*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Sir Alex]

The greatest (or ****tiest, depending on your pov re such debates) cricketing debate ever?

 

[vcs]

I don't usually go for the "cut the minnows out of the records" approach but a difference of 160 wickets between the two against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe seems a bit hard to overlook. No doubt Murali must have bowled great against those teams to have so many wickets, but they are still distinctly weaker opposition. As for the top-flight opposition, Murali has a hole in his record in Australia, while both are equally poor in India. Murali clearly better than Warne against WI, and both were roughly equally effective against England, SA, Pakistan and NZ.

As always, aesthetics, and the number of times I have watched a player influences my perception, and I cannot forget all the times I watched Warne teasing, tormenting and tying hapless English batsmen into knots in numerous Ashes series over the years (I know Murali is great against England as well).

 

[Jono]

The greatest (or ****tiest, depending on your pov re such debates) cricketing debate ever?

Yeah, Warne vs. Murali just has so many more factors that any other debate didn't have.

Drugs, chucking, race, women, pitches.

Just hands down better than Sachin vs. Lara, Bradman vs. Hammond, Marshall vs. Lillee etc.

 

[Sir Alex]

I don't usually go for the "cut the minnows out of the records" approach but a difference of 160 wickets between the two against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe seems a bit hard to overlook. No doubt Murali must have bowled great against those teams to have so many wickets, but they are still distinctly weaker opposition. As for the top-flight opposition, Murali has a hole in his record in Australia, while both are equally poor in India. Murali clearly better than Warne against WI, and both were roughly equally effective against England, SA, Pakistan and NZ.

As always, aesthetics, and the number of times I have watched a player influences my perception, and I cannot forget all the times I watched Warne teasing, tormenting and tying hapless English batsmen into knots in numerous Ashes series over the years (I know Murali is great against England as well).

Murali's record against Aus is terrible particularly because of his performance in Aus. Aus has never been kind to finger spinners and particularly at their peak. While it indeed is a career flaw in Murali's record, am not sure how much relevant it's in this debate.

Besides, Warne also benefited from taking a lot of wickets against Eng, who have traditionally struggled against these two masters, as a result of playing them more.

Further, pre02 Zim had quality players like Goodwin, Flower etc so not sure whether those be discounted as well, although haven't checked out how many wickets he has against them.

 

[vcs]

Murali's record against Aus is terrible particularly because of his performance in Aus. Aus has never been kind to finger spinners and particularly at their peak. While it indeed is a career flaw in Murali's record, am not sure how much relevant it's in this debate.

Besides, Warne also benefited from taking a lot of wickets against Eng, who have traditionally struggled against these two masters, as a result of playing them more.

Further, pre02 Zim had quality players like Goodwin, Flower etc so not sure whether those be discounted as well, although haven't checked out how many wickets he has against them.

Yeah, but you'd think multiple generations of English batsmen would eventually work out how to play Warne, especially considering how much the Ashes means to them? They never really did. He kept reinventing himself.

You're right about not discarding records against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh outright, I don't like to do that either. I just wanted to point out that Murali has had lots of opportunities to face them and has done particularly well against them at home.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah, but you'd think multiple generations of English batsmen would eventually work out how to play Warne, especially considering how much the Ashes means to them? They never really did. He kept reinventing himself.

You're right about not discarding records against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh outright, I don't like to do that either. I just wanted to point out that Murali has had lots of opportunities to face them and has done particularly well against them at home.

Of course Warne did own two generations of English batsmen comfortably and full credit to him. But Murali too didn't do a bad job against them either.

It's damn hard to say anything conclusive as to who's the better among them without bias creeping in. Hence Murali for me, as at their peaks, i'd fancy Murali to run through India than Warne.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Who cares who was better,both were a joy to watch in action and both are/were brilliant.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I used to believe that Warne was better than Murali but I have changed my mind.

A point about Murali/Warne records in India - while both are equally bad it must be said that Murali's record become this bad only after the latest series in which there were some absolutely flat tracks particularly the first one at Ahmedabad and this at a time when Murali is so obviously past his peak.

If you look at overall records against India then Murali leaves Warne in the dust.As for Murai's record in Aus-well that was the time when all the chucking controversy started and the Australian crowds behaviour towards Murali was despicable.With that in mind I would not take Murali's average against Aus in Aus at face value.Even if you remove minnows or whatever Murali still has a marginally better average and maybe SR too..not sure...and just 50 wickets or so less.Records and stats wise Murali leaves Warne in the dust.Warne was better to watch maybe but Murali is the better bowler.Wisden also has Murali at 1.

