warne

[ivanvdm15]

so if you tell me he would have got alot of wickets in domestic cricket , Australia wouldn't have picked him.

 

[SciD]

so if you tell me he would have got alot of wickets in domestic cricket , Australia wouldn't have picked him.

If u have clean action and picking wickets then why would your board overlook you? And beside he is off spinner not leg spinner.

 

[ivanvdm15]

i never said he's a leg spinner?

 

[aussie_ben91]

If you think Murali only has better statistics because he played on subcontinental wickets, then you are just ballistic. If you're not going to give him any credit at all, then you are also similarly ballistic. Warne learned how to shield himself on Australian surfaces which is exactly why he has better stats than Murali in Australia.

Nothing ballistic about it, it's just common sense...

It is just logical that staticially it has always been more difficult for spinners to bowl in Australia then in the subcontient. I showed an example earlier of a Sri Lankan batsman (Thilan Samaraweera) who has a fantastic bowling FC record (Even better then Warne's) who is considered nothing more then a part-timer in International cricket. Bowlers like Cullen Bailey & Dan Cullen are probably better then Samaraweera but instead have bowling averages over 40 while I'm sure they'd relish bowling in the conditions that subcontient spinners get the chance to experience.

Murali has used bowling in Sri Lanka to his advantage to better his records against all countries except 1 or 2.

He has also played more then half of his matches against England & South Africa in Sri Lanka anyway and has yet to play over 10 Test's in another country other then Sri Lanka.

And Murali didn't get to feast on just weak batting line-ups. Murali has been tremendously successful against almost all batting line-ups. Even against subcontinental ones who are supposed to be used to some of those tracks. If you really think that all of Murali's wickets came from helpful pitches rather than some of his skill, then you are, unfortunately, quite an idiot.

Yeah, that's why all of his records against all countries in Sri Lanka are clearly superior to when his touring another country. We've seen just effective Murali has been against a quality batting lineup on a pitch that doesn't offer to much for the spinners in the last couple of weeks.

I'd hardly class an average of 32 as 'tremedously successful' against India.

I'd also like to thankyou for putting words into my mouth, I never said Murali lacked skill but I am just merely proving why logically Murali has better statistics then Warne.

You make me laugh.

Also, the thing is, Warne didn't bowl to the Aussies. He did not play against the world champions. I know that's due to no fault of his own, but if he had to bowl against the likes of Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist maybe his stats would've worsened.

Most of Murali's matches against Australia have been played in Sri Lanka. You don't think that Warne playing Test Matches against India in Australia took a toll on his statistics? Because it seems a more difficult task.

 

[usy]

warne is a better bowler coz he doesn't chuck

your little brother chuks.

warne prob bowld the best ever bowl murli just chucks

so if he didn?t "chuck" he'd wip off Warney?? is that what your saying? Not that I?m comparing both, because both are equally same to me. But cant you guys think of better excuse then I?ll agree with you guys.

 

[SciD]

Warne = 50%
Murli == 50%
End of discussion. Discussion only kept alive by Aussies.

 

[Will_NA]

And a few Englishmen, Asians, Saffas...

 

[manee]

And a few Englishmen, Asians, Saffas...

Not to forget me, a fine mix of the first two categories

 

[SciD]

Discuss something new like warneys ad capaign for beer.

 

[irottev]

Also, the thing is, Warne didn't bowl to the Aussies. He did not play against the world champions. I know that's due to no fault of his own, but if he had to bowl against the likes of Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist maybe his stats would've worsened.

Yeah, that's true, though maybe if Warne had played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as much as Murili did, he'd have a much better record. t goes both ways.

 

[Master Khan]

I think Murali is better because he took way more wickets then Shane Warne.

 

[sohum]

Yeah, that's why all of his records against all countries in Sri Lanka are clearly superior to when his touring another country. We've seen just effective Murali has been against a quality batting lineup on a pitch that doesn't offer to much for the spinners in the last couple of weeks.

And how successful would Warne have been if he was bowling against a similar batting line-up in similar conditions, keeping in mind that he probably knows the tracks inside and out seeing that he grew up on them?

I'd hardly class an average of 32 as 'tremedously successful' against India.

Obviously you wouldn't because looking at the context would mean that your argument would fall flat on its face. Murali bowled against some of the best players of spin in India--Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly (who're still around) and a lot of players in the early 90's. In that context, an average of 32 as a spin bowler against India is "tremendously successful", especially given that Sri Lanka were the whipping boys of international test cricket for a while.

I'd also like to thankyou for putting words into my mouth, I never said Murali lacked skill but I am just merely proving why logically Murali has better statistics then Warne.

You're welcome. It is obviously not purely logic because you have failed to come up with a logical explanation of (1) why you think Warnie would have been more successful in Sri Lanka if he had played more, (2) why Murali not playing regularly in Australia doesn't have a similar effect on his stats, (3) why the fact that Warne plays regular 3-5 match test series against weaker players of spin is irrelevant and (4) why the fact that Murali only really plays 2-match series' is irrelevant.

You make me laugh.

Can't say the same about you.

 

[Hooper]

I think Murali is better because he took way more wickets then Shane Warne.

SMH...

 

[aussie_ben91]

And how successful would Warne have been if he was bowling against a similar batting line-up in similar conditions, keeping in mind that he probably knows the tracks inside and out seeing that he grew up on them?

I'm not saying Warne would've done massively better then Murali but instead saying Murali is getting a taste of what it's like to bowl on a surface that doesn't favourite the spinners.

Obviously you wouldn't because looking at the context would mean that your argument would fall flat on its face. Murali bowled against some of the best players of spin in India--Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly (who're still around) and a lot of players in the early 90's. In that context, an average of 32 as a spin bowler against India is "tremendously successful", especially given that Sri Lanka were the whipping boys of international test cricket for a while.

Yeah because it's allot more easier to bowl in India & Sri Lanka opposed to bowling in India & Australia against India.

You're welcome. It is obviously not purely logic because you have failed to come up with a logical explanation of (1) why you think Warnie would have been more successful in Sri Lanka if he had played more, (2) why Murali not playing regularly in Australia doesn't have a similar effect on his stats, (3) why the fact that Warne plays regular 3-5 match test series against weaker players of spin is irrelevant and (4) why the fact that Murali only really plays 2-match series' is irrelevant.

I've come up with logical explanations for all of them actually. Go read over my posts, Sri Lankan spinners have brilliant FC records but Australian spinners have dismisal records. Apart from Warne & MacGil no spinner has a FC bowl average of under 35 which goes to show you how difficult it is for spinners in Australia. Had Murali bowled the majority of his career in Australia like Warne has he wouldn't have a shocking record but it diffenately wouldn't of been as good as his current record is now.

Also Murali has played far weaker opposition then Warne as regulary on conditions which favour Murali and not so much Warne. Not the otherway round.

 

[Sureshot]

Despite all my defending of Murali's action in this thread, I'd go for Warne, there's not much in it. But I think Warne is always 'in it', Murali at times can go into hiding, like he has in this test series, Warne has a bit of a better brain at thinking "Right, he's on top of me, what can I do?". Both great bowlers.