*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Richard]

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.

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

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?

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

Blimey, don't think I've ever seen hbh this furious!

 

[Richard]

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 )

Haha, with no C_C around these days did you think we could do this without it degenerating into racial fire-throwing between him and the select group of Aussies (social, KaZo, etc.)?

 

[Burgey]

Muralitharan is the best bowler to have played international cricket for a substantial period of time.

Not until he corrects his record vs Australia, he isn't.

McGrath has taken wickets everywhere, against everyone, in all conditions, good and bad. To date, Murali hasn't. If he does, fair play to him.

All a matter of opinion of course. I have my own views on his action, and it's been done to death.

But the fact is, whether I think his action is illegal or not, and whether a whole heap of others do or not, he's allowed to bowl so everyone should get on with it. He's a rare talent. If the authorities clear you to play, you play - simple as that and let him get on with it, imo.

Btw, I don't think he's the Bradman of bowlers, in that his stats are not as far ahead of others as Bradman's are with the bat. Fine bowler, though and clearly the best around now Warne and McGrath are gone. With those two, he at least had some competition for the crown. Not so now.

 

[Richard]

Not until he corrects his record vs Australia, he isn't.

McGrath has taken wickets everywhere, against everyone, in all conditions, good and bad. To date, Murali hasn't. If he does, fair play to him.

Absolutely. I don't happen to be especially bothered about his poor record in Australia (and he hasn't played there for, what, a decade?), but until he corrects it he can't be regarded as superior to other bowlers who have achieved more complete success.

 

[Richard]

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.

Lohmann was a 19th-century bowler, though. As I've said, the turn of the 20th century, for me, made the game just about recogniseable as what it is today (though there are still many things that make comparison a treacherous business). Anything before 1900 I tend to regard as a different thing to what came after.

I much prefer to treat Test-cricket of the 19th-century as Test-cricket of the 19th-century and Test-cricket of the 20th-century as something I'm happy to discuss. Lohmann was probably more the WG Grace of bowlers.

Barnes could possibly have been the best bowler ever to pick-up a ball since 1900. On the other hand, he could have been someone who'd be no more than a Shane Warne or a Bill O'Reilly had he played at a different time. Equally, had he been treated with more sympathy, he may even have been greater still than he was.

If there can be a freakishly good batsman who no-one can ever match (as most bar the C_C types of this World believe Bradman to be) then there can also be a bowler of that nature.

 

[JBH001]

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.

You know the fact that Australia is not conducive to spinners is one of the great fabrications that is sometimes trumpeted in CW. It would be more accurate (and even then only partially) to say that Australia is not helpful to off spinners (or finger spinners or in the case of Murali, round the wrist spinners).

Certainly, Australia has had no trouble producing arguably the 3 greatest leg spinners of all time in Warne, O'Reilly, and Grimmett which I think would be a little bit difficult if Australia, was - as you say - a totally inhospitable place for spinners. This ignores the other lesser spinners like Mailey, Benaud, and McGill who were very good spinners and just below great - along with other very good to competent finger spinners like Ashley Mallett, Ironmonger, and Yardley. These are plenty of names since WW1.

So enough with the nonsense that Australia is not a conducive place for spinners.

 

[JBH001]

Absolutely. I don't happen to be especially bothered about his poor record in Australia (and he hasn't played there for, what, a decade?), but until he corrects it he can't be regarded as superior to other bowlers who have achieved more complete success.

Completely agree, and on completing reading the thread maybe I should have posted the above in the other Murali vs Warne thread (if I can be bothered getting sucked into that vortex). However, because I do hope Murali improves his record in Australia, it would have been nice if SL had been given a proper 3 test series, not this nonsense 2 test malarkey. Ah well, have to accept it, I suppose.

Incidentally, how well do people think he would have to perform to have performed 'well'?
Any approximations?

 

[Richard]

An average <27 would obviously be excellent, though something like 25 would still not be up to his normal standards, and if Javed Miandad can get this patronising rubbish for averaging "only" 42 against West Indies, Murali can probably be patronised for not averaging 16 in Australia like he does in most other circumstances.




Seriously, I think most serious analysts and not those who simply seek to downtalk Murali at any available opportunity would agree that he'd had a decent fling and proved that he could do it in Australia were he to average 27 or so. Even then, it's not quite so simple as just an average. He could have one Test where he took 6-132 (good but not exceptional) and put the Lankans in a commanding position then another where he took 1-150, but the game was a high-scoring draw. And if he did that his series average'd be nothing particularly special, but he'd still have performed very credibly IMO.

I really, really hope he does something of note, and the better he does, the happier I'll be. Naturally, though, I'm even more keen on Vaas' success.

 

[silentstriker]

Not until he corrects his record vs Australia, he isn't.

McGrath has taken wickets everywhere, against everyone, in all conditions, good and bad. To date, Murali hasn't. If he does, fair play to him.

All a matter of opinion of course. I have my own views on his action, and it's been done to death.

But the fact is, whether I think his action is illegal or not, and whether a whole heap of others do or not, he's allowed to bowl so everyone should get on with it. He's a rare talent. If the authorities clear you to play, you play - simple as that and let him get on with it, imo.

Btw, I don't think he's the Bradman of bowlers, in that his stats are not as far ahead of others as Bradman's are with the bat. Fine bowler, though and clearly the best around now Warne and McGrath are gone. With those two, he at least had some competition for the crown. Not so now.

You are absolutely right, yet when I use the same argument with Ponting and India, people get mad (not you, a couple others). He certainly needs to improve his record in Australia before I'll consider him close to someone like McGrath.

