Murali v Warne

[Dare]

for all you people that cant read, the topic is called Murali vs Warne (whos a better spinner) not Murali vs Warne ( and most of you say Murali chucks so Warne is better). Just state your opinion, who is a better spinner dont bring all that other stuff in, as Manee stated Muralis average is lower than Warnes against all sides except Pakistan. By the time hes gone out of the game he will be the record holder for most wickets and is a better bowler.

 

[baburao]

Who have a better record against India?Its Murali.But Warne can spin the ball on any surface.Both are good.And its foolish to compare a leg spinner with an off spinner.

 

[Hooper]

I think the general consensus is that if your Australian then Warne's better.

Not really, there are quite a few English and Indian fans who have said they rate Warne as the better player so far.

A_Whitey - that was a class post. Well said, especially about the fact that Murali has 100 wickets against Zimb/Ban compared to Warne's 13.

Oh and I think Murali needs to harden the ____ up, he doesn't get racially abused. Hes just scared of the crowd going "NOOO BALLLL".

 

[Griffo]

Making fun of someone's deformity or their race is not part of the game.

Of course its not but it HAPPENS! he cant possibly think touring Australia is worse and more intimidating than when the Aussies tour India, Sachin Tendulkar used to say he loved it because he could walk down the street in freedom in Australia same with Brian Lara

 

[khan31]

You can't say one is better than the other. It all depends on match situatuions, quality of your keeper (look at danish kaneria and kamran akmal), quality of teammates etc. The better your team the more easier life will be as you will have less pressure situations (eg forced to keeps run rate down etc)

Also it depends who performs on the night. Warne may bowl brilliantly one day and have all the luck go his way but other times he may have dropped catches etc. Its too difficult to compare two greats.

(Warne is better lol I messed up my vote)

 

[Cricketdude]

Kahn messing up your vote is a massive mistake in this thread

 

[Dare]

Not really, there are quite a few English and Indian fans who have said they rate Warne as the better player so far.

A_Whitey - that was a class post. Well said, especially about the fact that Murali has 100 wickets against Zimb/Ban compared to Warne's 13.

Oh and I think Murali needs to harden the ____ up, he doesn't get racially abused. Hes just scared of the crowd going "NOOO BALLLL".

i gues Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are too good for warne than since he can only get 13 wickets against those 2 sides lol, i kno Murali probably played more matches against those 2 but if you look at it Murali is a monster against all the other sides and than he absolutely dominates Zim/Ban which you would expect of him.

its not his fault that hes played those 2 sides so many times, i think it goes to his credit that he has so many wickets against those 2 sides. if Murali strugles against the likes of Zim/Ban than apsolutely everyone would say that Warne is better, but because he owns those 2 every chance he gets he prooves his dominance as the best spinner in cricket.

 

[Hooper]

i gues Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are too good for warne than since he can only get 13 wickets against those 2 sides lol, i kno Murali probably played more matches against those 2 but if you look at it Murali is a monster against all the other sides and than he absolutely dominates Zim/Ban which you would expect of him.

its not his fault that hes played those 2 sides so many times, i think it goes to his credit that he has so many wickets against those 2 sides. if Murali strugles against the likes of Zim/Ban than apsolutely everyone would say that Warne is better, but because he owns those 2 every chance he gets he prooves his dominance as the best spinner in cricket.

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

 

[smssia0112]

Muralitharan is the better bowler, he takes more wickets, goes for less runs, builds more pressure - he gets my vote.

However, whereas Muralitharan has an entire arm deformed to the art of spin bowling, Warne has developed his variations with a normal body part. His slider is genius. Warne has mastered the difficult art of leg spin, the revolutions he puts on the ball and the effort is visible. Each wicket of Warne's is earnt through long hard spells or a delivery which has either taken much effort or much thought.

Yes, Muralitharan is the better bowler and anyone disputing that is insane but Warne posesses a genius which transends statistics and is the reason why many regard him as one of the best spin bowlers ever.

I'm sorry, but that is one of the worst comments I have ever read. It is a very tight battle, and statistics do not mean everything.

As I have said before, if you take out wickets against Zimababwe and Bangladesh not only is Warne a considerable way ahead of Muralidaran, but so is Glenn McGrath (by a little bit).

