Murali vs Warne, who was better against high quality batsmen on flat pitches?

[PlayerComparisons]

Who would you pick against ATG players of spin on a flat pitch?

 

[subshakerz]

Great question.

Murali was a more defensive bowler and often lacked a plan B. However, he had more variation and I think his spin was slightly less pitch dependent.

I am going with Warne in this situation though as he was more used to bowling on flat pitches in Australia and he is more likely to induce an error from a set batsman with mind games.

 

[Slifer]

Basically, who was better vs India on flat wickets because respectfully, that's the only quality batting lineup they both faced and they both failed miserably afaic on flatter wkts. Murali had success vs India at home but I wouldn't call those wkts in SL necessarily flat, spinning would be more accurate. Just my 2 cents.....

 

[capt_Luffy]

Basically, who was better vs India on flat wickets because respectfully, that's the only quality batting lineup they both faced and they both failed miserably afaic on flatter wkts. Murali had success vs India at home but I wouldn't call those wkts in SL necessarily flat, spinning would be more accurate. Just my 2 cents.....

Yeah, they but they both really weren't super effective in Indian turning tracks as well....

 

[subshakerz]

ATG players of spin on these pitches are going to knock Murali and Warne around. That's just the reality.

Warne tho I would back to eventually get the batsmen out due to their own arrogance and because he never stopped looking for a wicket. Murali after a bit of beating would go into a shell and just bowl to contain.

Lara himself made this distinction.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Flat pitches, might as well bowl on a road with bowling machines.

 

[Slifer]

ATG players of spin on these pitches are going to knock Murali and Warne around. That's just the reality.

Warne tho I would back to eventually get the batsmen out due to their own arrogance and because he never stopped looking for a wicket. Murali after a bit of beating would go into a shell and just bowl to contain.

Lara himself made this distinction.

My question has always been, wkts in India and SL both take to spin bowling. So why was Murali able to do so well in SL but not India? Do the wkts spin differently??

 

[subshakerz]

My question has always been, wkts in India and SL both take to spin bowling. So why was Murali able to do so well in SL but not India? Do the wkts spin differently??

There are different theories. One is that Indian pitches were deliberately prepared for Murali to break down more wicket to wicket to neutralise his spin outside off.

 

[Gob]

Ashwin

 

[capt_Luffy]

Ashwin

As well try Chandrashekhar..... That bloke would either win you matches in dead wickets overseas against great batsmen; or be completely useless in the biggest of turners against middest of batsmen.

 

[Gob]

As well try Chandrashekhar..... That bloke would either win you matches in dead wickets overseas against great batsmen; or be completely useless in the biggest of turners against middest of batsmen.

Heard he was similar to Kumble like quicker through the air

Without wanting to derail the thread, how good were the Indian trio in that era. Hear good things about them but stats don't seem to back it up that well

 

[capt_Luffy]

Heard he was similar to Kumble like quicker through the air

Without wanting to derail the thread, how good were the Indian trio in that era. Hear good things about them but stats don't seem to back it up that well

It's not the best idea to go on an overseas tour with 4 spinners and ****ing Gavaskar as your opening bowler..... Considering everything, I think their stats are perfectly reasonable. On Chandrashekhar, his bowling arm was polio affected, resulting in him being virtually impossible to pick on the action.

 

[Jumno]

Warne. He would set the batsman up and try to play games. He will try to induce an error.

 

[kyear2]

Warne always seemed to be way more hitable, but also more dangerous. Especially if the batsman was willing to go after him.

Warne v Lara was the most amazing watch.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Who does Sachin rate higher?

 

[BazBall21]

There are different theories. One is that Indian pitches were deliberately prepared for Murali to break down more wicket to wicket to neutralise his spin outside off.

SL tracks tend to be slower. Maybe he needed to bowl quicker in India?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Saqlain did very well in India

 

[peterhrt]

Without wanting to derail the thread, how good were the Indian trio in that era. Hear good things about them but stats don't seem to back it up that well

Brought up on good pitches, Bedi and Prasanna were slower than modern spinners, with more flight and subtle variations. Both played most of their Tests away from home.

Chandra delivered top-spinners and googlies close to medium pace from a polio-withered arm. Devastating on his day, he could be expensive.

None of the three added much with the bat or in the field. As a result, Venkat sometimes replaced Prasanna or Chandra. A more defensive off-spinner, he kept himself fit and contributed in other areas.

Spinners from the sub-continent with a thousand first-class wickets:

Muralitharan (SL) 1374 wickets @ 19.64
Bedi (Ind) 1560 @ 21.69
Hettiarachchi (SL) 1001 @ 23.51
Chandrasekhar (Ind) 1063 @ 24.03
Venkataraghavan (Ind) 1390 @ 24.14
Herath (SL) 1080 @ 25.15
Mushtaq Ahmed (Pak) 1407 @ 25.67
Kumble (Ind) 1136 @ 25.83
Kaneria (Pak) 1023 @ 26.18
Intikhab (Pak) 1571 @ 27.67

Also: Prasanna (Ind) 957 @ 23.45

 

[Migara]

My question has always been, wkts in India and SL both take to spin bowling. So why was Murali able to do so well in SL but not India? Do the wkts spin differently??

SG vs kookaburra ball. Kumble and Bhajji had their stats completely opposite as a result.

 

[Migara]

Warne. He would set the batsman up and try to play games. He will try to induce an error.

People really underestimate how sound tactically Murali was. This guy was an encyclopedia of the technical errors of the batsmen.