*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[The Sean]

Good call on King - how I wish he'd had the opportunity to play Test cricket. We may well speak of him in the same breath as SF Barnes if that had been the case.

 

[nightprowler10]

King did play against a full strength Australian team in 1893 and took the Aussies apart. He took 5/78 on a road where Hugh Trumble took 2/104 (albeit due to many dropped catches). Apparently the Australians had trouble getting used to the short boundaries. Not to mention he averaged something like 11 on his tour of England.

But yeah, still would loved to see how he would've fared against Test opposition. Isn't there a CricSim for that?

 

[Ikki]

.......

Anyone who watched that Test can say how effective Shane was ...IIRC his wickets were all tailenders ...(ICC tailenders...which must be the cheapest on the market ... ).

Hmm, what were Murali's figures again?

[url]http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=player;playerid=2041;class=testplayer;filter=basic;team=ICC-XI;opposition=0;notopposition=0;season=0;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;startdefault=1992-08-28;start=1992-08-28;enddefault=2007-07-14;end=2007-07-14;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduledovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;result=0;followon=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;viewtype=bow_summary;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype[/URL]

And what were Warne's?

http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

You recall INCORRECTLY, once AGAIN. You're embarrassing your own argument. You obviously didn't see the Test at all, in fact, after this second blunder I am tending to think you're blind and someone types for you as you chatter away.

Warne took Sehwag, Kallis and Boucher in the first innings and Dravid, Lara and Boucher again in the 2nd. NO Tail-Ender wickets. Do you have eyes? Because so far you've supposedly seen two series and in both you were wrong by FAR. What is funny is that not only are they not Tail Enders, they are the best players of spin in the world.

In the first innings, Murali got 2 Non-Tailenders, Watson and Hayden of course, but Hayden had already scored 111 runs. Sounding familiar yet? In the second he does much better with 2 Non-Tailenders and 2 Tailenders and makes his performance look somewhat decent. Whereas Warne's only expense is Sehwag at 76. And even that's misleading because Warne conceded only 23 runs in the whole innings and averaged 7-8 per wicket. It was obviously a case of the openers getting their shot and failing and as Warne comes in he cleaned him up. Now THAT's what Matt was talking about and THAT's what's more important. Getting a batsman who has creamed the rest out quickly as you come in, not getting a batsmen out after he has creamed you and your side.

And Murali had 54 overs to Warne's 31. Hmm, if anything would reflect a Murali in a team with great batting and great support, this would be it.

You have obviously changed your tune from what you said here 1 or 2 days back . So you are either a Split personality with each one contradicting what the other said or you have 2 halves of Brain that say different things.... Read the above for yourself ...

You'll have to help me out there, where did I change my tune? Murali bowls so much that he's going to take wickets and his ratios are going to look better, which is what I have been saying in the first place and in the second one I am mentioning that 2 more tail-enders are minuscule when you consider that Warne usually comes in with a few taken - hence making it actually less probable to take a higher order of top to bottom batters. Still with me?

Warne took Dilshan 4 times and Tillekeratne 4 times then Mahela, Sang twice each and Atapattu , Jayasuriya once. Murali took Hayden 3 times, Lehmann 4 times, Martyn 3 times, Gilchrist 3 times, Symonds 3 times and Katich twice, Plus he took 2 less tailenders wickets (Australian tailenders).

So the same players that grow up in a dust bowl, are kinda used to facing spin and are clearly handing MacGill his ass are now crap? It kinda doesn't mean much when you list who Murali took, especially when for most of the time he was getting HAMMERED by them. Let's say they're not great, but they're more than adequate and a lot better than most our side, especially the tail-enders.

And you say they are about the same ...I would say Kaza , you are talking a load of Bull..when you read the strength of the batsmen there.

I'd say you talk a load of bull just as it is.

Your split exhibits itself when you say Warne's fingures are understandable given the strength of his support bowlers, but not so for Murali...

Some how you conjure up this ...

