Rank your Top 20 Bowlers of the modern era

[vcs]

Bradman did not select either Warne or Murali. And he opined that Murali was better than Warne. So did Sobers and Tendulkar. These are not nobodies!

Warne's preference over Murali is in many ways similar to Lillee's preference over Marshall and Hadlee. Warne arrived on the scene before Murali and was universally hailed as champion and the greatest spinner. It was hard for the romantics to revise that judgement within a decade when Murali achieved greatness. Same goes for Lillee vs some other bowlers. The recognition that Lillee gets as "the" greatest bowler ever has more to do with chronology than actual facts about performance. Likes of Marshall and Hadlee have a clear edge over him if you take a dispassionate look at their records and performances.

Warne and Murali in Tests is very much like Tendulkar and Lara.. it's impossible to split the two even though you may think one has the statistical edge (talking of Tests only here). I believe future generations will marvel at Murali's stats and probably pick him above Warne in the All-Time XI exercises though.

 

[bagapath]

Bradman did not select either Warne or Murali. And he opined that Murali was better than Warne. So did Sobers and Tendulkar. These are not nobodies!

bradman was close to selecting warne in his xi before going for grimmett and oreilly. it is in that book detailing his selections. i never heard tendulkar or sobers say murali was the better bowler of the two. i still dont see one all time xi with murali taking warne's place. do you know of any?

as for the reasons why warne is preferred over murali, you can differ with my opinion that it is to do with their overseas records. but i am not going to agree with your/beleg's claim that murali and warne have equal backers (or that murali will get picked ahead of warne) .

 

[bagapath]

Warne and Murali in Tests is very much like Tendulkar and Lara.. it's impossible to split the two even though you may think one has the statistical edge (talking of Tests only here). I believe future generations will marvel at Murali's stats and probably pick him above Warne in the All-Time XI exercises though.

future generations will marvel at murali's stats. then compare his overseas average (28+) with warne's (24+) and choose warne.

 

[Teja.]

I hope to god future generations aren't that bad at interpreting stats that they'd make the choice on raw away average. I wouldn't mind them picking Warne though I wouldn't dream of it but It'd be a shame if they did it based on raw away average.

 

[smash84]

future generations will marvel at murali's stats. then compare his overseas average (28+) with warne's (24+) and choose warne.

bagapath but I think the future generations will break it down country wise. It is Murali's average in Australia which really hurts his average and that is Warne's home ground. Otherwise he has done better than Warne in most other countries.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Ikki]

In most away conditions Murali fares better than Warne (in almost all countries IIRC) so his case is different in that respect.

But he doesn't. Warne is superior in Aus, SL, Ind, SA and ZIM which are half the countries. He'd also be superior against Pak if you take the neural tests into account. He's generally pretty much equal in the countries he is statistically behind in (NZ and ENG, for example). Generally, Warne away from home is quite superior to Murali in avg. and SR. Where Murali makes the difference up is in home performance - which considering Warne has had to bowl in Aus and Murali in SL is straightforward as to why that occurs.

In fact, I think Murali gets extra kudos for reasons you just bring up; he's always seen as the victim and hard done by.

 

[smash84]

Warne is not superior in SL is he?

 

[Ikki]

He is, and how. Avg: 20.45 SR: 39.6.

 

[weeman27bob]

If only there were a thread to discuss who was better...

 

[Rush]

He is, and how. Avg: 20.45 SR: 39.6.

Murali's avg is better.. unless you're putting more weight on his SR..?

 

[Ikki]

Murali's avg is better.. unless you're putting more weight on his SR..?

He is half a run better but 11 balls slower. You don't have to put much weight on it TBF. Anyway, don't want to start the apocalypse just setting the record straight.