Both are excellent bowlers, but anyone who calls Warne better is insane suddenly? I think that that is much more extreme than most of the Aussies on here.

No matter how many wickets Muralidaran ends up with, they should be judged on their bowling, not their results. And as far as bowling goes, I agree with the sentiment that Warne's genius in combination with his excellent bowling skill makes him a better bowler.

The fact that he has played on tougher pitches against tougher opposition also makes it harder for him to get better statistics.

A test match is a test match, no?

Also, with the exception of Pakistan (by which Warne's average is 2 lower than Muralitharan), Muralitharan has performed better against all test nations than Warne.

Another strange statement. Surely you are not suggesting that a test on a terrible pitch that is turning a mile against Bangladesh is the same class as playing on a hard pitch against England or another quality side?

As for your second comment, in what? Wickets or average? Like I said before, statistics do not tell a whole story.

Another easily underrated fact is that the Aussie dominance comes, in a HUGE part, because of the pressure that their bowlers are putting on the opposition. With Shane Warne outwitting the batsmen and frustrating them on a frequent basis, he can often get the batsmen to go after his bowling partner at the time, which often leads to wickets. He also often weakens them mentally, causing them to bat worse.

Without Warne, I daresay that other bowlers such as Lee would not be quite as succesful. McGrath is also quite resposible for Lee's success. With such great backups, even bowlers who, to me, are not really superstars, (Kasprowicz was never really a great bowler either) start to perform better.

Warne's impact goes beyond his statistics, that's for sure.

I think the general consensus is that if your Australian then Warne's better.

Obviously, there aren't enough Sri Lankan fans to balance out that bias, but there are still a lot of others voting for Warne who aren't Australian.

 

[manee]

I'm sorry, but that is one of the worst comments I have ever read. It is a very tight battle, and statistics do not mean everything.

Muralitharan is the far better bowler. He gets more wickets, spearheads the attack with noone to help him, goes for under 4 an over in ODIs. He is the better performer.

As I have said before, if you take out wickets against Zimababwe and Bangladesh not only is Warne a considerable way ahead of Muralidaran, but so is Glenn McGrath (by a little bit).

Both are excellent bowlers, but anyone who calls Warne better is insane suddenly? I think that that is much more extreme than most of the Aussies on here.

You have mentioned Aussies there and immediately you have admitted that few non Aussies rate Muralitharan as the better bowler.

No matter how many wickets Muralidaran ends up with, they should be judged on their bowling, not their results.

Why not? You don't pick a bowler to bowl the Gatting ball, you pick him to get wickets for a low cost, no matter how they do it.

The fact that he has played on tougher pitches against tougher opposition also makes it harder for him to get better statistics.

Maybe the pitches Warne played on were made to look tougher because he could not spin it on those pitches when it is highly known that Muralitharan can spin it on any surface. I would not like to see spin it on glass because with all the cracks, I feel it would be easy:

Another strange statement. Surely you are not suggesting that a test on a terrible pitch that is turning a mile against Bangladesh is the same class as playing on a hard pitch against England or another quality side?

You can't believe that two players in the same era (give or take 5 years) who have both played official test cricket have faced such different opposition on such different pitches.

As for your second comment, in what? Wickets or average? Like I said before, statistics do not tell a whole story.

Another easily underrated fact is that the Aussie dominance comes, in a HUGE part, because of the pressure that their bowlers are putting on the opposition. With Shane Warne outwitting the batsmen and frustrating them on a frequent basis, he can often get the batsmen to go after his bowling partner at the time, which often leads to wickets. He also often weakens them mentally, causing them to bat worse.

True, in theory but I have rarely see batsman ever 'go after' a non spinner. Do batsman often get out slogging McGrath? No, they get out blocking the length ball.

Without Warne, I daresay that other bowlers such as Lee would not be quite as succesful. McGrath is also quite resposible for Lee's success. With such great backups, even bowlers who, to me, are not really superstars, (Kasprowicz was never really a great bowler either) start to perform better.

Warne's impact goes beyond his statistics, that's for sure.

Obviously, there aren't enough Sri Lankan fans to balance out that bias, but there are still a lot of others voting for Warne who aren't Australian.

