• 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

silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Engle said:
Another test of the better bowler may be this.
Who, IYHO, would perform better against The Don ?
Murali or Warne ?
Click to expand...
Well Verity got him out 8 times, and he was SLA. No other spinner has gotten him out twice.

So who would do better against Bradman? Monty. :ph34r:
 
roseboy64

roseboy64

Cricket Web Content Updater
Days of Grace said:
FFS, man, he has been cleared, he is playing, therefore his stats count. If he was white-skinned, and an Aussie, then Australians would be reaching for the tissues and vasoline everytime he takes a wicket.
Click to expand...
I'd tend to agree with that especially considering Australia's racial history.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
I will acknowledge both your points reg. Warne, Kazo.... I think it makes a lot of sense and I think you are right to a very great extent.


But what you said about Murali is not right. Even taking the example that you brought up... Let us say Murali did bowl 20 overs for 80 runs and has taken 2 wickets and is obviously bowling below par, at least in terms of results.... Then, as you said, he comes in and bowls out the 3 tailenders in the same over. Are you suggesting that it is bad bowling? He did bowl well enough to get 3 guys (granted, tailenders) out in the same over. How often does that happen? IT is still a very good piece of bowling that has to be acknowledged as such. You talked about Warne bowling well all day and yet the other bowlers get the wickets around him.... I am sure it does happen. But what prevents Warne from getting the wickets when he is bowling well? Going by your example, he has as much chance as a Brett Lee at bowling at the tail and yet he is still not able to get them out. Lee gets them out. It still means Warney lost opportunities of getting wickets, even if he is bowling well.


Again, we boil down to the axiom that a lot of times you can bowl really well and end up with little/no wickets and at other times, you can bowl tripe and end up getting wickets. We can only assume that it equals out over your career. I still think the difference between the two is very marginal and I would actually have Warne over Murali in my all time XI.... NOt that I think Warne is better than Murali, but I think the margin by which I put Murali ahead of Warne is so small that it doesn't matter who I pick and I would just pick Warne for personal preference and because he adds to the drama of the game more than Murali would do. Also, he would (potentially) bat better.
Click to expand...
Of course, somebody has to take those wickets and that's credit to Murali in doing so. But the standard of comparison is beyond the regular cricketer, we are talking about the greatest bowler/spinner ever.

However, I am not simply saying one can bowl crap and get wickets and one can bowl great and get no wickets, and that it evens out. Because Warne doesn't have that luxury of evening out in the same way Murali does, he has to make it happen in a new inning/match whereas Murali can make it up in the same one. His momentum, if he is bowling well and isn't getting wickets, stops in one inning and he has to start again in another. Not only does he have limited balls to make per match, he has even less wickets to take per match because of his fellow bowlers.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
But thats just not mathematically true.

Warne takes 1.81 lower order wickets out of 4.88 total wickets per test.
Murali takes 1.91 lower order wickets out of a total 6.19 total wickets per test.

He takes .1 more lower order wickets out of a total 1.31 more wickets overall!

Regardless of when Warne comes on or not, the fact is that the lower order is a larger part in boosting his average. How is what you are saying true? How can it be?
Click to expand...
I don't know if I am communicating my point incorrectly or you're not getting it.

Let's say that Murali takes 30% of his wickets at the lower-order end and Warne takes 35% at the lower-order end. The difference between the two is small, whatever it is. But the 'real' difference is that whilst Warne is constantly faced with middle-to-lower order batsmen, it is of course justified that he will have the bigger proportion.

HOWEVER, Murali is not in the same way. Vaas is no McGrath or Dizzy and his teammates do not knock the first 4 wickets over as soon as he is introduced. So he will have more chances to knock upper-order batsmen, and he will get that chance regularly, so having his lower-order wickets in the same vicinity as Warne's is no smooth point, it is no + on the record.

I am not sure on the exact figures of this, but let's say Murali takes 30% and Warne takes 33% (a difference of 3%) in their lower order wickets, this comes out to:

Murali: 210 lower-order wickets
Warne: 233 lower-order wickets

Really, it is only a difference of 23-24 wickets between them. But considering that Warne is usually only faced with those wickets, whilst Murali usually isn't, it isn't a +, as aforesaid, on his record. It shows a dependence, not that without them his record would be poor, but it certainly would not be as good.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
Well, if you come from the assumption that his action is legal, he would certainly make a run for the greatest bowler ever and without a doubt would be the greatest spinner of this era.

If you don't come from that assumption, than its fair game.
Click to expand...
Actually, I've grown to accept his action, and I have made arguments, for a while now, with even statistical proof of the large dependencies of Murali's bowling. I've scratched the surface and I don't see him superior at all.

