Murali/Warne Vs Sachin/Lara

[Richard]

Well I know someone who was grey at 18, but hair really can be a horrible thing...

 

[Beleg]

Talking about Hair...

Nah, in any case I believe Muralitharan is the best bowler I have seen in my lifetime. (and more flippantly the best bowler ever)

 

[JBH001]

Well, I shall go for the Murali and Warne over the Sachin and Lara.

The 2 are, imo, clearly superior in their respective fields in a way in which Sachin and Lara are not, something that has been clearly stated on this forum many a time.

In regard to the whole vs India thing, Murali does have a clearly better overall record compared to Warne, however, in India their performances are more or less similair - with Murali only holding a marginal advantage.

IMO Murali's first tour of India in 93/94 was perhaps his best - he took 12 wkts at 35 from 3 tests and 3 innings (SL lost every game by an innings) with a SR of 71 and all he had in his armoury was the big spinning offie.

In a later tour in 97/98 (iirc) he was smashed around in 2 tests (4wkts I think) and of course there was the recent tour where he took 15 wkts. Imo though, that tour apart from one glorious spell was not all that successful - the Indian batsmen played him very well for the most part, and Murali was far too doosra happy, losing sight of those other spinners arts which were, and still are, a significant part of his arsenal.

Also, echoing Richard, it is unfortunate for Warne that he was unable to play against India on 'that' track - imo he would have run through them like a hot knife through butter on a hot victorian summer day. In any case, his record against India improved over time, iirc.

 

[C_C]

Also, echoing Richard, it is unfortunate for Warne that he was unable to play against India on 'that' track - imo he would have run through them like a hot knife through butter on a hot victorian summer day

The reason Warne has never had any success against India has nothing to do with the track or perceived 'injuries' or whatnot - it is quite simply, the way Warne bowls.
Warne's modus operandi is to pitch it on/outside leg to a right-handed batsman and get it to spin across viciously.
Be whatever the pitch quality, if you are a spinner and you are pitching it on the legs for Indian batsmen, you will get clobbered. End of.

Warne has bowled to Indians on some fairly good spinning tracks and still gotten smashed.

 

[JBH001]

Here we go again....maybe...

 

[adharcric]

Fair enough, performing in Australia is admirable and often a sign of greatness (see Lara and Sachin) but its far too easy to overrate a player simply because they performed against the best a couple of times. Marlon Samuels comes to mind, as does Ramdin.

Laxman?

 

[Jono]

Laxman?

Australians liked what they saw of VVS in Sydney 99, but he wasn't put on a pedastal really until 2001. But I guess you could mention him.

 

[Richard]

The reason Warne has never had any success against India has nothing to do with the track or perceived 'injuries' or whatnot - it is quite simply, the way Warne bowls.
Warne's modus operandi is to pitch it on/outside leg to a right-handed batsman and get it to spin across viciously.
Be whatever the pitch quality, if you are a spinner and you are pitching it on the legs for Indian batsmen, you will get clobbered. End of.

What if the Indian batsmen are poor players of spin?

 

[Richard]

Laxman?

3 years of consistent excellence against all opposition.

 

[Richard]

Australians liked what they saw of VVS in Sydney 99, but he wasn't put on a pedastal really until 2001. But I guess you could mention him.

"It was, so you thought at the time, the sort of innings a batsman plays once in a lifetime."

 

[Slifer]

I would say that Murali is better than Warne and SRT is better than Lara so overall IMO it LARA and SRT over MUrali and Warne. Y? Because the reason Warne and Murali stand out as such outstanding spinners is because there arent that many great spinners to begin with. In ths history of test cricket there have been like 15 to 20 good/great spinners: Warne, Murali, Kumble, Gibbs, Grimmet, Underwood etc. But even Australia alone can boast of having atleast 10 great batsmen.And just imagine, if the 2 bowlers in question were bowlin (in tandem) against the two above batsmen, we all know what the results will b. Hence SRT and BCL > Murali and Warne.

 

[Richard]

I would say that Murali is better than Warne and SRT is better than Lara

Please!!!!!!!!!!! Don't!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[silentstriker]

Murali and Warne easily IMO. Warne and Murali are arguably #1 and #2 (in either order) spinners of all time. Tendy and Lara are not.

In addition, Murali and Warne are bowlers and thus automatically making them more integral to winning than batsmen.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Murali and Warne easily IMO. Warne and Murali are arguably #1 and #2 (in either order) spinners of all time. Tendy and Lara are not.

In addition, Murali and Warne are bowlers and thus automatically making them more integral to winning than batsmen.

But they are spinners

 

[silentstriker]

But they are spinners

But they are also not batsmen.

My hierarchy:

Pace bowlers





Other bowlers




crap.

 

[Richard]

In the modern era.

It didn't used to be so in the days of uncovered wickets in Britain.

 

[pup11]

Warne is the king

Look guys murali is a good bowler but warney is in a different class look murali has bowled all his life on spin friendly tracks bowling half of the overs of his side and picking most of the wickets coz other than vass there is no other bowler who can pick wickets for SL, but warney bowled in tandem with glen, and dizzy gillespie two gr8 bowler who took a lot of wickets and still warney got 708 scalps that his greatness.Thats why he is king!

 

[vic_orthdox]

Look guys murali is a good bowler but warney is in a different class look murali has bowled all his life on spin friendly tracks bowling half of the overs of his side and picking most of the wickets coz other than vass there is no other bowler who can pick wickets for SL, but warney bowled in tandem with glen, and dizzy gillespie two gr8 bowler who took a lot of wickets and still warney got 708 scalps that his greatness.Thats why he is king!

This is not what we're discussing.

 

[Prince EWS]

Definitely Warne and Murali. They are, without any doubt, the best two bowlers of their era and have been for the most part of their careers. They will most likely go down as the two best spinners of all time (whether they truly deserve it or not..) while Tendulkar and Lara are nothing more than damn good batsmen. Definitely the best of their era as well, but they had various challenges from different batsmen at different times, and won't go down as all-time greats... just greats of their time.

 

[adharcric]

Lara and Tendulkar aren't all-time greats? Unless you define an all-time great as one of the three greatest ever, you've got it wrong there.