You talk about Warne building pressure but it is surely harder to take the wickets yourself considering the limited support Muralitharan has had. Chaminda Vaas is the closest thing to support and not only is he awful on his off day but he is also uneffective often without the new ball.

Small note that it is good to have an intelligent Aussie member for a change

 

[Hooper]

Muralitharan is the far better bowler. He gets more wickets, spearheads the attack with noone to help him, goes for under 4 an over in ODIs. He is the better performer.

No, he isn't better. He gets all the wickets because he plays on pitches tailor made for him, bowls the majority of his teams overs and he isn't the better "performer" Warne performs on the big stage like no one else.

Maybe the pitches Warne played on were made to look tougher because he could not spin it on those pitches when it is highly known that Muralitharan can spin it on any surface. I would not like to see spin it on glass because with all the cracks, I feel it would be easy

Lol, Warne in the day and to a lesser extent in his later years, could spin the ball on any surface. Them dusty Sri Lankan pitches surely offer more to the spinners more then the Australian pitches which are normally hard and fast.

You can't believe that two players in the same era (give or take 5 years) who have both played official test cricket have faced such different opposition on such different pitches.

Yes, they have because people are claiming that Murali is better because he has more wickets, when them extra 100 or so wickets that he is averaging more then Warne per Test actually came from playing against Teams like Zimb and Bang. Oh and yes the opposition is different. Playing against England in Australia is totally different compared to playing England in Sri Lanka. Playing against South Africa in Australia is totally different to playing South Africa in Sri Lanka. Murali has played against them two top teams on pitches that are totally suited to him and that has given him a great advantage. I know I keep going on about the pitches, but hey, they do play a big part in his success.

True, in theory but I have rarely see batsman ever 'go after' a non spinner. Do batsman often get out slogging McGrath? No, they get out blocking the length ball.

What? Batsman go after bowlers all the time, no matter if they are a spinner or a paceman. Batsman go after Brett Lee, they go after bowlers that are the weakest in the team - and most of the time that bowler isn't necessarily a spinner. So I dont know why you made that comment.

Small note that it is good to have an intelligent Aussie member for a change

I can see that that comment is directly aimed at me and Ben. Very well done... You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed either if you claim this:

Yes, Muralitharan is the better bowler and anyone disputing that is insane

 

[mattfb]

Maybe because Aussies chant "no ball" after every ball he bowls and he has been subject to racial abuse there too (IIRC).

So what? He knows he not chucking, so he might as well get over it. It's about time he came back down here, obviously hes learnt how to not let something that a small group of drunken people do affect him.

 

[manee]

I can see that that comment is directly aimed at me and Ben. Very well done... You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed either if you claim this:

You missed the smily.

No, he isn't better. He gets all the wickets because he plays on pitches tailor made for him, bowls the majority of his teams overs and he isn't the better "performer" Warne performs on the big stage like no one else.

(6 ball overs)       Mat    O       R   W   BBI    BBM     Ave  Econ    SR  5 10
away                  49 2586.2  6671 268  9/65  16/220  24.89  2.57  57.9 20  6
                      73 3424    9233 362  7/165 12/246  25.50  2.69  56.7 20  5

Guess which is Murali.

What? Batsman go after bowlers all the time, no matter if they are a spinner or a paceman. Batsman go after Brett Lee, they go after bowlers that are the weakest in the team - and most of the time that bowler isn't necessarily a spinner. So I dont know why you made that comment.

To suggest that Shane Warne plays a part in helping Brett Lee get a sizeable margin of his wickets is ludicrous.

 

[KBC]

Well, Murali Has a Legal Action As ICC Consider, So, Words get carried away,IMO, Warne and Murali Have their Style of their Own, [*offtopic]Just like Hooper and me in GFX.[*/OFFTOPIC]

So, As far as i consider, Both are Legends.

 

[mattfb]

Well, Murali Has a Legal Action As ICC Consider, So, Words get carried away,IMO, Warne and Murali Have their Style of their Own, [*offtopic]Just like Hooper and me in GFX.[*/OFFTOPIC]

Excatly. He NOW has a legal action because ICC changed it FOR HIM. This obviously means his action used to be ILLEGAL which means all his wickets before 2004 or whenever shouldn't count.