So I am from neither schools of thought, I am from the thought that his action is legimitate, as declared, and withstanding that I don't see him as Warne's equal - whatever that margin is.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Days of Grace said:
FFS, man, he has been cleared, he is playing, therefore his stats count. If he was white-skinned, and an Aussie, then Australians would be reaching for the tissues and vasoline everytime he takes a wicket.
Click to expand...
Nishant said:
True...usually that sort of statement is debatable...but the aussies do have a history of racist remarks etc etc...
Click to expand...
roseboy64 said:
I'd tend to agree with that especially considering Australia's racial history.
Click to expand...
What a lot of old cobblers these three statements are. Plenty of people have questioned his action. Those people are black, white and all colours in between. Frankly, if you want to lower the tone of the debate to making generalisations that those from this country who question his action are motivated by race then as far as I'm concerned your credibility is about as high as those imbeciles who yell out racial abuse at people on sporting fields themselves.
As I've posted earlier on this forum, the bloke's been cleared, let him bowl and get on with it. What I think of his action is frankly irrelevant, and if he gets past Warne here I'll stand up and clap him, coz it's a great achievement.
Ask Monty Panesar how he was received out here last time? Despite what Smith said, he was received really wel by the crowds here - they loved him.
I'm interested in the above posters' comments about Australia's "racial history". What, per chance, are you speaking of? Are you referring to idiotic racial remarks at sporting venues, or something else? Because if a country's history of yelling crap out at sports events or of treating racial minorities poorly means that you can write off criticism/ comment by people from that country then I'm afraid if you're from the States, your opinion can be written off too. Same with the UK, same with every damn country on earth just about. Spare us the holier-than-thou crap - are each of your countries beyond criticism when it comes to their treatment of minorities or on racial issues? I think not.
You want to bring the race thing into it, then do so. But you are frankly insulting the intelligence of people on this forum who are as entitled to their opinion as anyone else. What's it going to come to - that people can't post a bloody opinion without the simple reply being "Oh well, your country has a history of racism". Top answer that. Fair dinkum - grow up.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you there aren't idiots in the crowds who yell out racist stuff, because there are. Just as there are racists in all countries and in any crowd of people you'll have any number of dickheads. But if you want to state or imply that people from here are somehow tainted by that and therefore their comments aren't worthwhile, then frankly what's to stop people from other parts of the world tainting posters from India with the crowd violence they've had there in the past and just saying "Well, there's a history of thuggishness there, so that really explains their position on X or Y?" Answer: You can't, and nor should you.
Funnily enough, tolerance s a two way thing guys, and if you want to bang on about Australians being racist, it's about as accurate as me saying if you're a Muslim then you're a terrorist. Which would (rightly) be condemend by any decent thinking person.

Jamee999 said:
we can have some (reasonably) good debates on CW without resorting to insulting the cricketer they favour. (Cameron, no.)
Click to expand...
Yes we can. Can we also have some debate which does not involve making generalisations about people who have an opinion about certain players and trying to undermine their opinions with thinly veiled accusations of racism?
 
roseboy64

roseboy64

Cricket Web Content Updater
archie mac said:
Yes we are all racist8-)
Click to expand...
Burgey said:
What a lot of old cobblers these three statements are. Plenty of people have questioned his action. Those people are black, white and all colours in between. Frankly, if you want to lower the tone of the debate to making generalisations that those from this country who question his action are motivated by race then as far as I'm concerned your credibility is about as high as those imbeciles who yell out racial abuse at people on sporting fields themselves.
As I've posted earlier on this forum, the bloke's been cleared, let him bowl and get on with it. What I think of his action is frankly irrelevant, and if he gets past Warne here I'll stand up and clap him, coz it's a great achievement.
Ask Monty Panesar how he was received out here last time? Despite what Smith said, he was received really wel by the crowds here - they loved him.
I'm interested in the above posters' comments about Australia's "racial history". What, per chance, are you speaking of? Are you referring to idiotic racial remarks at sporting venues, or something else? Because if a country's history of yelling crap out at sports events or of treating racial minorities poorly means that you can write off criticism/ comment by people from that country then I'm afraid if you're from the States, your opinion can be written off too. Same with the UK, same with every damn country on earth just about. Spare us the holier-than-thou crap - are each of your countries beyond criticism when it comes to their treatment of minorities or on racial issues? I think not.
You want to bring the race thing into it, then do so. But you are frankly insulting the intelligence of people on this forum who are as entitled to their opinion as anyone else. What's it going to come to - that people can't post a bloody opinion without the simple reply being "Oh well, your country has a history of racism". Top answer that. Fair dinkum - grow up.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you there aren't idiots in the crowds who yell out racist stuff, because there are. Just as there are racists in all countries and in any crowd of people you'll have any number of dickheads. But if you want to state or imply that people from here are somehow tainted by that and therefore their comments aren't worthwhile, then frankly what's to stop people from other parts of the world tainting posters from India with the crowd violence they've had there in the past and just saying "Well, there's a history of thuggishness there, so that really explains their position on X or Y?" Answer: You can't, and nor should you.
Funnily enough, tolerance s a two way thing guys, and if you want to bang on about Australians being racist, it's about as accurate as me saying if you're a Muslim then you're a terrorist. Which would (rightly) be condemend by any decent thinking person.

Yes we can. Can we also have some debate which does not involve making generalisations about people who have an opinion about certain players and trying to undermine their opinions with thinly veiled accusations of racism?
Click to expand...
Was referring more to instances of the 1960/61 West Indies Tour where the white Gerry Alexander was accepted into someone's home when his two darker skinned companions weren't. Also, with the issue of the iimmigration restrictions of the past as well as some recent acts of violence against those whose origins are from the subcontinent I think. Didn't say that anyone here on CW was racist but why is it that Lee's action isn't at all discussed as based on the naked eye it is a bit suspect. Lawson gets called time and again but gets cleared by the ICC every time. Also I haven't heard reports of any Australian or Englishman's action being brought into question. Saying that there are quite a few who'll disregard Murali based on race. Not the majority though who are Warne fans and won't accept his greatness being challenged. Also, others have pro- aussie biases.For me Warne is better but not by such a distance as some suggest because based on the stats there isn't too much between them really and they must have other motives behind their opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top