I used to go for Murali but switched as of late for Warne. I realize that Murali's stats are much more impressive, but once you take away the minnow wickets, the difference between them is smaller.Murali
I like Warne, Grimmett and O'Reilly, but Murali's body of work and statistical feats are unmatched. There will never be another cricketer who will accomplish what he has. Plus he passes the eye test, looked damn near unplayable for most of his career, and no person can honestly say they think batting against him would be easier than batting against any of the 3 Aussie leggies, except for perhaps on some of the dead strips of tarmac that pass for pitches in Australia.
I don't know whether Murali has actually failed in India in comparison to Warne, but he was responsible for one or two monumental collapses of Indian side, which Warne could never do.I used to go for Murali but switched as of late for Warne. I realize that Murali's stats are much more impressive, but once you take away the minnow wickets, the difference between them is smaller.
What pulled me over for Warne is:
- Murali not really having success in Australia, which is a big hole in his resume. If he had a good series there under his belt, his case would be much stronger.
- Murali also failing in India, just not to the same degree as Warne, which takes away the main argument against Warne
- More importantly, Murali, by his own captain's admission, was a defensive bowler whose gameplan was to control and bottle up the batsman and wait for wickets using his variations. Warne, by comparison, was more adaptable, willing to take risks to get wickets and come back after getting hammered.
Sidhu commented how even when he was pasting Warne and Murali, Warne never asked for an extra fielder to block runs through mid-off/cover as he would still be fishing for a wicket, whereas Murali would. Lara mentioned that if he survived Murali's confusing variations long enough, Murali would lose confidence whereas Warne would keep going after him.
Still, the difference between them is small.
If we are comparing Murali with these 3 Aussie spinners, I believe we should look at their records away from their home tracks.Murali
I like Warne, Grimmett and O'Reilly, but Murali's body of work and statistical feats are unmatched. There will never be another cricketer who will accomplish what he has. Plus he passes the eye test, looked damn near unplayable for most of his career, and no person can honestly say they think batting against him would be easier than batting against any of the 3 Aussie leggies, except for perhaps on some of the dead strips of tarmac that pass for pitches in Australia.
Once you take out minnow's wickets, Murali's away average goes up to 29. So quite a difference.If we are comparing Murali with these 3 Aussie spinners, I believe we should look at their records away from their home tracks.
Away from SL, Murali's average goes from 22.73 out to 27.79, and that's not withstanding his games against minnows.
Understandably, away from the Australian wickets which are renowned for being non-spin friendly, Warne (24.62), O'Reilly (21.18) and Grimmett (23.86) all average below their overall test average. In the interest of impartiality, we should look at records away from both Australia and Sri Lanka.
In that context, their averages are:
O'Reilly 85 w @ 21.18
Grimmett 111 @ 23.86
Warne 341 @ 25.12
Murali 295 @ 25.86
On this basis I rank Warne above Murali and both above the other pair by virtue of the volume of wickets and the fact that wickets were more batsman-friendly in the modern era (no uncovered wickets which became a spinner's delight).
He didn't. Murali's success against India was almost all at home, except for that magical 7-fer in 2005.Murali won an MoM in India and one more against India at home. Warne came nowhere close to doing this. Has 5-6 fivers and 2 tenfers against India. If this is a factor, Murali wins by a huge margin.
This right here is the perfect example of 'how playing for a great team benefits you'.- More importantly, Murali, by his own captain's admission, was a defensive bowler whose gameplan was to control and bottle up the batsman and wait for wickets using his variations. Warne, by comparison, was more adaptable, willing to take risks to get wickets and come back after getting hammered.