*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Migara]

I would say Warne was often making top-order breakthroughs even in first innings when he bowled to England. The opening day of Ashes 2001 always comes to mind for me. I take your general point, though.

Even Boycott's grandma bowling legspin will do that to England/

 

[bagapath]

Even Boycott's grandma bowling legspin will do that to England/

wow!!! you are replying to a statement that was made when Zia Ul Haq was alive. When Germany was divided into East and West. When Geena Davis hadn't even been kissed. When Kevin Pietersen was a toddler in South Africa.

Since making that statement VCS has changed jobs, married, had two children, put the first one in baby school, bought two homes, lost some hair on top of his head and developed a beer belly. so relax mate. that moment with that woman passed long ago. she won't say yes to you even if you go down on both knees.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Years ago I googled "Warne v Murali" and this thread came up on the searches.

Weird to see it back.

 

[GIMH]

Good decision by the staff to allow discussion to occur, even if it is tedious. Freedom of discussion is nice.

Anyway, to start off this thread:

Nicky Boje > Warne & Murali

That's right

Parasitic sycophant.

 

[honestbharani]

Parasitic sycophant.

He has a test 100?

 

[sambha]

One could argue that in either direction - if players can score up the other end, they maybe don't attack Murali and get out trying to survive. Or because Warne had quality up the other end applying pressure, batsmen got out trying to score.

ie: Murali's average is artifically low due to batsmen's ability to score quickly at the other end.

Of course, none of these types of generalistions are really all that "obvious" or valid me thinks. I'm glad I lived in a generation that had both of these guys,

Who's better?
Statistically: Murali.
Better to watch: Warne IMHO.

I'm an Aussie so pretty biased anyway.

so you judge a player on how he is statistically or whether he is better to watch??
how about you choose as to who among them would make it to your team.

 

[sambha]

I would say Warne was often making top-order breakthroughs even in first innings when he bowled to England. The opening day of Ashes 2001 always comes to mind for me. I take your general point, though.

Ashes is not the world cup of test matches.

 

[sambha]

Rahul Dravid, one of the top 5 in playing spin during the Warne / Murali era, rated Murali as a far more difficult bowler to face and tat the Indians spent hours discusssing him before games. If Tendulkar, Sewag, Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly did just that (5 of the top 10 against spin) the answer is obvious.

 

[Athlai]

Apparently before Australian games they spent hours discussing the current plot of Home and Away.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Rahul Dravid, one of the top 5 in playing spin during the Warne / Murali era, rated Murali as a far more difficult bowler to face and tat the Indians spent hours discusssing him before games. If Tendulkar, Sewag, Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly did just that (5 of the top 10 against spin) the answer is obvious.

So? Tendulkar spent an age in the nets with Sivaramakrishnan practising hitting against the spin, to be ready against Warne.
And IIRC Dravid was found out by Warne on a number if occasions and didn't play him as well as the other Indian batsmen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Both great bowlers, and not the easiest decision to make, but when you consider everything Warne is the clear winner. Murali has more wickets, but he's had much more favourable conditions.

- Murali bowling on much more spin-friendly wickets
- Murali played a lot of matches against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, Warne played 2 or 3 tests total against these lesser teams
- Warne had better bowlers in his team taking more wickets/Murali had more wickets left to take (this could also be a point for Murali though, cause maybe he had to work harder)
- Purely from a pragmatic point of view Warne is a much better batsman and fielder.
- Murali had a genetic advantage allowing him to bowl a certain way that others couldn't or were not allowed due to laws of the game.
- The biggest point for me is Warne's personality and stature. Murali is a great bloke but kind of boring, and Warne is a once-in-a-generation sporting personality, This is what seals the deal for me.

I would have both in my team if I could though.

 

[Adders]

Hmmm, agree with some of your points there TJB, but gotta question these.....

- Murali played a lot of matches against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, Warne played 2 or 3 tests total against these lesser teams

The counter to that is that Warne took not far off a third of his wickets against England, who for the most part were so clueless to quality spin bowling they may just have well of been Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.

- Murali had a genetic advantage allowing him to bowl a certain way that others couldn't or were not allowed due to laws of the game.

That argument's got hair all over it mate........but can we take that as your acceptance now that Murali was not a chucker??

- The biggest point for me is Warne's personality and stature. Murali is a great bloke but kind of boring, and Warne is a once-in-a-generation sporting personality, This is what seals the deal for me.