 

[chaminda_00]

Its a bit unfair to not rate Murali on the basic his only played 3 Tests in Australia, well 4 i guess. Even if he fails this series its only 2 Tests near his prime. He hasn't hasn't really had a chance to improve his record in Australia. Also who to say that McGarth wouldn't get owned by the Australian attack himself.

 

[Prince EWS]

Also who to say that McGarth wouldn't get owned by the Australian attack himself.

He would, because he quite clearly can't bat.

 

[adharcric]

Not until he corrects his record vs Australia, he isn't.

McGrath has taken wickets everywhere, against everyone, in all conditions, good and bad. To date, Murali hasn't. If he does, fair play to him.

All a matter of opinion of course. I have my own views on his action, and it's been done to death.

But the fact is, whether I think his action is illegal or not, and whether a whole heap of others do or not, he's allowed to bowl so everyone should get on with it. He's a rare talent. If the authorities clear you to play, you play - simple as that and let him get on with it, imo.

Btw, I don't think he's the Bradman of bowlers, in that his stats are not as far ahead of others as Bradman's are with the bat. Fine bowler, though and clearly the best around now Warne and McGrath are gone. With those two, he at least had some competition for the crown. Not so now.

Completely agree. Same goes for Ponting and Warne, right?

 

[silentstriker]

Its a bit unfair to not rate Murali on the basic his only played 3 Tests in Australia, well 4 i guess. Even if he fails this series its only 2 Tests near his prime. He hasn't hasn't really had a chance to improve his record in Australia. Also who to say that McGarth wouldn't get owned by the Australian attack himself.

Because Hayden and Langer wouldn't know what hit them. Please, he has taken down far better players than those..

And Ponting...imagine Ashes 2005 except no 156. McGrath outclasses any batsman in the Aussie lineup. Even Warne, who I rate as a lesser bowler compared to McGrath, would do quite well against the Aussie lineup IMO, especially in helpful conditions.

 

[chaminda_00]

Because Hayden and Langer wouldn't know what hit them. Please, he has taken down far better players than those..

And Ponting...imagine Ashes 2005 except no 156. McGrath outclasses any batsman in the Aussie lineup. Even Warne, who I rate as a lesser bowler compared to McGrath, would do quite well against the Aussie lineup IMO, especially in helpful conditions.

What back up did those far greater players have though. Yeah i would be suprised if McGarth didn't dominate the most of Australian batsmen. But the strength of this Australian batting line up hasn't always been they have the best batsmen in the world, it just they have the best depth. Its a lot easier knocking over a couple top batsmen, then having mediocre batsmen after that to finish off.

 

[silentstriker]

What back up did those far greater players have though. Yeah i would be suprised if McGarth didn't dominate the most of Australian batsmen. But the strength of this Australian batting line up hasn't always been they have the best batsmen in the world, it just they have the best depth. Its a lot easier knocking over a couple top batsmen, then having mediocre batsmen after that to finish off.

But it wasn't like he improved his average against the bad players. If anything, he got the best players out more often. Lara, Sachin, Kallis, Dravid....all became his bunnies.

 

[chaminda_00]

But it wasn't like he improved his average against the bad players. If anything, he got the best players out more often. Lara, Sachin, Kallis, Dravid....all became his bunnies.

Yeah the fact McGarth got a better record against Tendulkar and Lara is probably what put him ahead of Murali. But Murali did dominate the likes of Dravid, Kallis, Yousuf, Inzamam and Andy Flower. He also got both Lara and Tendulkar out a fair bit (5 times) its just they scored a lot runs most of the times.

 

[Richard]

And it shouldn't be forgotten that Lara scored just a few runs against attacks including McGrath... even if he did have him dropped once or twice.

 

[Burgey]

Completely agree. Same goes for Ponting and Warne, right?

Yep, though I will say that Warne had one series in India clearly hampered by injury - just as Murali must have been feeling pretty bad when no-balled out here. From the view of someone outside the sub-continent, I actually take think that it's pretty understandable not to perform too well as a visiting spinner there when the batsmen you come up against grow up on those wickets plaing a lot of spin.

I hope Ponting performs well in India next time around, as with Murali here - it will go a long way to confirming each of their greatness, imo. T'was a great shame Ponting was injured for much of the last India tour, imo. Weird how he's struggled in India vs spin when he plays Murali so well. I think an extended spell at number 3 in India will suit him more than his batting at 6 as he has for most of his innings there.

 

[Burgey]

Its a bit unfair to not rate Murali on the basic his only played 3 Tests in Australia, well 4 i guess. Even if he fails this series its only 2 Tests near his prime. He hasn't hasn't really had a chance to improve his record in Australia. Also who to say that McGarth wouldn't get owned by the Australian attack himself.

I can accept that point re Murali. And hope others are prepared to accept it re. Lillee who played 4 tests on the subcontinent.

 

[Pratters]

Lohmann was a 19th-century bowler, though. As I've said, the turn of the 20th century, for me, made the game just about recogniseable as what it is today (though there are still many things that make comparison a treacherous business). Anything before 1900 I tend to regard as a different thing to what came after.

I much prefer to treat Test-cricket of the 19th-century as Test-cricket of the 19th-century and Test-cricket of the 20th-century as something I'm happy to discuss. Lohmann was probably more the WG Grace of bowlers.

I am not making a judgement about who is better with that post you quoted. I do know that Lohmann was an 1876-1900 bowler, Barnes 1900-1914 and Murali 1993-current and each period has it's own charecteristics which some one would have to analyse to make a judgement call.