*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Pratters]

Lohmann's record is even better than Barnes'. How much of a percentage difference does Barnes have from his era average, similarly Lohmann? I would like such a stat for Murali 2000 onwards to get an idea of Murali in the more batsmen friendly era.

 

[Days of Grace]

I talke 30% the rating of bowlers who have played their entire careers before 1914. Because, I worked out that runs per wicket were roughly 30% less (e.g. 23 to 33) in the pre-Great War days.

 

[honestbharani]

Imagine how many wickets Warne would have if not playing with your McGraths, Gillespies and MacGills....Murali is a good bowler but his record looks magnificent due to how poor the bowling around him has always been.

Most of the time Warne came in with the top 3 or 4 batsman well and truly gone due to magnificent fast bowlers in Australia. I dare say when Murali begins his spell the opposition is generally still 0, 1 or 2 down...

Murali isn't even the best spinner of the modern-era, let alone a modern day Bradman. I assure you that most cricket experts would place Warne in their World XI ahead of Murali...Unless they're from the subcontinent probably.

I can say the same that mostly Aussies alone would put Warne above Murali in their all time XIs. This stupid issue of Aussies not rating Murali gets stupider every day.


You speak as though you have seen every match that Murali has bowled in, which I am dead sure you have not. I am not even sure if you would have ever watched Murali bowl except in highlights unless it was against Australia. And then to come across and make gross generalizations like "he only gets wickets because there are no other good bowlers in the team" and "he always comes in and gets cheap wickets because the top guys are already gone" (notice the contradiction here itself in his points) is just plain pathetic.


If you think Warney is a better spinner than Murali, then so be it. That is your opinion and there is always decent enough reasons for one to rank Warney a bit above Murali but that is it. It is not like Warne is much better than Murali just like how Murali is not much better than Warne. They are both quality spinners and any decent (reasonably) neutral fan would not rank one well above the other. Believe me, I have had the good fortune to watch almost every match of both these guys from around 1995.... To come here and rubbish Murali and his outstanding achievements just because you happen to adore Warne is as pathetic as it can get around here.

 

[honestbharani]

Cleaning up the tail is always good for your average. And Murali is always fantastic at mopping up the tail.

Look, he can go from 2/70, clean up the tail and have figures of 6/75...very misleading sometimes.

And Warne never got tailenders out..... jeez........

 

[adharcric]

I can say the same that mostly Aussies alone would put Warne above Murali in their all time XIs. This stupid issue of Aussies not rating Murali gets stupider every day.


You speak as though you have seen every match that Murali has bowled in, which I am dead sure you have not. I am not even sure if you would have ever watched Murali bowl except in highlights unless it was against Australia. And then to come across and make gross generalizations like "he only gets wickets because there are no other good bowlers in the team" and "he always comes in and gets cheap wickets because the top guys are already gone" (notice the contradiction here itself in his points) is just plain pathetic.


If you think Warney is a better spinner than Murali, then so be it. That is your opinion and there is always decent enough reasons for one to rank Warney a bit above Murali but that is it. It is not like Warne is much better than Murali just like how Murali is not much better than Warne. They are both quality spinners and any decent (reasonably) neutral fan would not rank one well above the other. Believe me, I have had the good fortune to watch almost every match of both these guys from around 1995.... To come here and rubbish Murali and his outstanding achievements just because you happen to adore Warne is as pathetic as it can get around here.

 

[honestbharani]

Have you ever considered that Warne rarely got a chance to take top order wickets due to Australia's brilliant pace battallion over the last 15 years? Obviously not. Murali has nearly always had 10 wickets on offer to him nearly all the time when he comes into the attack. Warne never had this luxury, usually coming in with several wickets already down.

LUXURY of getting top order wickets? Surely, if it was that easy, those batsmen shouldn't really be batting at the TOP of the order?

 

[honestbharani]

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.

yeah, the same guys rated Murali as the greatest bowler of all time. So we should agree with those "experts", right?

