Murali/Warne Vs Sachin/Lara

[Slifer]

SRT and LAra wont go down as al time greats? Whatever u r on, i think u need to come off of it really quikly. Again and or the utmost time, the reason why Warne and Murali stand out so much as spinners is because there havent been that many good-great spinners as compared to great batsmen. Just for a sample, lets look at the good/great spinners fro Oz: Warne, Benaud, Grimmet, O'reilly, Macgill? Now lets look at the great bastmen: Bradman, Border, Waugh, Trumper, Chapell, Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting, Harvey, Lawry etc etc etc get my point? TBH dont actually believe that BCL/SRT are actually better batsmen than Warne/Murali as bowlers, but compaing the 2 groups is quite an intriguing exercise.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

They won't go down as all time greats? That's a first, especially considering most people who've been following the game for decades usually has one or both in their all time XI's.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

I tend to class an all-time great as someone who would make the best ever eleven. I'm not sure either would - while at least one of Warne and Murali certainly would. Tendulkar and Lara are greats of their time.. wouldn't put them in the all-time great category though.

It's a funny criteria I guess, but it's one I've gone with. What determines one as great (allt-time or otherwise) is probably the most subjective topic possible.

 

[silentstriker]

I tend to class an all-time great as someone who would make the best ever eleven. I'm not sure either would - while at least one of Warne and Murali certainly would. Tendulkar and Lara are greats of their team.. wouldn't put them in the all-time great category though.

It's a funny criteria I guess, but it's one I've gone with. What determines one as great (allt-time or otherwise) is probably the most subjective topic possible.

So there have been only 11 all time greats? And even with that criteria, one or the other would still quality IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

So there have been only 11 all time greats?

Yep.

And even with that criteria, one or the other would still quality IMO.

Very debatable really. Not so debatable with Warne or Murali though.

 

[pup11]

murali and lara not gr8 in my book!

look guys this might sound weird but its true coz these guys no matter how gr8 they are have always chased individualistic glory thats why you will see that most of there gr8 performance are basically have not won games for their teams and such individualy gr8 performance are of no means if they can't win games for your team coz in the end cricket is a team game .

 

[pup11]

if you guys don't agree with me than just check the no. of 5-fors murali has taken in a losing cause or number of hundreds lara has made in a lossing cause compared to warne and sachin who have won more games for their countries through even average performances by their standards.eg:- warne's 4-for in recent adeliade test in the ashes

 

[Ikki]

I know it is difficult to compare, but it would be fun to do it.


Would be a sight for sore eyes to see Kazo advocate Murali and CC advocate Warne.


Also would be fun to see CC talk for Lara and maybe you, Sean, talk for Sachin.

. Actually you will see me rate Murali quite easily in regards to everyone else but Warne. On the other hand our mate C_C is quite different.

To answer your question: I rate the spinners ahead.

Not only are they far ahead in statistical comparison but of what they brought to the game. I think every era will have a hero batsman somewhere, I don't think the same can be said for spinners. Spinning isn't a necessary component in cricket, you can bowl pace .

They chose the most difficult art to perfect and they've amassed more wickets than others in test cricketing history. These are the top two wicket takers of history.

I rate Lara and Tendulkar of course, but not ahead of these two. What they are to batting is not close to what Warne and Murali are to spin-bowling.

 

[Prince EWS]

if you guys don't agree with me than just check the no. of 5-fors murali has taken in a losing cause or number of hundreds lara has made in a lossing cause compared to warne and sachin who have won more games for their countries through even average performances by their standards.eg:- warne's 4-for in recent adeliade test in the ashes

Pup, we are not discussing Murali v Warne, or Lara v Tendulkar. We are discussing Murali/Warne v Lara/Tendulkar. If you can't grasp this concept, as seems to be the case, then please just stop posting in this thread, as the topic you are discussing has been done to death.

 

[Ikki]

SRT and LAra wont go down as al time greats? Whatever u r on, i think u need to come off of it really quikly. Again and or the utmost time, the reason why Warne and Murali stand out so much as spinners is because there havent been that many good-great spinners as compared to great batsmen. Just for a sample, lets look at the good/great spinners fro Oz: Warne, Benaud, Grimmet, O'reilly, Macgill? Now lets look at the great bastmen: Bradman, Border, Waugh, Trumper, Chapell, Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting, Harvey, Lawry etc etc etc get my point? TBH dont actually believe that BCL/SRT are actually better batsmen than Warne/Murali as bowlers, but compaing the 2 groups is quite an intriguing exercise.

