*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Ikki]

you guys are like the energizer bunny....i salute your stamina...

The hilarity of it is that we are engaging based on his misunderstanding of what I actually mean. I will entertain it for two simple reasons: he is completely wrong and (despite the little heated debates) I actually like Sanz and think him a knowledgeable person. I just think he should read over my posts a few times before replying.

 

[Sanz]

So Aravinda is a better ODI bowler than Warne?

Based on your criteria of "WC finals are a different ball of wax." - He is the best ever ODI cricketer.

I said at the start that both bowlers are great ODI bowlers but one did well in all finals. WC finals Warne > Murali. All WC finals Warne > Murali. Not by a little, by a lot.

So is Warne - in Prelim matches not by a little but by A LOT.

Warne in Preliminary matches 23.11, Murali 18.73.

As you can see, one did exceptionally well in Preliminaries whereas the other was merely good. In the only final they played together, Murali easily outperformed Warne.

Hahaha, so did I say 0/58 is not poor? I said 1/31 is not 'magnificent' (as Migara suggested).

Since when you started accepting Migara's statements ? Let me know, okay.

So Murali's BEST record is 1/31. Do you remember what I called it? I said it was average. Not MAGNIFICENT. To aid you read I'll use caps in some important words.

As usual you are talking about GRAND FINALS. But when your pants are on fire you switch to ALL Finals to save your ass.

They do, and always have. This was your trouble in the other ODI thread. That's why I keep asking if you can read. All finals Tendulkar and Ponting are similar whilst one of them has proven himself 2/3 WC finals. That, I said, is the basic difference if one wanted to argue it. Whilst you kept going on about their whole career...to which I said the difference is only 1 run and 1 ball.

I see that Once again you are back to your 'GRAND FINALS' tune.

But that's the funny thing, you are so high you forgot to check that his overall record/WC record (what have you) does not support his claim as the BEST all-rounder ever. It's only ONE performance in the final.

Again, I hope you improve your reading. You ask if there is anything you missed .

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, And it is fairly well known here. I am done. You can bask in the glory of your reading skills while the rest of the forum ponders over your hypocrisy.

My reading skills may not be superior to anyone else(although they are much better than your writting skills) , but at least I am not a hypocrite and inconsistent.

 

[Sanz]

I actually like Sanz and think him a knowledgeable person.

Unfortunately you come across as a very biased individual as far the cricketing discussions are concerned. Your inability to debate with any kind of neutrality is big hindrance to the debates you engage in.

That said, I am least qualified to judge your knowledge about matters related to cricket, because I myself dont have much clue about most of the things. But at least I am not biased.

 

[JBH001]

Agree with Sanz on this one. Kaz does seem to be moving the goal posts again from WC Final to all WC finals and so on and on. Meh.

One point regarding Murali's 1/31 vs Australia in 96. Its an under-rated performance from those who did not watch the match and merely go by the end statistics. Murali's initial spell, iirc, was 3 overs for 16 before he was taken off by Arjuna. He returned and tied up an end for 7 overs for 15 during which time the wickets of (from recollection) Ponting and Waugh fell at the other end. Not a superlative performance but better than the figures suggest.

Finally, I do agree that there is little to be gained in arguments of Murali vs Warne in the test arena. Ultimately they are so close that it comes down to subjective judgement. For a long time I thought that Warne was the superior bowler before revising that opinion in favour of Murali (although at times that opinion does still waver towards Warne). However, where ODI's are concerned I think there is a discernible difference between the two and Murali emerges as the slightly superior bowler (although I dont have the time or inclination at the moment to get into CW post-athons over it).

Oh, and Migara, its nice what you are doing and all. But please stop.

 

[Ikki]

Based on your criteria of "WC finals are a different ball of wax." - He is the best ever ODI cricketer.

And where did "a different ball of wax" translate into "let's ignore everything else but this 1 inning". Again, I think the reading comprehension problem is the trouble-maker.

So is Warne - in Prelim matches not by a little but by A LOT.

Warne in Preliminary matches 23.11, Murali 18.73.

Yes, because Murali played minnows for 8/27 of those matches. Warne has only ever faced 3 minnow sides. Do them again. The averages come out to 24-25 IIRC.

As you can see, one did exceptionally well in Preliminaries whereas the other was merely good. In the only final they played together, Murali easily outperformed Warne.

Actually, let me just do it for you because I know you need to be spoon-fed this data:

Murali's figures in the 8 other prelims against Minnows .

Since when you started accepting Migara's statements ? Let me know, okay.

LMAO, do you not have any sense of logical thinking? You responded to my post regarding 1/31 as opposed to 0/58. Migara called it 'magnificant'. My contention was that it was NOT magnificent, not that it isn't better than 0/58. The whole point was that I did not accept it, but you came arguing for him - so you can only argue what I disagree with and that was the only contention.

Is that better mate? Did I make it clear enough?