I was talking about two different things in two different contexts. You can make a case for support being helpful or unhelpful. I am explaining things as they were being argued, but once again, just for you:

Warne doesn't bowl to the whole batting line-up, he never gets the kind of chance that Murali does to face openers because of his support. So in this instance, where we regard top-order wickets, he is HANDICAPPED. Proportionality or not, to only take 2 more tailenders compared to someone who regularly gets to face the top batsmen, that's actually good. In this instance, having support ISN'T helping you out.

But where support, or lack of it, CAN help you out, and what I was mentioning for Murali, is that he ends up taking so many more wickets than he would otherwise simply because he bowls so much. See, not hard to figure at all.

Using your own stats provided (see below) its clear Vaas may have claimed a couple of wickets in each innings but he could hardly claim to have as much inflence as Murali.

Yeah, because Murali plain bowls almost twice the amount Vaas does. Hmm. Yet Vaas comes up trumps anyway and does take wickets and cheaply too. In fact, the innings in which Vaas and Murali bowl similar amount of overs - the 2nd test, 1st innings - he ends up with better figures.

And as these stats show as I had previously stated "Murali kept SL in the contest till SL's batsmen folded out in the second innings in each Test on the last day."

As it showed, he quite clearly didn't.

Murali's economy (despite taking better quality batsmen and more Frontliners than tailenders) is comparable to Warne ...illustrating my point clearly. It only turns significant in the second innings, where partly due to SL losing the Toss and batting last and SL batsmen folding out batting last on Day 5 that the difference is made . I would say If Murali was bowling on the last day even against the quality of the Australian opposition he would have just as good figures if not better...see his record bowling last against most countries.

Australia won the toss in all three Tests and Warne was bowling on Day 5 in all three Tests in SL pitches which on Day 5 are notorious for making even the flattest of spinners look great. Little surprise of Warne's stats being better on the second innings compared to Murali.

Actually, there was no Day 5 in the 2nd test. And whilst you're right that the pitch becomes more receptive as it ages, the opposite goes for Murali in which his 2nd innings figures in ALL tests are actually WORSE than his 1st innings figures.

I think another illustration of your split personality coming into focus with the above. Isn't it great that a guy can take Frontline batsmen before they ran riot ....Most sensible people would say so...not so the case with you, eh....

Erm, I think we're having an English problem here. I just said that: it's better to take the frontline batsmen before they run riot, not after - which is what Murali is shown here to do a lot of.

As the wickets taken as shown before by Richard has shown, Murali took Australian Frontliners (Gilchrist x 3, Hayden x 3, Martyn x 3, Lehman x4, Symonds x 3, Katich x 2)
ie 18/28 wickets, Warne took (Dilshan x4, Tillekeratne x 4, Mahela, Sang twice each, Atapattu, Jayasuriya once + 12 Srilankan tailenders) ie 14/26 ( One could argue Dilshan and Tillekeratne's wickets were average at best ) . The fact that Murali took Frontline Batsmen of such quality has to reflect in the average...simple or what...not for you it seems.

And as I showed you, with figures that are still up for analysing, most those batsmen already knocked the stuffing out of Murali before he got them out.

Murali was the chief wicket taker (and of Frontline batsmen) in 5 out of 6 innings (all of which were before Day4 ) , While Warne was the leading wicket taker in 3 out of 6 innings.
(atleast 2 of these were on Day 5 in SL pitches well known to be Spin heaven even for the flattest of spinners on Day 5).
The comparison of number of Man of the Match awards in their careers clearly reflects whose impact was significant more often. I suggest you check that stat before your next post.

Um, this definitely isn't a language problem but you're clearly reading the stats wrong.

Murali was the best bowler in his side for 3 of the 6 innings. Warne was the best in 4 out of 6. And this is with Warne having more 'support' to beat off.

And as said, Murali's figures got worse in the 2nd innings of every test match. This is Murali's home btw, the one where he plays so many test matches?

 

[Ikki]

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...

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.)

If 2nd innings performances are bound to be better, then how come in EVERY 2nd innings Murali actually does WORSE than his first inning? Funny that.

