Bounce. Warne would have tailored his game to extract as much bounce as possible on Australian surfaces, which as a rule tend to be bouncier than most around the world.
True, he did rely on bounce and Murali later admitted himself he learned how potent a weapon it can be from Warne. Regardless, what he did to make himself effective doesn't compare to how effective he could have been in a place like Sri Lanka. If it was not bounce, it'd be something else. But as I said to Burgey, it's all relative - hard and harder, or easy and easier.
But the fact is you tend to forget the reverse logic of it. Murali bowled on least helpful decks in world in Aus against one of the best plalyers of spin. Warne never bowled to such good players of spin on his home turf. And when he did, against IND, his stats looked very much similar to Murali's, considering it was home for Warne. If there is anything that Warne has come close to what Murali faced in AUS, its India in AUS. And the stats tell the story. And FTR, Warne bowled to PAK A team which had batting like minnows in that series. If minnows are discounted, those batting lineup should be discounted.
No, I didn't forget that. I actually addressed it several times. You want to conveniently discard the two records altogether whereas you don't have to, you can use some common sense. Murali may have faced some of the best players of spin on unhelpful pitches, but that doesn't go near explaining how bad he was. As I said, even mediocre spinners did better than he did there. So it's not an excuse you can simply write off or suggest that Warne may have done similarly because you can, knowing it's not provable either way.
Whereas Warne DID succeed in Sri Lanka, very much so, and no other visiting spinner gets close to his success so again it illustrates just how much above the competition Warne was and how much more his record may have been helped had he Sri Lanka as home.
On the same argumnt then each others home tests against other nations can be considered. If you can add Warne's away stats against SL batsman, which Murali is untested, you can add Warne's home stats against other nations on conditions where Murali was untested, and vice versa. If you consider one set of data that differ in it's parameters then it's stats picking. Either you should consider all stats where the conditions are different or should consider none. Going on first method, all home stats has to be taken in to account. According to the second only the common oppositions and conditions should be taken in to account. The definition of same condition is very clear. During same era, similar set of grounds, by same bowler to similar set of batsmen. Anything other than this is intellectual dishonesty.
No one said you can or cannot add them. The point re India or Sri Lanka is that you cannot say Murali faced the same proposition against the same two sides at home because they're bowling on completely different pitches.From the evidence, it doesn't appear that Murali would have done well since India is comfortably as good, and probably better than Australia is. Combine that with Australia's unhelpful pitches and Murali is probably still going to continue his poor record against them on pitches not suited for him. Whereas Warne DID succeed in Sri Lanka, against the toughest opponents you can face in Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka herself) so what's going against saying he'd do as well as Murali did in Murali's home against those two sides?
I don't wish to make out as if it's a given and Warne would succeed against India in Sri Lanka; but there is much more stock in that than Murali doing better than Warne against India in Australia - using India as an example.
The reality is Warne in AUS was as similar or a bigger failure than Murali against people who could play spin well. He averaged 36 in FCC against lesser Aussie batsmen, and 65+ against Indian batsmen who were equal to Aussies in playing spin. And pretending as if it's a mystery how Warne would have done - hence removing home tests of both - is disingenuous and looks like a pathetic attempt to make Warne's overall record look better than it is.
Again, he averaged in the 30s against Australian batsmen who were good players of spin at home on the worst pitches for spin (and to be frank it was a competition he played sporadically in). When Murali has even something near comparable with that, it'd make sense to put down Warne for it.
Warne cannot play India in Sri Lanka and Murali cannot play India in Australia; but both have played India in India and they failed a similar extent. That's where the comparison stops. How can you even begin to critique Warne for his performances in Australia against great players of spin when Murali has done even poorer against Australia in Australia? Imagine what would have happened if it was India.
Either you should go for same conditions. That is away games against BAN, ENG, IND, PAK, NZ, ZIM, WI & SAF and consider performances against same set of batsmen. Comparing Murali's performance on less helpful Aussie pitches against AUS batsmen to Warne's performance in SL on helpful tracks in intellectual dishonesty
Or otherwise don't give a **** about conditions and consider whole record.
No, intellectual dishonesty is this: looking at the toughest places for visiting bowlers to bowl spin; and remove the worst figures for your own favourite bowler and the best figures for the bowler you do not favour and then pretend it gives a clear picture.
