*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Laurrz]

No, we do not love him for his controversies, sorry if you wanted to hear a 'Yes' there. The only reason Warne is still tolerated or liked (on or off the field) is because he is/was an awesome Cricketer, one of the rarest talents to ever play the game. Otherwise he is a Drug Cheat, Match Fixer on the field, Had trouble with his wife, team mates, coaches, opposition players, fans, sponsors etc. He is like Diego Maradona of Cricket.

And yet his passion for the game and his commitment to the team is still first rate despite the troubles he puts himself into, which is why he's admired really.
About drug cheat - was more ignorance...rather than being a cheat
and Wasim Akram basically match fixed didnt he and some ppl regard him as the greatest ODI bowler/cricketer.

He's controversial no doubt, he speaks his minds about players/coaches/opposition players etc... because he is such a dominant person.
And how can you argue with him he is normally right, i definitely agree with him about the coaching in international issue, even though the manner he did it was a bit much, but thats him and thats why he's such a charactar.

Murali otoh doesn't have those issues, He is loved by his team mates, his country men, his fans. Above all his Charity work for his people is so well known. If one reads about Murali's efforts to lift the lives of his countrymen, it is very easy to like him and he really beats Warne hands down there.

Yea i agree Murali is the better ideal human being definitely.
I'm just saying Murali is a more conservative character, Warne is more of a 'colorful' one and thus more of a showman, this cannot be denied.
BTW its not like Warne is such a horrible human being, he has his own foundation, he helped with Murali in Sri Lanka after the tsunami, etc... it's just he is so stupid in life with his actions (but oh so successful/happy ironically...)

Anyway i think i may have misworded a tad, im not really saying the controversies make him a better entertainer than Murali... not as exact as that anyway..

 

[Sanz]

And yet his passion for the game and his commitment to the team is still first rate despite the troubles he puts himself into, which is why he's admired really.
About drug cheat - was more ignorance...rather than being a cheat
and Wasim Akram basically match fixed didnt he and some ppl regard him as the greatest ODI bowler/cricketer.

He's controversial no doubt, he speaks his minds about players/coaches/opposition players etc... because he is such a dominant person.
And how can you argue with him he is normally right, i definitely agree with him about the coaching in international issue, even though the manner he did it was a bit much, but thats him and thats why he's such a charactar.

Yes, Wasim had the same issues related to match fixing and run-ins with his team mates or whatever issue came up with ball tampering and all that. And he is still liked because of his cricketing ability. If someone took away Cricketing ability of Wasim Akram, he will be a **** person and a very disliked individual, so would be Warne.

And Sorry I do not believe 'Warne Ignorance story' on the masking agent. He is too smart and intelligent to get that benefit of doubt. Neither do I agree with your assertion that he is right so he can say whatever he wanted. His Coaches (JB) and Captains (SRW) were successful too in what they did, for Warne to think of his ideas as above and beyond his coache's/Captain's is - 'Arrogance'.

Yea i agree Murali is the better ideal human being definitely.
I'm just saying Murali is a more conservative character, Warne is more of a 'colorful' one and thus more of a showman, this cannot be denied.
BTW its not like Warne is such a horrible human being, he has his own foundation, he helped with Murali in Sri Lanka after the tsunami, etc... it's just he is so stupid in life with his actions (but oh so successful/happy ironically...)

Anyway i think i may have misworded a tad, im not really saying the controversies make him a better entertainer than Murali... not as exact as that anyway..

As Jono said, the showmanship is more of a Part of the Aussie Culture than Warne himself. In the subcontinent, it is not appreciated much. Someone like Tendulkar, if he decided to be a showman, wont be liked so much. Yes, Warne has a Charity, but its hard to take him seriously about his cause when his own house is not in order.

That he is a better Entertainer (as a cricketer) than Murali is not even up for debate. It is pretty well accepted but he is not as likable off cricket field as Murali. Not even close.

 

[Laurrz]

Yes, Wasim had the same issues related to match fixing and run-ins with his team mates or whatever issue came up with ball tampering and all that. And he is still liked because of his cricketing ability. If someone took away Cricketing ability of Wasim Akram, he will be a **** person and a very disliked individual, so would be Warne.

And Sorry I do not believe 'Warne Ignorance story' on the masking agent. He is too smart and intelligent to get that benefit of doubt. Neither do I agree with your assertion that he is right so he can say whatever he wanted. His Coaches (JB) and Captains (SRW) were successful too in what they did, for Warne to think of his ideas as above and beyond his coache's/Captain's is - 'Arrogance'.



As Jono said, the showmanship is more of a Part of the Aussie Culture than Warne himself. In the subcontinent, it is not appreciated much. Someone like Tendulkar, if he decided to be a showman, wont be liked so much. Yes, Warne has a Charity, but its hard to take him seriously about his cause when his own house is not in order.

That he is a better Entertainer (as a cricketer) than Murali is not even up for debate. It is pretty well accepted but he is not as likable off cricket field as Murali. Not even close.

Yea i'll buy that, it's the clash of the cultures once again.
Could not imagine Warne as a subcontinent player...being as likeable as he is over here. Wouldn't survive

With Warne you either really love him or really hate him (although i think hes won a lot of fans after ipl mind.. :P )
I don't think you can hate Murali

 

[Jono]

As Jono said, the showmanship is more of a Part of the Aussie Culture than Warne himself. In the subcontinent, it is not appreciated much. Someone like Tendulkar, if he decided to be a showman, wont be liked so much. Yes, Warne has a Charity, but its hard to take him seriously about his cause when his own house is not in order.

That he is a better Entertainer (as a cricketer) than Murali is not even up for debate. It is pretty well accepted but he is not as likable off cricket field as Murali. Not even close.

Do you think that might be changing Sanz? Just wondering whether someone like Yuvraj, and possibly Uhtappa, may be the new desired celebrity than a Tendulkar or Dravid, or is it still the same, with someone like Rohit Sharma, Pathan and Raina who looks less like showman and just "go about your business/modest" players being the most popular.

 

[honestbharani]

Do you think that might be changing Sanz? Just wondering whether someone like Yuvraj, and possibly Uhtappa, may be the new desired celebrity than a Tendulkar or Dravid, or is it still the same, with someone like Rohit Sharma, Pathan and Raina who looks less like showman and just "go about your business/modest" players being the most popular.

It is definitely changing, esp. in the urban pockets of India. I am sure you can sense that with the way people talk about someone like Dravid now compared to a Uthappa or a Yuvraj. Things are slowly changing.

 

[Jono]

Ah okay, fair enough. I don't think its necessarily a bad thing so long as these flamboyant showmen aren't assholes.

And I still firmly believe that no matter what your character, even if you're quiet and modest, if you are good enough you'll receive the fame and attention.

An example is here in the Aussie Rules football, the best player in the league (Chris Judd) barely ever celebrates or shows off when he does something awesome, very rarely says anything controversial, and has a simple look about him with no coloured boots, a simple hairstyle etc. He's still THE man, and gets plenty of endorsements.

The ultimate of course is if you mix an elite player who also has a personality/looks of a showman. A marketer's dream, ala Warne, or in Aussie Rules football, Lance Franklin who has just emerged.

 

[Sanz]

Do you think that might be changing Sanz? Just wondering whether someone like Yuvraj, and possibly Uhtappa, may be the new desired celebrity than a Tendulkar or Dravid, or is it still the same, with someone like Rohit Sharma, Pathan and Raina who looks less like showman and just "go about your business/modest" players being the most popular.

I dont believe it will. There have been Indian players in the past who where much bigger in showmanship (e.g. Sandip Patil, Ravi Shastri etc) than Yuvraj singh but they could never get to the levels of a Kapil Dev, Vengsarkar, Amarnath, Azhar (before match-fixing), Kumble, Dravid etc in terms of admiration and popularity.

Even Gavaskar who was argubly the finest Indian Cricketer didn't enjoy the popularity and admiration Kapil had.

Warne's showmanship is recognized, tolerated or accepted only because he is so exceptionally good as a cricketer, Yuvraj singh isn't even a half decent test cricketer yet to get his showmanship recognized at any level. Uthappa speaks well but that is not going to be enough, he will soon be forgotten If his bat didn't start talking well.

Even today, Pathan Brothers are much more popular than any other young players from India and their humilty, their modesty over the flashiness of Yuvrah Singh. Raina and Rohit Sharma, if continue their rise, will end up being more popular and bigger names than Yuvraj and Uthappa.

 

[Migara]

Hahaha, omg, is this a joke? Do you know how many variables you just manipulated there? Weren't the subcontinental batsmen better players of spin,

On same conditions they would be. That's why Warne's average against India both home and away are awful. And Warne's average against SL is close to that of his in FC cricket in Australia. Now comparing Warne's matches played on SL soil to that of Murali's on AUS soil is totally farcial. Because it involved totally different conditions. One is a slow low spinning pitch. Others are roads.

 

[Migara]

This is the only table that makes sense. It has the CORRECT percentages AND it is adjusted so that the AMOUNT of times Warne played Sri Lanka is the SAME as the amount of times Murali plays Australia. This figure is 7.39% where Murali's REAL percentage is 9.22% - even this was a favour to him.