You didn't see the match, in fact, you're plainly embarrassing yourself now. Someone who was there to watch the matches is saying this. No doubt, you were sitting on the grounds there on Day 5 in the 2nd test too?

 

[Ikki]

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.

No, it's, at best, average and actually pretty crap in Australia. Anil Kumble springs to mind fast. He did better both at home and away.

 

[steds]

in EVERY 2nd innings Murali actually does WORSE than his first inning

Now that just isn't true. Stop talking nonsense.

 

[Ikki]

Now that just isn't true. Stop talking nonsense.

Bleeding hell, you're sourcing matches against Bangladesh and England. I am talking about the 2003/04 series of Australia V Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka. Read some of the thread before replying like that.

 

[steds]

Bleeding hell, you're sourcing matches against Bangladesh and England. I am talking about the 2003/04 series of Australia V Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka. Read some of the thread before replying like that.

No. You put "in EVERY 2nd innings Murali actually does WORSE than his first inning." That's not only shocking grammar for referencing a series in the past, but you made no mention of the series in question. You made a general point, even if it was not the point to were trying to make, to which I made a general reply.

 

[Ikki]

No. You put "in EVERY 2nd innings Murali actually does WORSE than his first inning." That's not only shocking grammar for referencing a series in the past, but you made no mention of the series in question. You made a general point, even if it was not the point to were trying to make, to which I made a general reply.

Look at the past few pages. Look at the quote I am actually replying to. Of course I am not making the claim you thought I had, that would have been kinda outrageous. Instead of reading what the context of the reply was in, you reply like that to me? And then you still fail to see that it was your mistake and not mine? LOL, nevermind, don't need to argue this one.

 

[JASON]

If 2nd innings performances are bound to be better, then how come in EVERY 2nd innings Murali actually does WORSE than his first inning? Funny that.

You didn't see the match, in fact, you're plainly embarrassing yourself now. Someone who was there to watch the matches is saying this. No doubt, you were sitting on the grounds there on Day 5 in the 2nd test too?

Second innings on day 3 or Day 4 is not the same as the 4 th Innings of Test Match - go and see the stats of 2000 odd tests played and see the results skewed against Teams batting 4th then you may make sense.

You obviously have no idea on the impact for any Team batting on 4th innings !!

Your Rambling garbage of post is as confusing as most of your Split reasonings that are acceptable for Warne but not for Murali...and I don't see they are worth replying to ... because they are as confusing as your posts....

You use stats to confuse everyone and think you have proven a point when its clear you are at best trying to confuse everyone with your bluff.

 

[JASON]

And for the record, Murali took most Australian Frontline batsmen in 5 out of the 6 innings in the 3 Tests in that series. Warne only took most Front line Sri Lankan batsmen in 2 of the 6 innings as Kaspa and Gilly combined and Lehman (of all people) took most Front line batsmen in the remaining 4 innings.

See for yourself.

 

[Ikki]

Second innings on day 3 or Day 4 is not the same as the 4 th Innings of Test Match - go and see the stats of 2000 odd tests played and see the results skewed against Teams batting 4th then you may make sense.

You obviously have no idea on the impact for any Team batting on 4th innings !!

Your Rambling garbage of post is as confusing as most of your Split reasonings that are acceptable for Warne but not for Murali...and I don't see they are worth replying to ... because they are as confusing as your posts....

You use stats to confuse everyone and think you have proven a point when its clear you are at best trying to confuse everyone with your bluff.

I proved you wrong, I proved your lack of knowledge in almost every point you put across. Your generalisations and your CLEAR lack of memory puts your argument in the bin. A Day 4 pitch is actually comparable. The point is that as the pitch ages, it is much more conducive to spin, so it just means that a Day 5 pitch is just better than a Day 4 pitch for spin. But for Murali, he was actually WORSE in all 2nd innings, in that series, so it puts that trash away. If Murali was getting better with an older pitch, then I could see how the lack of bowling on Day 5 pitch could be justified as an advantage that Murali didn't have, but he was clearly much better in the first innings.

Also in the 2nd match, Warne also did better in his first innings than he did in his second. So this thing with Day 5 pitches is hardly black and white, yet you can ramble on as if it means something.