As usual you are talking about GRAND FINALS. But when your pants are on fire you switch to ALL Finals to save your ass.

Um, what? Are you lost again? Nobody is basing it on Grand finals alone - but all finals. If we base it on grand finals...he is still ahead. Are you feeling okay? Because if I argue either it means that Warne is superior. I didn't need to 'save my ass'.

I see that Once again you are back to your 'GRAND FINALS' tune.

Should I respond to this one or will you just mess it up again?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, And it is fairly well known here. I am done. You can bask in the glory of your reading skills while the rest of the forum ponders over your hypocrisy.

Haha, but that's what's funny. There is no hypocrisy. SHOW me the hypocrisy. Stop talking from your behind and SHOW it instead accusing it and walking away with your tail between your legs.

My reading skills may not be superior to anyone else(although they are much better than your writting skills) , but at least I am not a hypocrite and inconsistent.

Your reading skills may be not superior but your comprehension is non-existent. You are misunderstanding whole arguments and then you have the cheek to come here and call someone a hypocrite. I am calling you out: show it.

 

[Ikki]

Agree with Sanz on this one. Kaz does seem to be moving the goal posts again from WC Final to all WC finals and so on and on. Meh.

Show the goal posts moving. Either that or please retract that statement. Thanks.

One point regarding Murali's 1/31 vs Australia in 96. Its an under-rated performance from those who did not watch the match and merely go by the end statistics. Murali's initial spell, iirc, was 3 overs for 16 before he was taken off by Arjuna. He returned and tied up an end for 7 overs for 15 during which time the wickets of (from recollection) Ponting and Waugh fell at the other end. Not a superlative performance but better than the figures suggest.

WC 96, I watched it. Tying up an end is fine...but it is not a 'magnificent' performance (which is what it was touted to be by our friend Migara). In the light of performances that define a World cup final, it is average.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

 

[Ikki]

 

[Sanz]

LMAO, do you not have any sense of logical thinking? You responded to my post regarding 1/31 as opposed to 0/58. Migara called it 'magnificant'. My contention was that it was NOT magnificent, not that it isn't better than 0/58. The whole point was that I did not accept it, but you came arguing for him - so you can only argue what I disagree with and that was the only contention.

1/31 compared to 0/58 is magnificent. Murali clearly outperformed Warne in similar conditions in a WC final against a better group of batsmen. Head to Head, in WC Finals, He is clearly the better bowler, by quite a distance. (1 game that is, 1 WC Final - Which has been your arguing point for quite some time)

I am not arguing for anyone but myself. Your inconsistency in the arguments you make, has always been in question, Here I was pointing another one.

Really I couldn't care less much about who is a better bowler, even if Someone proved to me that Murali is 1000 times better than Warne, I would still prefer to watch Warne and have him in my team. And I am not even a Muralitharan fan.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, because Murali played minnows for 8/27 of those matches. Warne has only ever faced 3 minnow sides. Do them again. The averages come out to 24-25 IIRC

24 Vs. 26 (if you rounded it).

Actually, let me just do it for you because I know you need to be spoon-fed this data:

Murali still better, easily, despite all the filtering.

Murali's figures in the 8 other prelims against Minnows .

Works hugely in favor of Murali esp when he has better figures against Non-Minnows.

 

[Ikki]

1/31 compared to 0/58 is magnificent. Murali clearly outperformed Warne in similar conditions in a WC final against a better group of batsmen. Head to Head, in WC Finals, He is clearly the better bowler, by quite a distance. (1 game that is, 1 WC Final - Which has been your arguing point for quite some time)

WHAT a cop out. 1/31 compared to 0/58 is magnificant. Was that argument? NO, it was compared to OTHER great innings like 4/33.

Did you actually read the thread? Migara was saying of the 2 innings Murali played in the WC final one was 'magnificent' and the other he got hammered - trying to imply that he wasn't so far off Warne. Now, 1/31 is not magnificent. And neither is 0/58. End.Of.Story.

I am not arguing for anyone but myself. Your inconsistency in the arguments you make, has always been in question, Here I was pointing another one.

In my country we have a saying "trash talking is no art". SHOW the inconsistency. Thanks. This time I am going to stick on you till you show it. You've confused the issue post after post because you can't read to save your life. If you can point to it, we'll all be obliged.

Really I couldn't care less much about who is a better bowler, even if Someone proved to me that Murali is 1000 times better than Warne, I would still prefer to watch Warne and have him in my team. And I am not even a Muralitharan fan.

It doesn't really matter who is better or who isn't. As I said myself, both great bowlers and they are so close that beyond a certain point it is subjective. This is about accuracy in representation. If someone wants to call 1/31 magnificent or lie and change stats because of 0.5 runs on average then that person is incredibly dishonest.

 

[Ikki]

24 Vs. 26 (if you rounded it).

How about we just state what it is: 1.62.

Murali still better, easily, despite all the filtering.

