*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Athlai]

Odd, I thought having a substandard bowling attack was a hinderance to a bowler. No pressure placed on the opposition and all, all they have to do is wait out his six balls and then get the runs off the other end. Australians do appear to defend Warne's legacy against Murali's tooth and nail.

Murali's no Bradman but he's probably up there, a sub-Bradman if you will. Better than the rest but not twice as good as the rest.

 

[honestbharani]

Odd, I thought having a substandard bowling attack was a hinderance to a bowler. No pressure placed on the opposition and all, all they have to do is wait out his six balls and then get the runs off the other end. Australians do appear to defend Warne's legacy against Murali's tooth and nail.

Murali's no Bradman but he's probably up there, a sub-Bradman if you will. Better than the rest but not twice as good as the rest.

AWTA. (see, now even I am using these acronyms.... Thanks, Princey )

 

[Athlai]

What does AWTA stand for? Pardon my ignorance.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Agree With The Above

 

[Athlai]

Makes more sense than American Working Terrier Association,

 

[sideshowtim]

Regardless of the Murali/Warne debate, calling Murali a modern Bradman is just...well....dumb.

 

[archie mac]

So? Bradman made runs against sub-standard NZ and SA sides.

Bradman never played against NZ

They always compare the lesser to the best.

They never compare Bradman to anyone because he is simply the best

 

[The Sean]

Bradman never played against NZ

They always compare the lesser to the best.

They never compare Bradman to anyone because he is simply the best

I was about to make the same point about Bradman vs NZ. And he only batted in 4 Tests against SA too. Though by averaging 201.5, you COULD say he cashed in...

 

[honestbharani]

Regardless of the Murali/Warne debate, calling Murali a modern Bradman is just...well....dumb.

tbh, Pratyush wasn't even comparing. He put the question mark there and I guess reading through the thread, a general consensus has been reached that while Murali has been amazing as a bowler, he is nowhere near as dominant as Bradman was over his fellow batters during his period. So I am assuming he must have had his answer by now. He himself said that he just wanted to throw the question there and see if it brings up interesting discussion and I think, the Murali/WArne debate apart, it did.... to an extent.

 

[Pratters]

tbh, Pratyush wasn't even comparing. He put the question mark there and I guess reading through the thread, a general consensus has been reached that while Murali has been amazing as a bowler, he is nowhere near as dominant as Bradman was over his fellow batters during his period. So I am assuming he must have had his answer by now. He himself said that he just wanted to throw the question there and see if it brings up interesting discussion and I think, the Murali/WArne debate apart, it did.... to an extent.

Yeah mate, it has been a throw the question to get opinions and generate discussion kind of a thing really.

 

[sideshowtim]

tbh, Pratyush wasn't even comparing. He put the question mark there and I guess reading through the thread, a general consensus has been reached that while Murali has been amazing as a bowler, he is nowhere near as dominant as Bradman was over his fellow batters during his period. So I am assuming he must have had his answer by now. He himself said that he just wanted to throw the question there and see if it brings up interesting discussion and I think, the Murali/WArne debate apart, it did.... to an extent.

Murali isn't even the best bowler this generation. No sir, that title goes to Mr Glenn McGrath. Never have I seen such briliant batsmen fall into what seems like such simple traps. McGrath is the greatest of this era and while it's still ridiculous to compare him to Bradman, he's much closer than Murali.

 

[Athlai]

Murali isn't even the best bowler this generation. No sir, that title goes to Mr Glenn McGrath. Never have I seen such briliant batsmen fall into what seems like such simple traps. McGrath is the greatest of this era and while it's still ridiculous to compare him to Bradman, he's much closer than Murali.

I would personally have McGrath a step behind Murali on my rankings. Sri Lankas attack is Murali (with a sprinkling of Vaas), everytime I have seen him play he has looked like he is just about to take a wicket, against any side, openers, middle order tail-enders, he dominates and obliterates like no other bowler I have seen. That and New Zealand just can't handle him.

In test matches Glenn McGrath averages 25.33 against us, while Murali is a 21. They dominate the Kiwi's but Glenn McGrath is just a fast bowler. We know why he is so successfull, he can be copied (but not repeated necessarily), Murali is something completely different, a freak. Its hardly ridiculous to consider him the best bowler in all forms of the game in recent times.

 

[silentstriker]

Yep, though I will say that Warne had one series in India clearly hampered by injury

Warne's record against India is pretty bad, both in Australia and in India. He averages 62 in Australia and 43 in India, with an overall average of 47 from 14 Tests. That to me is a pretty good sample..14 Tests are a lot to play against one team and that's a pattern.

To me, there are no excuses. Either you're fit enough to play, or you're not. Murali sucks in Australia and its a blight on his career. Botham sucked against West Indies and its a blight on his career. And Ponting sucks in India and its a blight on his career too.