You copped out, you can't reply so don't go talking as if you're too good to reply. You were factually incorrect. I think you should do people a favour and just stop the non-sense and the misinformation.

 

[Ikki]

And for the record, Murali took most Australian Frontline batsmen in 5 out of the 6 innings in the 3 Tests in that series. Warne only took most Front line Sri Lankan batsmen in 2 of the 6 innings as Kaspa and Gilly combined and Lehman (of all people) took most Front line batsmen in the remaining 4 innings.

See for yourself.

Yes, he did, he took them after they all battered him all over the park. And not just the ones that play spin well, but guys like Gilchrist and Katich who aren't good like that at all. But I mean you were there sitting in the ground whilst I was on my sofa, of course you were going to miss the times when he was getting hit for runs and you had to leave and buy food/drinks . You want frontline wicket taking to mean something? Take a look at the ICC World XI test you said you had saw - but obviously didn't. Warne took the best players of spin, and ALL frontline batsmen, for chips.

 

[JASON]

I proved you wrong, I proved your lack of knowledge in almost every point you put across. Your generalisations and your CLEAR lack of memory puts your argument in the bin. A Day 4 pitch is actually comparable. The point is that as the pitch ages, it is much more conducive to spin, so it just means that a Day 5 pitch is just better than a Day 4 pitch for spin. But for Murali, he was actually WORSE in all 2nd innings, in that series, so it puts that trash away. If Murali was getting better with an older pitch, then I could see how the lack of bowling on Day 5 pitch could be justified as an advantage that Murali didn't have, but he was clearly much better in the first innings.

Also in the 2nd match, Warne also did better in his first innings than he did in his second. So this thing with Day 5 pitches is hardly black and white, yet you can ramble on as if it means something.

You copped out, you can't reply so don't go talking as if you're too good to reply. You were factually incorrect. I think you should do people a favour and just stop the non-sense and the misinformation.

You didn't prove me wrong. On the contrary you have tried hard to confuse the stats unsuccesfully.

Anyone who knows the subcontinent pitches and SL pitches knows what I am talking about ...and you obviously don't.

You keeping rambling about - but the facts are clear Murali took Frontline batsmen of far greater quality and in the first innings of each Test was as good as or better than Warne. (On Day 1 of Tests).

Warne's stats are greatly helped by bowling on Day 5 in all three Tests ...Simple

Warne took more Frontline batsmen than any other Aussie bowler in only 2 of the 6 innings as compared to Murali doing it on 5 out of 6 innings....

That should be clear as Mud...Doubt it will be for you...

 

[Ikki]

You didn't prove me wrong. On the contrary you have tried hard to confuse the stats unsuccesfully.

You keep saying that, but it seems you can't exemplify 1 point in regards to this. Whilst I've been careful with exactly what I've said. I mean, it wasn't me who said something stupid like "Warne took only Tail-Ender ICC XI wickets", when he didn't take 1. If clarifying facts that you've made up is confusing you, then that's a whole other issue. So where have the stats been 'confused' and why is it that only you seem to be confused about them?

Anyone who knows the subcontinent pitches and SL pitches knows what I am talking about ...and you obviously don't.

Uh, explain then what you're talking about. If you're talking about the receptiveness of pitches to spin as they age, I said I'd agree. But it isn't something as clear cut as that because a) Murali actually did worse as the pitch got better for spin b) in the 2nd test Warne got better figures in his 1st innings than his 2nd.

You keeping rambling about - but the facts are clear Murali took Frontline batsmen of far greater quality and in the first innings of each Test was as good as or better than Warne. (On Day 1 of Tests).

I keep rambling about?

That the batsmen you mentioned hit Murali around, most of them scoring centuries against Murali and his mates? Yes, which is my whole point: Murali takes those wickets because of the sheer amount he bowls, whereas his impact on the game doesn't reflect his stats.