 

[honestbharani]

I agree with that.

me too. He is a bit of a freak, but not such a big freak as the Don. The Don is just incomparable, IMHO.

 

[adharcric]

Can't believe Warne vs Murali is still being debated. Warne is superior if you think Murali chucks, otherwise end of story. Every anti-Murali argument that I have seen on CW falls on its face when you look at the records. Both are legendary spinners and the difference is marginal but the debate on their performance is null and void, IMO.

 

[pasag]

I can say the same that mostly Aussies alone would put Warne above Murali in their all time XIs. This stupid issue of Aussies not rating Murali gets stupider every day.


You speak as though you have seen every match that Murali has bowled in, which I am dead sure you have not. I am not even sure if you would have ever watched Murali bowl except in highlights unless it was against Australia. And then to come across and make gross generalizations like "he only gets wickets because there are no other good bowlers in the team" and "he always comes in and gets cheap wickets because the top guys are already gone" (notice the contradiction here itself in his points) is just plain pathetic.


If you think Warney is a better spinner than Murali, then so be it. That is your opinion and there is always decent enough reasons for one to rank Warney a bit above Murali but that is it. It is not like Warne is much better than Murali just like how Murali is not much better than Warne. They are both quality spinners and any decent (reasonably) neutral fan would not rank one well above the other. Believe me, I have had the good fortune to watch almost every match of both these guys from around 1995.... To come here and rubbish Murali and his outstanding achievements just because you happen to adore Warne is as pathetic as it can get around here.

Very nice post, I'd have both fwiw.

 

[Dasa]

I can say the same that mostly Aussies alone would put Warne above Murali in their all time XIs. This stupid issue of Aussies not rating Murali gets stupider every day.


You speak as though you have seen every match that Murali has bowled in, which I am dead sure you have not. I am not even sure if you would have ever watched Murali bowl except in highlights unless it was against Australia. And then to come across and make gross generalizations like "he only gets wickets because there are no other good bowlers in the team" and "he always comes in and gets cheap wickets because the top guys are already gone" (notice the contradiction here itself in his points) is just plain pathetic.


If you think Warney is a better spinner than Murali, then so be it. That is your opinion and there is always decent enough reasons for one to rank Warney a bit above Murali but that is it. It is not like Warne is much better than Murali just like how Murali is not much better than Warne. They are both quality spinners and any decent (reasonably) neutral fan would not rank one well above the other. Believe me, I have had the good fortune to watch almost every match of both these guys from around 1995.... To come here and rubbish Murali and his outstanding achievements just because you happen to adore Warne is as pathetic as it can get around here.

Agree with every word.

 

[sideshowtim]

yeah, the same guys rated Murali as the greatest bowler of all time. So we should agree with those "experts", right?

Did they? Link to the article that shows the exact same judges who were polled in this ballot all rating Murali as the best in the world please.

 

[honestbharani]

Did they? Link to the article that shows the exact same judges who were polled in this ballot all rating Murali as the best in the world please.

IT was Wisden's rating..... Maybe it was not that 100, but y does the word of those 100 matter more than others? And also, y do u refuse to understand the fact that it was done in 2000 since when Murali has achieved phenomenal growth as a bowler at a time when, generally, conditions have been much more conjusive for batsmen.

 

[sideshowtim]

IT was Wisden's rating..... Maybe it was not that 100, but y does the word of those 100 matter more than others? And also, y do u refuse to understand the fact that it was done in 2000 since when Murali has achieved phenomenal growth as a bowler at a time when, generally, conditions have been much more conjusive for batsmen.

You see, that's a bit of a cop out, because Murali plays a majority of his cricket on the subcontinent which even since the turn of the milennium has been excellent for spin bowling. He has however struggled in Australia against Australia...where spin bowling is a little harder than elsewhere.