No not easily. Better in the pre-lims but not easy like the difference between 14-25 - Warne's finals average and Murali's.

To argue that you'd take Murali because of the negligible difference in prelims as opposed to the obvious advantage Warne has...means you must really like Murali.

Works hugely in favor of Murali esp when he has better figures against Non-Minnows.

No, it doesn't work in his favour. Performances against minnows don't enhance his reputation they just inflate his figures. Sure, without them he is better and that is the argument that should be put forth. However, the difference is small whilst the other difference is large. And one is finals the other is prelims...er, uh, yeah.

 

[Sanz]

How about we just state what it is: 1.62.
To argue that you'd take Murali because of the negligible difference in prelims as opposed to the obvious advantage Warne has...means you must really like Murali.

Where did I say that I will take Murali ? Imagining things again ? 1.62 after all the filtering, without the Filtering Murali hands down.

Even 1.62 difference between two world class bowlers is remarkable. So I see that pretty Clearly Murali has better stats, even with your desired filter.

 

[Sanz]

No, it doesn't work in his favour. Performances against minnows don't enhance his reputation they just inflate his figures.

As if Murali's overall record is worse than Warne's.

Sure, without them he is better and that is the argument that should be put forth.

Why ? Why should we put that argument, because this is what suits your point in this thread ?

Actually If we tool Warne's performance(in Prelims) against Zimbawe out, His average sinks to 30.62, Murali is fairly consistent with 24.62.

So Who is benefitting from playing against a weaker team here ? (Now I wait to hear from the mighty zimbabwe because including them in the stats will suit your point)

Let's analyze their performance against Common Opposition :-

Against India :- Warne 77, Murali - 47
Against NZ :- Warne 44, Murali - 14,8
Against SA:- Warne 16.5, Murali - 15.71
Against WI : Warne 13.66, Murali 28.33

Murali performed better against 3 of them, Warne against 1.

In Chasing/Defending a Target - Warne 75.5, Murali - 23.85

However, the difference is small whilst the other difference is large.

No the difference is not small, Just showed you 24 Vs. 30.

And one is finals the other is prelims...er, uh, yeah.

Yeah, so ? Winning Prelims is important too esp if you eliminate the minnows, NO ?

 

[Athlai]

I reckon statistically speaking, Murali is better pretty much undeniably. And messing with stats trying to prove Warne was better is just counter productive.

 

[Sanz]

What Migara is saying is that Aravinda's SINGLE WC final performance makes him a stellar batsman. Wrong. I know you are thinking about the Ponting V Tendulkar argument but that's totally different because BOTH had great all-round careers to match that. Simply choosing one player better than another because of 1 performance ignoring the rest of their career is ********.

Are you suggesting that Aravinda Desliva doesn't have a stellar record as an ODI batsman or that he didn't have a great career as one ? If you did, then I can only laugh at such a suggestion.

IMO Aravinda's ODI career is >> Shane Warne's ODI career.

 

[Sanz]

No not easily..

Do you understand basic and simple mathematics ??

Q. Please look at the following statistics and tell who is better :-

A's score = 24
B's score = 26

--------------------------

Sanz - A's, fairly easily ( without even blinking the eye)
Kazo - Let me think, Umm, Warne is an Aussie, Murali isn't, Its not that simple, its not easily, umm, yeah sorta

Pasag/James - Sorry, Times is up.

 

[Sanz]

WHAT a cop out. 1/31 compared to 0/58 is magnificant. Was that argument? NO, it was compared to OTHER great innings like 4/33.

Cop Out ? Let me read you my initial post on this matter :-


"Not to forget the fact that in the only Finals Murali and Warne played together, where everything was equal except the quality of batsmen, Murali came out on Top as well with 10:0-31-1 against the better batting side compared to Warne's 10-0-58-0.

I clearly talked about their head-to-head performance in the only finals they played together.

Did you actually read the thread? Migara was saying of the 2 innings Murali played in the WC final one was 'magnificent' and the other he got hammered - trying to imply that he wasn't so far off Warne. Now, 1/31 is not magnificent. And neither is 0/58. End.Of.Story.
.

I wan't even defending him, when I made that post, I replied to your questions "Aravinda did it how many times? Warne did it how many times?" on my own without actually reading what Migara did or didn't say about Murali's performance vs. Warne's in that particular match.

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1599982&postcount=2240

For you 31/1 in 10 may not be magnificent, but the way you are trying to equate it with 0/58 is just ridiculous. Warne's was a very poor spell whereas Murali's was a good one on its own whereas if compared to Warne's performance in the game, it was an excellent performance against better batsmen.

 

[Sanz]

WC 96, I watched it. Tying up an end is fine...but it is not a 'magnificent' performance (which is what it was touted to be by our friend Migara). In the light of performances that define a World cup final, it is average.

It is magnificent, in the light of what Warne did in the same match.

 

[funnygirl]

150 pages ,is that a record in CW taking out official series threads ?