Warne's stats are greatly helped by bowling on Day 5 in all three Tests ...Simple

Er, they're not, because in his 2nd ...let me just copy paste because you seem to go round in circles:

If you're talking about the receptiveness of pitches to spin as they age, I said I'd agree. But it isn't something as clear cut as that because a) Murali actually did worse as the pitch got better for spin b) in the 2nd test Warne got better figures in his 1st innings than his 2nd.

Warne took more Frontline batsmen than any other Aussie bowler in only 2 of the 6 innings as compared to Murali doing it on 5 out of 6 innings....

But before you said:

Murali was the chief wicket taker (and of Frontline batsmen) in 5 out of 6 innings (all of which were before Day4 ) , While Warne was the leading wicket taker in 3 out of 6 innings.

Haha, so now it went from 3/6 for Warne to 2/6; Anyway, it seems you're confusing the stats - which are still up - Warne was the better performer in 4/6 innings for his team whilst Murali was in 3/6.

That should be clear as Mud...Doubt it will be for you...

Hahaha, EXACTLY, what you just said is clear as mud for me...because I actually make some sense.

 

[SJS]

 

[SJS]

 

[JBH001]

You didn't prove me wrong. On the contrary you have tried hard to confuse the stats unsuccesfully.

Anyone who knows the subcontinent pitches and SL pitches knows what I am talking about ...and you obviously don't.

You keeping rambling about - but the facts are clear Murali took Frontline batsmen of far greater quality and in the first innings of each Test was as good as or better than Warne. (On Day 1 of Tests).

Warne's stats are greatly helped by bowling on Day 5 in all three Tests ...Simple

Warne took more Frontline batsmen than any other Aussie bowler in only 2 of the 6 innings as compared to Murali doing it on 5 out of 6 innings....

That should be clear as Mud...Doubt it will be for you...

Just to clarify matters:

Murali took 15 wickets for 230 runs in the 1st innings (1st innings of the match).
Warne took 12 wickets for 296 runs in the 1st innings (2 innings of the match).

Murali took 13 wickets for 419 runs in the 2nd innings (3rd innings of the match).
Warne took 14 wickets for 225 runs in the 2 innings (4th innings of the match).

Warne did do all of his bowling in 4th innings of the match on the 4th and 5th days of every Test, and furthermore, did it in a context where Sri Lanka were chasing totals in the 300 - 400 range - iirc, SL's run rate is quite high in all their 2nd innings performances, and higher than in their first innings. The same applies to Australia, however, they had the luxury of being able to construct an innings and to set a target, which conversely would make things harder for the opposing bowlers.

Kazo does raise an interesting point regarding the discrepancy between Murali's first and second innings bowling performances.
There are two possibilities that may account for it:

1. The pitch had some bounce in it on Day 1 and Day 2 which favoured Murali (and Warne). As the test proceeded the bounce wore off, the pitch played truer, before beginning to disintergrate on the 4th day (would be interesting to see if Murali's 2 innings wickets mostly fell on this day, which might lend this idea some support).

2. Sri Lankan pitches and conditions do at times lend support on the first day, and in the morning, to good pace bowling. It would be interesting to see if, in the Australian first innings the SL pacemen had made inroads into the Aus top 3, which would have exposed the middle order to Murali - whilst in their second innings, at least 2 of the top 3 Australian bats would have got going, thus settling in, and being well able to see out Murali.

I myself do not remember the conditions of these games all that well, save that as the tests proceeded, the pitches did deteriorate (esp Day 4 and 5).

On another note, this discussion was more fun in the other thread (though I can see why it was moved and agree with the reasons for it). But putting it back in the Murali vs Warne thread does bring back the depressing nature of this whole debate.

 

[Ikki]

Just to clarify matters:

Murali took 15 wickets for 230 runs in the 1st innings (1st innings of the match).
Warne took 12 wickets for 296 runs in the 1st innings (2 innings of the match).

Murali took 13 wickets for 419 runs in the 2nd innings (3rd innings of the match).
Warne took 14 wickets for 225 runs in the 2 innings (4th innings of the match).

