• 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

honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
FaaipDeOiad said:
I've made several posts on this forum in the past saying more or less exactly this. You can say whatever you like about Warne and Murali, but the fundamental weakness in statistical comparisons between the two is that the playing field has never been level. Issues always come up about Warne playing England so much and Murali playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, Murali playing on Sri Lankan wickets, Warne not facing his own team etc. The closest it ever came to a level playing field was that series IMO, with both bowlers reasonably close to their best, fit and playing in the same conditions, and Warne was clearly the better bowler over those three games, for the reasons you mention.

It certainly doesn't mean that Warne was always a better bowler, but for the Murali fans who argue that Warne doesn't even warrant comparison to Murali, that series would be one to forget.
Click to expand...
The problem is, Sean, there are just as many "Murali is nowhere close to Warne" guys as there are "Warne is nowhere close to Murali" guys. I do believe that Warne was the better bowler in that series, but honestly, not by much... I dunno about Richard but I would definitely be panicking if I am gonna rate Dilshan as one of the better players of spin in my team. I think THAT particular Sri Lankan side wasn't so good against spinners.


And I think the main reason was that, against Warne, the only way you are ever really gonna do much against him is by attacking him. And the likes of Atapattu, Tillekeratne, and perhaps Jayawardene at that time were reasonably good at blocking out spinners (and their success against the likes of Kumble and Harbhajan shows that), they were not all that good when it comes to pulling off a dominant innings or two against quality spinners. And Warne is the sort of bowler who will basically sit on you if you allow him to dictate to you and that is how I think he ended up being so good in that series. Overall, it is reasonable to believe that the likes of Atapattu and Tillkeratne are better players of spin compared to a Katich and Gilchrist, in that particular series and given that they were up against Warne, I would have rather had the Katichs and the Gilchrist than the Tillekeratnes and Dilshans. It is no secret to see why they weren't as effective as when Aravinda was around as he was someone who would play his shots and do it well against someone like Warne. Not saying he alone made the difference in the previous series, but I am just saying that with someone like him around, it would have changed Warney's thought processes a little bit. But with these guys, he gets a licence really, given the fact that they hardly ever attack and even if they do, they are very very less likely to succeed...

This may also, to an extent, show up why Dravid seems to struggle against Warne unless he has had a bit of quality attacking batting support from somewhere else in the line up. Even in Nagpur, I think this showed up, in 2004...... Strokeless but excellent in defence guys are just virtual Warney bunnies, IMHO.....
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
FaaipDeOiad said:
Frankly, it's not a case which presents itself well for statistical argument, but it was quite evident if you watched the games. The first test is the clearest example for me. Murali took 11 for the match in what is obviously an excellent performance, but his second innings bowling was pretty average by his standards. The fact that three batsmen scored centuries before he got them out more or less illustrates that, and you can add to that the fact that he took several wickets when Australia were looking for quick runs to declare. If he'd had better support he wouldn't have ended up with those wickets, and 2/100 looks a lot worse than 5/150. The same pattern more or less held for the whole series. Murali bowled well and at times caused the Australians lots of problems and returned excellent figures, but even when they got right on top of him he still ended up with plenty of wickets and decent figures because nobody else was taking them. Warne was generally more threatening but had more competition for his wickets.

Anyway, it's only one series, but I can't see for the life of me how anyone who watched the series could imagine Murali was the better performer.
Click to expand...
what about the fact that in most of those 4th innings, Warne was bowling with Sri Lanka well and truly under the pump? And with better quality bowling support which meant, at times, they were trying to score their runs off Warne rather than the other guys? It all cuts both ways, really......


I do think Warne bowled as well as he had ever done in that series but that doesn't mean he really outperformed Murali or whatever. Murali was just as outstanding in his own way, considering all the factors....
 