If you play, it's fair game as far as I'm concerned. I can understand Lillee with three tests not being a fair sample, so you can call him unproven rather than a failure...but 14 Tests is definitely long enough. And Murali will have five tests too, which IMO is a decent sample as well. If he doesn't improve his record in Australia, I can't count him as the best, especially as there are others who did well against everyone (i.e McGrath). He doesn't average more than 31 in any country, and averages less than 25 in eight places. That IMO is how you can be called great.

 

[sideshowtim]

I would personally have McGrath a step behind Murali on my rankings. Sri Lankas attack is Murali (with a sprinkling of Vaas), everytime I have seen him play he has looked like he is just about to take a wicket, against any side, openers, middle order tail-enders, he dominates and obliterates like no other bowler I have seen. That and New Zealand just can't handle him.

In test matches Glenn McGrath averages 25.33 against us, while Murali is a 21. They dominate the Kiwi's but Glenn McGrath is just a fast bowler. We know why he is so successfull, he can be copied (but not repeated necessarily), Murali is something completely different, a freak. Its hardly ridiculous to consider him the best bowler in all forms of the game in recent times.

At least there are still tracks around the world that favour the spinners, there are very few which quicks enjoy bowling on these days. England is the best maybe, but these days flat tracks are the norm. In this time McGrath averages 21 against some of the finest top order batsmen to play the game. McGrath has succeeded against every single great batsman of the era on multiple occasions in many conditions and has obilterated every team once or twice in his career. McGrath is a freak and cannot be emulated. That isn't to say Murali isn't brilliant, yet one's record against NZ isn't the only indicator of a great bowler as you should know

 

[Athlai]

At least there are still tracks around the world that favour the spinners, there are very few which quicks enjoy bowling on these days. England is the best maybe, but these days flat tracks are the norm. In this time McGrath averages 21 against some of the finest top order batsmen to play the game. McGrath has succeeded against every single great batsman of the era on multiple occasions in many conditions and has obilterated every team once or twice in his career. McGrath is a freak and cannot be emulated. That isn't to say Murali isn't brilliant, yet one's record against NZ isn't the only indicator of a great bowler as you should know

I was hoping you would go along this path! For a peculiar thing is that McGraths average in Australia against New Zealand is in the 30's. 33.03 to be exact. Murali was 21.79 at home and 19.96 in NZ.

But here are the stats that I really hold credit to. The match winning ones, on average Murali bowls at 15.19 when they win a test match, McGrath at a 19.19. Both legends, but the maverick for me was the man with the bright eyes and cheeky grin.

 

[sideshowtim]

Yes, but Australia win more than Sri Lanka leaving McGrath with very little room for error since Australia win so damn much. Of course Murali is going to have brilliant figures when they win, he is pretty much the main reason they've won half their tests in the last 10 years.

And once again, one's record against New Zealand isn't the only record I look at.

 

[silentstriker]

I was hoping you would go along this path! For a peculiar thing is that McGraths average in Australia against New Zealand is in the 30's. 33.03 to be exact. Murali was 21.79 at home and 19.96 in NZ.

But here are the stats that I really hold credit to. The match winning ones, on average Murali bowls at 15.19 when they win a test match, McGrath at a 19.19. Both legends, but the maverick for me was the man with the bright eyes and cheeky grin.

But Australia win a lot more than SL, so you'd expect the career stats of their players to be close to the stats they have when they win (because they usually do).

 

[Athlai]

Good point Australia winning deters that one a fair amount.

And I brought New Zealand up because thats where I get to view a lot of my cricket, anywhere else is unlikely, heck we don't even get any cricket not involving SA, ENG, AUS, NZ here. Missed the Indian and Sri Lankan matches vs Bangers which I really enjoyed at the World Cup.

Murali and McGrath can't be compared without constant bickering going backwards and forwards, I could say Murali never had any real backup (besides Vaas) for all his career, and you could say thats why he has so many wickets, I could say that would relieve pressure on the batsman so making their wickets harder to get and you could disagree with a perfectly viable point.

Basically in my honest opinion, I think Murali is the greater and cricket is better because of him. McGrath is living next door to him in Greatville, but a door down for me.

 

[honestbharani]

so now it is McGrath Vs Murali????


I don't like the idea of comparing fast bowlers and spinners... I honestly don't. They have different roles to perform, they need differing types of conditions to be at their best and the expectations from them are different, the way the batsmen play them are different. It is like comparing openers and middle order players... It just is not very feasible, IMHO.

 

[Richard]

Odd, I thought having a substandard bowling attack was a hinderance to a bowler. No pressure placed on the opposition and all, all they have to do is wait out his six balls and then get the runs off the other end. Australians do appear to defend Warne's legacy against Murali's tooth and nail.

IMO it's very foolish to try to make any point about a bowler based on the attack around him. Having a weak attack around you can be both a help and hindrance and often is both simualtaneously.