Warne did do all of his bowling in 4th innings of the match on the 4th and 5th days of every Test, and furthermore, did it in a context where Sri Lanka were chasing totals in the 300 - 400 range - iirc, SL's run rate is quite high in all their 2nd innings performances, and higher than in their first innings. The same applies to Australia, however, they had the luxury of being able to construct an innings and to set a target, which conversely would make things harder for the opposing bowlers.

Actually, in the 2nd test Warne bowled on the 1st day. The 2nd test being the one where Warne's 1st innings record was better than his 2nd innings. So, if any trend is to be had, it seems that the 1st day yielded better bowling for BOTH bowlers.

Also, in the first test Sri Lanka bowler Australia out easily and at the start of the 2nd innings were 160 ahead, they just got slaughtered in the 2nd innings. The same with the 2nd test, the Sri Lankans bowled Australia out cheaply and went into the 2nd innings ahead again by 90 that time. The 3rd test 1st innings, was the ONLY one which Australia scored heavily on and Sri Lanka outscored them and went into the 2nd innings ahead AGAIN, so there was no ease for the Aussie batsmen nor for the Aussie bowlers to clean up, due to lack of pressure.

Kazo does raise an interesting point regarding the discrepancy between Murali's first and second innings bowling performances.
There are two possibilities that may account for it:

1. The pitch had some bounce in it on Day 1 and Day 2 which favoured Murali (and Warne). As the test proceeded the bounce wore off, the pitch played truer, before beginning to disintergrate on the 4th day (would be interesting to see if Murali's 2 innings wickets mostly fell on this day, which might lend this idea some support).

2. Sri Lankan pitches and conditions do at times lend support on the first day, and in the morning, to good pace bowling. It would be interesting to see if, in the Australian first innings the SL pacemen had made inroads into the Aus top 3, which would have exposed the middle order to Murali - whilst in their second innings, at least 2 of the top 3 Australian bats would have got going, thus settling in, and being well able to see out Murali.

I myself do not remember the conditions of these games all that well, save that as the tests proceeded, the pitches did deteriorate (esp Day 4 and 5).

On another note, this discussion was more fun in the other thread (though I can see why it was moved and agree with the reasons for it). But putting it back in the Murali vs Warne thread does bring back the depressing nature of this whole debate.

1) In regards to Murali taking those wickets in the Day 4, in the 1st test, 2nd innings, he got a great chance to use the 'deteriorated' conditions and got wickets Hayden, Martyn, Lehmann and Symonds, but their scores ended up with: 130, 110, 129 and 24 respectively. Hayden got his century before the start of Day 4 with 109 but the other 2 built their innings on THAT day.

In the 2nd test, 2nd innings, Day 4 - which was the last day - saw little of Sri Lankan bowling but Martyn had already scored a 100+.

In the 3rd test, 2nd innings, on Day 4 Sri Lanka had the whole day and pretty much the whole line-up to bowl to and on the most receptive pitch, Herath ended up with better figures than Murali. And, in fact, I have to make a correction, I counted 1 more Non-Tailender for Murali when it seems Gillespie was put up as nigh****chman. So Warne, in the series, only took 1 more Non-Tailender than Murali, not 2.

Irrespective of this, on the 4th day Langer ends up with a 166 and Katich with an 86.

Now, I reckon it a silly argument to try and say that 4th Day pitches aren't receptive. Sri Lankan pitches even on Day 1 are, but on Day 4? And in two of the tests Murali and co. got a nice whole Day 4 they were whacked around.

2) in 4 out 6 innings Murali got to face the Aussie batsmen from the openers-down and the only times he couldn't do so because the SL pacemen took them too early were in the 2nd test, 2nd innings; and the 3rd test, 1st innings. So, for the large part they were usual conditions where Murali bowled a lot and at most the batsmen - his range wasn't minimised due to in-roads made by his pacers.

And to be frank, this is getting tiresome. It's obvious statistically and even for those that saw the match. Warne was the better bowler in that series and he made the biggest impact in the game easily. Murali will always figure a lot into SL's effort because he bowls so much, but his impact varies a lot and he did not do enough here to have been considered to perform better.

 

[Ikki]