 

[GotSpin]

I used to believe that Warne was better than Murali but I have changed my mind.

A point about Murali/Warne records in India - while both are equally bad it must be said that Murali's record become this bad only after the latest series in which there were some absolutely flat tracks particularly the first one at Ahmedabad and this at a time when Murali is so obviously past his peak.

If you look at overall records against India then Murali leaves Warne in the dust.As for Murai's record in Aus-well that was the time when all the chucking controversy started and the Australian crowds behaviour towards Murali was despicable.With that in mind I would not take Murali's average against Aus in Aus at face value.Even if you remove minnows or whatever Murali still has a marginally better average and maybe SR too..not sure...and just 50 wickets or so less.Records and stats wise Murali leaves Warne in the dust.Warne was better to watch maybe but Murali is the better bowler.Wisden also has Murali at 1.

What poor logic. You happen to include the statistics that make Warne bad but exclude the statistics that don't flatter Murali. This is the worst kind of statistical nit-picking, explained by the idea that crowd behaviour towards Murali was less than friendly when the same logic doesn't apply to every cricketer that plays in a hostile environment

I can't be bothered arguing with the rest though.

 

[GotSpin]

Murali's record against Aus is terrible particularly because of his performance in Aus. Aus has never been kind to finger spinners and particularly at their peak. While it indeed is a career flaw in Murali's record, am not sure how much relevant it's in this debate.

The same can be said for Warne as well though, and even more so. Apart from the SCG, there's not many surfaces conducive to any kind of spin bowling in Australia and Warne was therefore forced to spend a majority of his career bowling on surfaces that weren't overly supportive of his craft.

 

[Craig]

Warne had a poor record in India, so we think badly of him then?

 

[Teja.]

Warne, both spectacular bowlers though.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Warne is of course the better cricketer - better fielder, better leader, better batsman, probably more feared as a personality - but if you were to back anyone to take ridiculous figures in a match (say 8-24 or something) you would back Murali because there exists entire swathes of batsman out there who don't have the first clue how to play him owed to his action, his ability to turn the ball twice as much an an average off-spinner and when he chooses to employ it, the doorsra.

I've seen Murali play for Lancs and I have never seen anyone tie batsman into knots like he does.

 

[vcs]

Warne is of course the better cricketer - better fielder, better leader, better batsman, probably more feared as a personality - but if you were to back anyone to take ridiculous figures in a match (say 8-24 or something) you would back Murali because there exists entire swathes of batsman out there who don't have the first clue how to play him owed to his action, his ability to turn the ball twice as much an an average off-spinner and when he chooses to employ it, the doorsra.

I've seen Murali play for Lancs and I have never seen anyone tie batsman into knots like he does.

I think that sums it up well. It comes down to which attributes you personally prefer. Though I'm not sure Warne is the better fielder, Murali used to be spectacular in the outfield as well.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I think that sums it up well. It comes down to which attributes you personally prefer. Though I'm not sure Warne is the better fielder, Murali used to be spectacular in the outfield as well.

I think Warne was generally a very decent slip fielder. Warne was also the smarter cricketer and therefore better at plucking certain key wickets when the situation called for. He could also do this by sheer force of personality (especially against us poms) but I would back Murali over Warne to tear though an entire side if the conditions favour.

I think the stats reflect this.

 

[Teja.]

Warne is of course the better cricketer - better fielder, better leader, better batsman, probably more feared as a personality - but if you were to back anyone to take ridiculous figures in a match (say 8-24 or something) you would back Murali because there exists entire swathes of batsman out there who don't have the first clue how to play him owed to his action, his ability to turn the ball twice as much an an average off-spinner and when he chooses to employ it, the doorsra.

I've seen Murali play for Lancs and I have never seen anyone tie batsman into knots like he does.

Warne a better fielder than Murali?

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Slip fielding is not something you can learn as such, so yes.

 

[Sir Alex]

I think Warne was generally a very decent slip fielder. Warne was also the smarter cricketer and therefore better at plucking certain key wickets when the situation called for. He could also do this by sheer force of personality (especially against us poms) but I would back Murali over Warne to tear though an entire side if the conditions favour.

I think the stats reflect this.

Can't see how a guy who singlehandedly made Sri Lanka almost invincible at home termed less 'smarter'. Guess that's too much of an ambiguous usage imho.

 

[GotSpin]

Warne a better fielder than Murali?

Fairly good slip fielder. Couldn't throw **** though

 

[Prince EWS]

Warne a better fielder than Murali?

Yeah, definitely.