Now this is the point that really needs to be taken to task. So in a very close call between the two you are tipping the scales Warnes way because he was a philandering drug cheat over Murali who from all reports is an absolute ripping bloke whom everyone loves and never put a foot wrong his whole career (to my knowledge anyway)??

Seriously man, based purely on cricket I'd take Warne too........but only just. But personality I'd want in my team (keeping in mind my wife may come to some social functions!!!) ??? Warne can GAGF......Murali every day.

Oh and there was absolutely nothing and I mean nothing boring about watching Murali bowl.

 

[Maximas]

Warne had such an ideal bowling attack to bowl with, imagine having McGrath at the other end or Fleming or any other good fast bowler to build pressure while you weaved your magic at the other end, Murali had Vaas who was very good but he largely had to do it on his own. However Murali never really worked out how to bowl in conditions that didn't suit him while Warne did

 

[Adders]

However Murali never really worked out how to bowl in conditions that didn't suit him while Warne did

Interesting though that Muralis figures in England are actually better than Warnes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That argument's got hair all over it mate........but can we take that as your acceptance now that Murali was not a chucker??

can't possibly answer this without a specific definition of "chucker". It could bean dozens of different things.

Now this is the point that really needs to be taken to task. So in a very close call between the two you are tipping the scales Warnes way because he was a philandering drug cheat over Murali who from all reports is an absolute ripping bloke whom everyone loves and never put a foot wrong his whole career (to my knowledge anyway)??

Seriously man, based purely on cricket I'd take Warne too........but only just. But personality I'd want in my team (keeping in mind my wife may come to some social functions!!!) ??? Warne can GAGF......Murali every day.

lol good point, but that's what sports all about. The ones you remember are the big personalities, Merv, Warnie, Siddle's developing into one as well. Whether they are big personalities for good or bad reasons is irrelevant, from a certain point of view.

Oh and there was absolutely nothing and I mean nothing boring about watching Murali bowl.

Warne was a master of psychological manipulation though, it made every ball and every contest (especially in the Ashes) into something you couldn't take your eyes off.

The way he decimated "the Sherminator" in 2005 was special.

You make good arguments, Warne all the way for me, if I had to choose between these 2 Victorian superstars from competing Big Bash franchises.

 

[sambha]

Both great bowlers, and not the easiest decision to make, but when you consider everything Warne is the clear winner. Murali has more wickets, but he's had much more favourable conditions.

- Murali bowling on much more spin-friendly wickets
- Murali played a lot of matches against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, Warne played 2 or 3 tests total against these lesser teams
- Warne had better bowlers in his team taking more wickets/Murali had more wickets left to take (this could also be a point for Murali though, cause maybe he had to work harder)
- Purely from a pragmatic point of view Warne is a much better batsman and fielder.
- Murali had a genetic advantage allowing him to bowl a certain way that others couldn't or were not allowed due to laws of the game.
- The biggest point for me is Warne's personality and stature. Murali is a great bloke but kind of boring, and Warne is a once-in-a-generation sporting personality, This is what seals the deal for me.

I would have both in my team if I could though.

even if you minus his wickets against the minnows...his average is better than warne.

don't talk about genetic advantage....I am sure most genuine express bowlers are genetically better than their medium pace or fast-medium counterparts...
still some of the best bowlers of all times have been fast medium

 

[TheJediBrah]

even if you minus his wickets against the minnows...his average is better than warne.

That's why it's a lot more than one point that dictated my preference for Warne.

 

[sambha]

can't possibly answer this without a specific definition of "chucker". It could bean dozens of different things.


ICC cleared his action.....that is all that matters....anyone who thinks elsewise can go **** themselves

 

[Jono]

Rahul Dravid, one of the top 5 in playing spin during the Warne / Murali era, rated Murali as a far more difficult bowler to face and tat the Indians spent hours discusssing him before games. If Tendulkar, Sewag, Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly did just that (5 of the top 10 against spin) the answer is obvious.

I love Rahul more than life itself, but no way in hell he was top 5 players of spin during the Warne/Murali era.

 

[Top_Cat]

Brian Lara, a better player of spin than Dravid, said Murali would be all over you initially but then lose confidence and be far less dangerous after the first 20 minutes whereas Warne, no matter the conditions or who you were, would not back off even slightly, always believing he was one ball away from nabbing you. Needless to say, this one anecdote is conclusive proof that Warne > Murali.