S

shehanwije

School Boy/Girl Captain
KaZoH0lic said:
I'm not trying to cause a ruckus over these two again. I made a statement that Murali has largely been hit around by the Aussies and the analysed series is probably his best. His record against Australia isn't great and I thought that is why Murali wouldn't get #1..
Click to expand...
This is a piece of pure fiction perputated by Warne-lovers as Murali's Test record against Australia in the past 7 years is outstanding, and probably the best in world cricket - 33 wkts in 4 tests, including 5 wkts in Sydney for the World XI. What more can Murali do - he has delivered against Aus in ALL tests that he has played in this period.
 
Last edited:
Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
If it weren't for the Carlton thing, I'd agree, but Saggers has let himself down badly in that department, and it will always be a blot on his record.
 
Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
good move by Pasag to relocate the posts - this is one of the most interesting questions in cricket, but its a cancer on CW when it drags in every other thread tangently related to either player.

The other problem is that some posters can't discuss it without resorting to personal attacks, which is a shame. I'd vote for a permanent ban on the next person who resorts to a piece of personal abuse in a Murali-Warne argument! ;)
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
honestbharani said:
It is no secret to see why they weren't as effective as when Aravinda was around as he was someone who would play his shots and do it well against someone like Warne. Not saying he alone made the difference in the previous series
Click to expand...
No?

Aravinda in that series scored his runs at 96, the next best who played more than 1 innings was Jayawardene at 30. There was just 1 other half-century in the series (of a round 50).

That series was one of my favourites because my favourite batsman ever (Aravinda) virtually single-handedly defied Australia.

How dare you decry it?! :@
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
Don't wanna get into a detailed argument on this series as I only watched parts of it and while I was keeping an eye on the updates, I never really watched it fully and with as much interest as I would usually do... But you mention about how Zoysa and Vaas helped Murali in the first dig in the second test. Kasper has done the same for Warney there and yet, you are saying Warne was the top performer for Australia easily, even though Kasper took 3 of the top 4 very cheaply and ended up with 4 overall, which is easily as important as whatever Zoysa did for Sri Lanka when they bowled in the first innings. Surely, Kasper was the joint performer there with Warney if that is the way you rated Zoysa and Murali........
Click to expand...

Kasper did it very well with the top 3, it just wasn't enough to top Warne in the game or his figures. Whilst in that Zoysa/Vaas both guys have better claim to the top performer than Murali. Stats-wise Vaas absolutely is ahead and stats+impact wise, Zoysa is ahead of Murali too.

In the Zoysa and Vaas help, they took 5 of the first 7 wickets and Murali chipped in with 1 wicket without an expense and 1 with an expense. It was really them that killed the Aussies off. And stats-wise only Zoysa is a bit inferior, VERY small fraction (6 runs, 1 over less) whilst the difference between Warne and Kasper was 4 overs and 18 runs less.

That was my reasoning, I hope that settles it, I wasn't trying to be biased at all so I hope you see what I was doing with it.
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
JASON said:
Exactly the point I made in my post as well. In fact If you take Frontline batsmen's wickets only ,Warne had most wickets in only 2 of those 6 innings....But as far as Kaza goes , Vaas had a greater impact that Kaspa or Gillespie...:laugh:

See for yourself.:)

Warne was the player of the series because he was on the winning side, he was bowling on late Day 4 and Day 5 when conditions are what spinners dream of (and hence his stats on the second innings in all these Tests look better) and with SL batting struggling on the 4th innings of these 3 tests , and because he had just overtaken Courtney Walsh as the leading Test wicket taker.

He certainly did not outperform Murali ....(and you only have to look at the quality of the wickets taken to judge for yourself.)
Click to expand...
He just missed out on that actually - Warne finished the series on 517, two short of Walsh, while Murali finished on 513. However Murali overtook Walsh first in his following series against the Zimbabwe 3rd XI, which are somehow still acknowledged as Tests to my eternal dismay. But that's another story...
 
nightprowler10

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
I'm of the opinion that O'Reilly was the greater spinner as he had a bigger impact on the game than Murali or Warne. I always like to give credit where its due when it comes to old timers contributing to the development of the game, hence why I rate Bart King probably much higher than anyone else on this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top