-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion
- Thread starter Mr Mxyzptlk
- Start date
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
No they're not. He averages slightly better and strikes slightly slower. Check the averages. Then once you factor their respective advantages at home Warne is a way ahead.
Murali being irrefutably better statistically is a myth.
Migara
International Coach
When the stats have become whores of Ikki, or he made them his. Otherwise it's an obvious fact.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
He took most wickets off them and on the whole had great success against them but he's the only bowler who bowled so much to them. Many players returned comparable figures against them.
Cricinfo Statsguru | Searchable cricket statistics database | Cricinfo.com
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
When you remove minnows they have basically the same stats. Then factor in that Warne bowled in the worst spin conditions and Murali the best...and with a little bit of sense you see that 'obvious fact' is a figment of your imagination.
Athlai
Not Terrible
11 5fers in 11 matches. I'm very unsure about what you're trying to prove here. None of the guys leading him have taken more than 20 wickets, making it a pretty small sample size.
500 balls bowled against Bangers
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
That's because no one bowls as much as Murali. The 5fers are fairly irrelevant. The ratios aren't. Players like Kallis and Pollock did as good if not better ratio-wise showing returning those kinds of figures is not this feat only Murali is capable of. Heck, even Danish Kaneria returned ridiculous figures against them.
You're not going to find oodles of players who have taken 20 or more wickets because teams have barely played these two minnows - apart from Murali's.
As I touched on; Murali took the most wickets at a fantastic average and for that will win single comparisons against other players because of it. The point was to show such ratios were not that rare or so superlative that Murali achieving them would be a talking point in including them.
Where this relates to Warne is he played 1 test against zim and 2 against bang. His figures are fine but he did not play enough to take advantage of these minnows. Even Murali has had 3 average tests against them but he played many more to improve his record. Therefore including them is disingenuous as you're supposing Warne would have done so averagely against such under-par opposition. It's really a case of opportunity rather than talent.
Furthermore even if Warne had the same exact figures as Murali; a bigger proportion of Murali's wickets comes from those teams whereas Warne only played 6 innings against them.
You're not going to find oodles of players who have taken 20 or more wickets because teams have barely played these two minnows - apart from Murali's.
As I touched on; Murali took the most wickets at a fantastic average and for that will win single comparisons against other players because of it. The point was to show such ratios were not that rare or so superlative that Murali achieving them would be a talking point in including them.
Where this relates to Warne is he played 1 test against zim and 2 against bang. His figures are fine but he did not play enough to take advantage of these minnows. Even Murali has had 3 average tests against them but he played many more to improve his record. Therefore including them is disingenuous as you're supposing Warne would have done so averagely against such under-par opposition. It's really a case of opportunity rather than talent.
Furthermore even if Warne had the same exact figures as Murali; a bigger proportion of Murali's wickets comes from those teams whereas Warne only played 6 innings against them.
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
By the end he states he rated Warne ahead of Murali. In fact, I remember him on TV saying he rated Warne the greatest bowler. Although Ive heard him say that about Wasim also.
Last edited:
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
And he deserves some credit for that to some degree. As I have said before, part of Murali's greatness is how he makes a TOTAL fool out of lesser batsmen.
And of course against the very best players of spin - India - Murali is again more effective. There are at least 3 tests and I think at least as many ODIs where he has run through Indian batting. Warne has not done that even once, in tests or in ODIs.
It's against the in-between teams - SA, Eng, Pak - that the two are comparable.
Teja.
Global Moderator
Exceptional point. Everyone should apply this to ATG pacers too and crown the pacer who struck over 11 balls faster over an entire decade and about 20 balls faster over five years, not only in SL but overall, while still conceding about the same amount of runs per wicket to be better than everyone else tbh.
Last edited:
Faisal1985
International Vice-Captain
Adamc
Cricketer Of The Year
Slightly related: the West Indies team were at Mooseheads (bar in Canberra) the night before Lara's last innings here a few years ago (PM's XI). Wasn't there, but one of my cousins asked for an autograph, Lara refused, so my cousin challenged him to an arm wrestle (drunkenly, I assume). Lara refused again, but Gayle talked him into it apparently. Suffice to say I now have Lara's autograph, haha.
Faisal1985
International Vice-Captain
TKO my friend. Thats how we roll.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
Thats an awesome story.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
This. Don't see why it is still an argument. Statswise, Murali is ahead of Warne. How much ahead depends on how much you value certain stats, but on the raw stats, Murali > Warne (with or without minnows). But there are many who feel stats don't tell everything and there are reasons why would one would prefer Warne to Murali but let us not keep breaking stats down to such ridiculous levels just to support our argument.
Avada Kedavra
Banned
Murali vs Warne
away/neutral record excl zim/bang
warne 372 wickets@24.56
murali 252 wickets@28.78
diff in averages= 4.22
Just to highlight the inconsistentcy and double standards on the part of some posters
tendu vs punter away /neutral record excl zim-bang(pls mods move it to a diff thread if u see fit)
tendu 6759 runs@53.22
punter 5238@48.50
diff in averages= 4.72
Using the above criterion either murali>warne or tendu>punter.Both are IMPOSSIBLE
away/neutral record excl zim/bang
warne 372 wickets@24.56
murali 252 wickets@28.78
diff in averages= 4.22
Just to highlight the inconsistentcy and double standards on the part of some posters
tendu vs punter away /neutral record excl zim-bang(pls mods move it to a diff thread if u see fit)
tendu 6759 runs@53.22
punter 5238@48.50
diff in averages= 4.72
Using the above criterion either murali>warne or tendu>punter.Both are IMPOSSIBLE
Last edited:
