The Reason Many Australians Hate Murali, is because of multiple reasons
1. the majority of Aussies think he chucks
As i said, i don't like to contemplate the idea that the majority of Aussie cricket fans are singularly uneducated and pigheaded about cricketing rules and biomechanical facts. But the abovementioned line leaves no other avenue for conclusion regarding the Aussie fans - for there is absolutely no wiggle room in this- it has been proven over and over that Murali does not chuck and if he chucks, so does McGrath,Warne, Lillee and every Aussie who's ever bowled a single ball at any level of cricket. I've explained this before patiently drawing on my understanding of sciences and seeing that reasoning or facts are not going to make an impact on the ones who arn't open to or well versed in them, i am not very inclined to try and educate people who arnt and refuse to be educated.
But if the majority of Aussies think Murali is a chucker, i am sorry to say, it reflects rather poorly on the understanding of the rules and biomechanics by these so-called 'majority of Aussies'.
2. A Lot of us can't handle the fact that one day he will break warnies Test Wicket Record.
Spot on. Warne is an alltime great bowler and would probably be the primier spinner, without question, in any other era. He just had the misfortune of having his playing career coincide with one who's an even more brilliant spinner. It would be similar if Kapil, Imran, Botham, Hadlee, etc. had their playing careers coincide with Sobers or if Tendulkar/Lara were born around the same time as Bradman. This is the luck of the draw. Nothing more.
3.We find it hard to swallow because he has had pitches doctored for him almost all his career
Do you also find it hard to swallow then that Lillee had pitches 'doctored' for him too and that his entire record is based on bowling in largely favourable conditions explicitly suited for pace bowlers ? I have seen many Aussies bring up this 'pitch factor' when comparing Warne and Murali but never have i heard the same logic and standard be held for pacers- for if this whole line of 'warne-bowls-on-less-spin friendly-wickets-murali-on-pitches-doctored-for-him-boo-f*eakin-hoo' is true, then this axiom, when applied to fast bowlers would mean that Akram, Younis, Imran, etc. are easily better than Lillee-McGrath-Lindwall, etc. Concede one or the other. One cannot logically bring up this pitch factor when comparing Warne-Murali but totally ignore the very same pitch factor when comparing pacers. So if Warne is indeed better in your books for bowling on less 'friendly' conditions, consistency and neutrality demands that you also consider Akram,Younis,Imran to be superior to any Aussie pacer, Vaas to be superior to Gillespie, etc etc.
4. He had a very weak bowling attack in support leaving him more overs and more wickets for him to take. I Mean Take out Chaminda Vaas and you have a bowling attack poorer than a County Or State Cricket side. Personally I think this would make it Harder to get wickets because of a lack of bowling partnerships, but you're general boozed-up Australian has-been park cricketer doesn't think about That.
P.S. I am Australian
This argument has ZERO logic associated with it.
If you ask any batsman worth his salt-any- they'll tell you that they'd much rather face one Murali and three other no-names than four Kumbles ; one McGrath and three of us from cricketweb than four Gillespies, etc etc. Why ? Simply because if you have only ONE bowler, especially in tests, the teams can afford to play them out and wait for the other three no-hopers to come on and whack them for runs. If you are confronted with the four-prong of the windies, you are well and truely cooked since if you play off Marshall, Holding will be galloping in at you - play out holding too and Garner will choke you- play out Garner and then Roberts will maim you- play him out too and you will get maybe 5-10 runs when Viv finally turns his arm over and after 3 days, you'd be 20/0. It is this very 'constant pressure' that results in a bunch of 3-33 kind of hauls instead of 5-80 that you most often see from the 'lone gunmen' bowlers.
The logical answer (and one that holds true more often than not) is that if you have a better attack to back you up, you will take less wickets but have a better average. If you are the solitary 'Paddles', you would end up taking more wicket/matches (since less competition for wickets) but also leak runs as batsmen will not be forced to chance their arms against you (ie, milked and 'be on the defensive against you'). Anybody who's bowled competetively even at club levels and isnt absolutely trash (judged by whatever standard they are playing at) will know that they'd rather have another one or two good bowlers to keep pressurising the batsmen instead of all the work falling on you and the batsmen are forced to play your balls on merit rather than going on the forward defensive even before the ball has left your hand.
The very fact that Murali, depsite having less than half the support of Warne, sports a significantly better average(and the average is better even without the minnows) is reason enough for me to rate Murali ahead. Not to mention, Murali has less 'off days' than Warne.
Oh another thing- Murali averages better than Warne in away tests.
