sideshowtim
Banned
It's absolutely ludicrous that Murali is even mentioned in the same breath as these 2 cricketing legends.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion
- Thread starter Mr Mxyzptlk
- Start date
sideshowtim
Banned
Let's see what the cricketing experts think. Wisden Cricketers of the century:
1. Sir Donald Bradman 100
2. Sir Garfield Sobers 90
3. Sir Jack Hobbs 30
4. Shane Warne 27
5. Sir Viv Richards 25
Murali isn't even in the Top 10, in fact I doubt he even got a single vote. And this was made a mere 7 years into Warne's career. Since then his legend, prowess and ability has grown.
open365
International Vice-Captain
How is it ludicrous?
I understand you may be biased against because of his questionable action(which i don't think anybody on this board wishes to discuss further) but surely you can't ignore just how good his record is?
Muralia is a wicket taking machine, and however many reasons you give against him it doesn't change the fact that over the modern era Murali has made more of a difference to his side than any other player has to there's.
open365
International Vice-Captain
If we all agreed with what the cricketing 'experts' said there would be no point in this forum would there?
sideshowtim
Banned
His record is good indeed. But it doesn't deviate from other "good" records of the time. How can one be considered an immortal of the game when so many have achieved the exact same as you? Bradman and Sobers accomplished things that no others have. That is why Murali doesn't deserve to be in their league.
And yes, Murali has made a difference to his side, but not big enough to establish his side as a genuine Test threat at ANY time during his tenure.
sideshowtim
Banned
No, but I was just showing the opinions of those who are in the know and better informed than you an I. I don't think Murali even recieved 1 single vote during that ballot.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
That poll was conducted at the turn of the century when Murali had only started to come into his own. If you think Warne can be mentioned in the same breath as those cricketers, surely you cannot suggest it is ludicrous to mention Murali similarly.
open365
International Vice-Captain
Aside of the main argument, but Gary Sobers record is only marginaly different than Jaques Kallis', Kallis averaging two less with the bat but Sobers averaging two more with the ball.
Obviously i'm not trying to argue here that Kallis is a better cricketer than Sobers, the point i'm making is that bar Bradman, most other cricketers records can be matched of bettered by players that wouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as them.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
sideshowtim
Banned
I take the opinion of 100 specially chosen panel members of that of Steve Waugh...Murali and Bradman should never be mentioned together.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
That was done in the previous decade when Murali wasn't really as good.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
sideshowtim
Banned
Do you know what the man in your avatar thinks of Murali?
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
No, and frankly, it is irrelevant.
sideshowtim
Banned
Per test:
Warne: 1.8 per test
Murali: 1.97 per test
Thanks for playing. Do try again.
sideshowtim
Banned
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Um, but thats because he takes more wickets overall.....top and bottom order both. In real terms, and in percentage terms, Warne relies on the bottom order for his average more than Murali.