The reason there aren't many great spinners is simpy because it is very HARD to become a GREAT spinner let alone an ALL-TIME great spinner like Warne or Murali.

 

[honestbharani]

. Actually you will see me rate Murali quite easily in regards to everyone else but Warne. On the other hand our mate C_C is quite different.

To answer your question: I rate the spinners ahead.

Not only are they far ahead in statistical comparison but of what they brought to the game. I think every era will have a hero batsman somewhere, I don't think the same can be said for spinners. Spinning isn't a necessary component in cricket, you can bowl pace .

They chose the most difficult art to perfect and they've amassed more wickets than others in test cricketing history. These are the top two wicket takers of history.

I rate Lara and Tendulkar of course, but not ahead of these two. What they are to batting is not close to what Warne and Murali are to spin-bowling.

lol. I know you rate Murali, Kazo. And I guess CC rates Warney too. Perhaps you would have Warne ahead of Murali and he will have Murali ahead of Warne, but I really doubt if CC would be so naive to argue that Warney is not an all time great. What I meant was that, since u guys often end up defending your no.1, many of us dont get to know how much you rate your no.2.



And another point we may have to consider here is, if we are going to continue ranking Murali and Warne as spinners and hence claim they are superior to Sachin/Lara, then maybe we should consider Lara/Sachin as middle order bats alone. Leave out the top order guys and then see where they will end up in an all time rating.


Or else, maybe we should see how high Murali and Warne will rate in an all time bowlers' rating (includes all varieties: spin, fast, swing, seam etc.). Would you guys really think Warne and Murali are more sure of their place in an all time bowling line up than Lara and Sachin are of a place in an all time batting line up?

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Im unsure if you can compare bowlers to batsmen in this sense. On matchwinning ability, you would have to say that Murali and Shane have potentially won more matches by virtue of their own performances than Lara and and Tendulkar have. I have always seen Lara/sachin as match savers, someone to dig in and build big scores, whereas Murali and Warney get the job done quicker. So in theory, Murali and Warne are better for winning matches, technically.

 

[Ikki]

Or else, maybe we should see how high Murali and Warne will rate in an all time bowlers' rating (includes all varieties: spin, fast, swing, seam etc.). Would you guys really think Warne and Murali are more sure of their place in an all time bowling line up than Lara and Sachin are of a place in an all time batting line up?

Well you could argue the extent but IMO yes, I am more assured that both Warne and Murali would be picked even if compared to the stars of the other bowling arts. I think simply you need a quality spinner and either Warne or Murali will be picked. In an all star team you'll need variety I think wicket taking potential will override higher averages.

 

[honestbharani]

yeah.... but still, kinda funny that two all time greats posed little to no threat to two not-as-great batsmen.

 

[Richard]

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!

 

[Richard]

Im unsure if you can compare bowlers to batsmen in this sense. On matchwinning ability, you would have to say that Murali and Shane have potentially won more matches by virtue of their own performances than Lara and and Tendulkar have. I have always seen Lara/sachin as match savers, someone to dig in and build big scores, whereas Murali and Warney get the job done quicker. So in theory, Murali and Warne are better for winning matches, technically.

Err... bowlers = match-winners, batsmen = match-savers.

No individual has ever defied that trend.

You don't win two-innings cricket-matches (barring freak games) without taking 20 wickets.

 

[shortpitched713]

Stop it, you'll hurt yourself!

 

[silentstriker]

Err... bowlers = match-winners, batsmen = match-savers.

No individual has ever defied that trend.

You don't win two-innings cricket-matches (barring freak games) without taking 20 wickets.

I don't disagree with you, but you also don't win games without scoring more than the opposition.

In any case, Warne and Murali are still by far the better match winners.

 

[Richard]

Obviously, but without good bowlers no batsman can ever be a matchwinner. See West Indies in the early 1970s... Fredericks, Carew, Camacho, Davis, Nurse, Sobers, Kanhai, Rowe, Butcher, Kallicherran, Lloyd... and they went 6 years winning 1 live Test...

 

[silentstriker]

Obviously, but without good bowlers no batsman can ever be a matchwinner. See West Indies in the early 1970s... Fredericks, Carew, Camacho, Davis, Nurse, Sobers, Kanhai, Rowe, Butcher, Kallicherran, Lloyd... and they went 6 years winning 1 live Test...

Yup, I agree with you.