 

[honestbharani]

You see, that's a bit of a cop out, because Murali plays a majority of his cricket on the subcontinent which even since the turn of the milennium has been excellent for spin bowling. He has however struggled in Australia against Australia...where spin bowling is a little harder than elsewhere.

so y exactly has Shane Warne been clobbered every time he has been in India? If it was so spin friendly, why couldn't he even buy a wicket there?


And have u watched every match on the sub continent? how did u come to the conclusion that every pitch is "excellent" for spin bowling there?

 

[Dasa]

I've posted this before and it's a bit old now (although if anything, the difference between the two in terms of statistics would be greater now considering how good Murali has been lately), but this paragraph kind of dispels the notion that the Sri Lankan grounds are always a haven for spinners:

"The issue of advantageous conditions prevailing in certain countries is a complex one. It might seem obvious from the home and away figures that Sri Lankan conditions must favour Murali’s bowling, yet if Murali’s figures are put to one side, finger-spinners as a group do not do especially well in Sri Lanka, averaging about 38 runs per wicket over the last 20 years, which is little different to their average elsewhere. Sri Lanka has been a graveyard for legspinners, with Warne an extraordinary exception: legspinners other than Warne have averaged 45 there. Then there is the unusual case of the “spinner’s paradise”, India. Neither bowler has enjoyed any real success there, even though their Indian counterparts, Kumble the wristspinner and Harbhajan Singh the finger-spinner, do far better at home than away. I would suggest that the quality of the Indian batsmen is a more important factor here than the characteristics of Indian wickets."​

- from Charles Davis, who also provides stats for The Age.

 

[The Sean]

I don't like being a party pooper, but...

If there's a limit to multiple posting of the same comment, then how in God's name has there not been a limit set on to how many times we have this. Exact. Same. Debate.

 

[Fiery]

I don't like being a party pooper, but...

If there's a limit to multiple posting of the same comment, then how in God's name has there not been a limit set on to how many times we have this. Exact. Same. Debate.

I know

 

[vic_orthdox]

I know

Agreed. This is not to turn into another Warne vs Murali thread, we've reopened the "Official" Murali vs Warne if you want the conversation to continue in there. Keep discussion to the topic at hand.

(See what I did there, just to be politically correct )

 

[Ikki]

I've posted this before and it's a bit old now (although if anything, the difference between the two in terms of statistics would be greater now considering how good Murali has been lately), but this paragraph kind of dispels the notion that the Sri Lankan grounds are always a haven for spinners:

"The issue of advantageous conditions prevailing in certain countries is a complex one. It might seem obvious from the home and away figures that Sri Lankan conditions must favour Murali’s bowling, yet if Murali’s figures are put to one side, finger-spinners as a group do not do especially well in Sri Lanka, averaging about 38 runs per wicket over the last 20 years, which is little different to their average elsewhere. Sri Lanka has been a graveyard for legspinners, with Warne an extraordinary exception: legspinners other than Warne have averaged 45 there. Then there is the unusual case of the “spinner’s paradise”, India. Neither bowler has enjoyed any real success there, even though their Indian counterparts, Kumble the wristspinner and Harbhajan Singh the finger-spinner, do far better at home than away. I would suggest that the quality of the Indian batsmen is a more important factor here than the characteristics of Indian wickets."​

- from Charles Davis, who also provides stats for The Age.

Both Warne and Murali are wrist spinners and Warne has an even better record in Sri Lanka than Murali does.

Can't believe Warne vs Murali is still being debated. Warne is superior if you think Murali chucks, otherwise end of story. Every anti-Murali argument that I have seen on CW falls on its face when you look at the records. Both are legendary spinners and the difference is marginal but the debate on their performance is null and void, IMO.

If you think your post is any better, then you're wrong. That's as black and white as one can get. Almost as much as the "If you think Murali chucks you can only not rate him higher than Warne".

I can give you a whole argument as to why people would think Warne is better than Murali, and by a bit - even a close one. But I won't hi-jack the thread.