The logic is totally wrong. They cannot be compared under any circumstances. Only matches where the opposition and conditions were similar can be compared. The better thing would be to do is to count all head to head matches of Warne and Murali to calculate the percentages over Aus-SL matches. Then the conditions would be same for both although the oppositions are different. Here I could have taken Warne's Away vs Home ratio to transform Murali's. But then you'll start to whin that I used that methid to make Murali's stats better (Murali has boweled in AUS more than in SL head to head). So I took 50-50 rule, but you still whine, and you'll whine over anything, even if you have been calling for it.

The irony is that you think it's too harsh that Murali plays in Australia because of the unreceptive pitches but this is where Warne played almost half his career. And conversely you think it's unfair that Warne get any benefit from spin-receptive pitches in Sri Lanka...where Murali played half his career. Twisting and turning here for a matter of a few Tests. Imagine what Warne would have done if Sri Lanka was his home and affected half his Tests.

Hard to imagine. With no support bowlers and bowling 10 more overs per match, he would have broken bown 2-3 years earlier, and might have broken down for the second time as well. Murali with support bowlers would have done well, although he may have picked up fewer wickets. But he would have maintained his SR, ER and Avg close to what he have achieved now. Then Murali would have had a better shot at more lower order batsmen as well.

 

[Migara]

Er. They both only did it in ONE world cup FINAL. Whereas Warne is consistently good in ALL WC finals (quarters/semis included) AND he is excellent in the Prelims

[B]Player	Innings	Overs	Wickets	Best	Average	ER	SR[/B]
[B][COLOR="Blue"]All WC matches, against Test sides excluding BAN and ZIM[/COLOR][/B]
Murali	31	272.3	1044	53	4/19	19.69	3.83	30.8
Warne	17	162.5	624	32	4/29	19.50	3.83	30.5

[B][COLOR="#0000ff"]WC Preliminaries, against Test sides excluding BAN and ZIM[/COLOR][/B]

Murali	14	137.0	586	24	3/25	24.41	4.27	34.2
Warne	7	66.2	245	8	3/11	30.62	3.69	49.7

[B][COLOR="#0000ff"]WC Knock out matches. (Quarters, Semis and Finals)[/COLOR][/B]

Murali	6	52.1	201	8	4/31	25.12	3.85	39.1
Warne	5	48.0	208	14	4/29	14.85	4.33	20.5

Murali's and Warne have similar performances in WC in general against quality sides. Murali is lot better in prelmenaries.

It looks as Warne is far superior at knock out stages. Then, who were his and Murali's opponets?

Murali - Australia (3), India (1), Englnd (1), South Africa (1)

Warne - NZ, PAK, SAF, SL, WI

Murali has played 4 / 6 against good sides to play spin, infact the best two!

Warne? Never met India in a knock out match. When he met SL, who are much inferior to Indians in playing spin, he was bashed.

So, can we compare these matches? No way. Murali's opposition has been far superior to that of Warnes every time, they came in to a knock out match. SL were always underdogs in WC semis, where as Warne's team were favorites when they came for it, except in 1999 against SAF.

 

[Migara]

But even that's digression because Migara stated that Aravinda must be the greatest cricketer ever for his performance in the final. Trying to make it seem as I am basing Warne's entire career on just one final.

Your argument based on two finals.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I know I've contributed to this thread (some time ago, I might add) but it's a dead set joke. It's the same people arguing from page 1 to page 59. Enough to make a grown man cry.

 

[Richard]

To be a dead-set joke is what the thread was designed for. It means all the dead-set-joke material stays in one area and people can just skip the thread and leave them to it.

Then occasionally read when someone interesting-looking has last-post (eg Dan Smith or a GM).

 

[Laurrz]

I know I've contributed to this thread (some time ago, I might add) but it's a dead set joke. It's the same people arguing from page 1 to page 59. Enough to make a grown man cry.

Yeah, you'd reckon there would be some sort of agreement by then or acceptance or just let it go

 

[Richard]

You would?

I wouldn't.

PS - just re-read Smith-vs-C_C earlier this thread. is all I can say.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Them's were g00d times.

 

[weldone]

To be a dead-set joke is what the thread was designed for. It means all the dead-set-joke material stays in one area and people can just skip the thread and leave them to it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This thread is almost as interesting as the time I tried to explain the point of mushy peas to a German.

 

[Migara]

Here is another good one. This is from LG-ICC rankings official website. They provide graphs for each player, points vs time. I copied graphs for Murali and Warne and super imposed them. The X axis' scale is bit different in two, but it gives a nice comparison of two spinners. The Blue line represents Murali's points and Brown one Warne's.

Murali's stats

Warne's stats

Here goes the superimposed graphs.

 

[Migara]

1993 to 1998 Warne was leading spinner than Murali. But after 2000, to 2007, Murali has overtaken Warne. 1998-2000 and for a short period in 2006 both were neck and neck.

So the domination years

Murali - 7, Warne - 5, Tied 2.