 

[akilana]

Warne is superior in SL

 

[bagapath]

bagapath but I think the future generations will break it down country wise. It is Murali's average in Australia which really hurts his average and that is Warne's home ground. Otherwise he has done better than Warne in most other countries.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

like i said, it matters a lot how one performs in australia, england, west indies and south africa and. of late - since 1980 - in india, too. other countries are not given as much weightage.

lara was tremendous in SL. but he rarely manage to get ahead of richards and tendulkar in the two middle order slots available between bradman and sobers. sobers and richards were horrendous in new zealand and lillee failed in pakistan. but nobody gives a daman about it and they get selected frequently. performances in some countries, especially when they are away games, attract more weightage. not saying it is right. but that is the way it is.

 

[weldone]

lara was tremendous in SL. but he rarely manage to get ahead of richards and tendulkar in the two middle order slots available between bradman and sobers.

...not really sure how this is reconciled with your choosing Lara over Tendulkar in your XI...

 

[Rush]

like i said, it matters a lot how one performs in australia, england, west indies and south africa and. of late - since 1980 - in india, too. other countries are not given as much weightage.

lara was tremendous in SL. but he rarely manage to get ahead of richards and tendulkar in the two middle order slots available between bradman and sobers. sobers and richards were horrendous in new zealand and lillee failed in pakistan. but nobody gives a daman about it and they get selected frequently. performances in some countries, especially when they are away games, attract more weightage. not saying it is right. but that is the way it is.

But surely if we are talking about recent bowlers, like Warne and Murali, then surely their performance in Windies doesn't deserve a lot of weightage compared to the other countries you listed because Lara and Shiv aside their batting has been weak.

 

[bagapath]

...not really sure how this is reconciled with your choosing Lara over Tendulkar in your XI...

i dont have to go with the popular opinion, right? i have always preferred lara over tendulkar because i am sucker for style.

 

[bagapath]

But surely if we are talking about recent bowlers, like Warne and Murali, then surely their performance in Windies doesn't deserve a lot of weightage compared to the other countries you listed because Lara and Shiv aside their batting has been weak.

true. india has become a big deal in the last three decades corresponding with windies going down the ladder.

 

[weldone]

i dont have to go with the popular opinion, right? i have always preferred lara over tendulkar because i am sucker for style.

How can you be so sure that when somebody is choosing Tendulkar over Lara or Lillee over Imran, they are focussing on away records alone?

 

[bagapath]

How can you be so sure that when somebody is choosing Tendulkar over Lara or Lillee over Imran, they are focussing on away records alone?

because usually such choices are followed by articles, interviews or books. and in those interviews/articles one can see that these guys are praised for their performances in those traditional powerhouse countries - england, australia, pre 1995 windies and south africa - and their selections are justified by some special performances over there.

imran should have been an automatic choice - with a bowling avg of 22 and batting avg of 38 - in these dream teams. but he consistently loses out to lillee and marshall because their best performances happened in 2 or 3 of these countries whereas imran was at his best in pakistan. similarly ponting and lara are bigger forces in their home turfs than outside. kallis hasnt done well in england. otherwise these three should be in as many teams as sachin tendulkar. murali never gets selected ahead of warne. because warne was better than him in england and australia (even though it is his home country) and that matters, to the selectors, more than murali's stellar record in sri lanka.

there is no other reason why imran, lara, murali and kallis are not in as many teams as marshall, tendulkar, murali and sobers.

 

[weldone]

murali never gets selected ahead of warne. because warne was better than him in england and australia (even though it is his home country) and that matters, to the selectors, more than murali's stellar record in sri lanka.

Benaud selected Warne over Murali because he said he wanted a leg-spinner in his team, plain and simple.

You can't generalise a reason stating that all famous ex-cricketers choose A over B for that particular reason.

What you might rather do, is speak out your reasons for choosing A over B. That would be fair and true.

But saying that all ex-cricketers choose Warne over Murali keeping in mind only their records in SA, AUS, Eng and WI is simply absurd and twisting the truth. Some, like Benaud, might choose Warne because they rate legspinners higher, in general. Some might choose Warne because of his batting/inspirational-nature, or because they are 'suckers for style'. Some might even choose Warne over Murali because they think Murali was a chucker, you never know.