500!

[PommieMacGill]

Swervy, your last post points out a valid point but i dont agree. I think if your playing Australia your always under pressure, you've got McGrath and Gillespie, then Brett Lee and then Warne. The pressure is always on the batsmen, and due to this pressure being there, there will always be the chance for wickets to fall. Warne will often bowl one end and the quickies alternated around at the other end. This pressure that McGrath and Gillespie put on gives Warnie a lot of opportunites to take wickets.

With Murali he is often the only bowler putting pressure on, he has relatively no support from any other bowlers and the pressure he has built up is always likely to be undone by one poor over by another bowler.

Pressure is a massive thing, with Australia it's always on, the batsmen cannot relax so there will be opportunities to take wickets, especially for Warne. With Sri Lanka there is no continued spell of pressure, only Murali puts any on, the other bowlers will often give away runs meaning the pressure is off. This, in my opinion, makes Murali the better bowler as he carries the attack, takes hatful's of wickets, has relatively no support from any other bowler. He does not have the partnerships that Warne does. It is very important to have bowling partnerships, Warne has McGrath and Gillespie, two world class bowlers on at the other end, they dont give much away, they build pressure which leads to opportunites for Warne to take wickets. Murali has none of that yet continues to take Wickets and single-handedly win matches for Sri Lanka.

 

[Swervy]

i was only offering another view point...fact of the matter is that there is hardly anything between the two..so its pointless debating it

 

[PommieMacGill]

fair enough Swervy, everybody has their own opinions and i suppose it will always be debated.

 

[Rik]

It will be very interisting to see how many Tests it takes for Murali to catch up with Warne, and pass him. Certainly he wouldn't have expected Sri Lanka to commit ritual suicide against Warne to see the record broken. I'm sure I wasn't the only one here expecting Warne to take 3, then in the next Test Sri Lanka are asked to bowl and Murali takes the record. But anyway, it's a staggering difference in number of Tests and Murali must be looking at around 630 wickets by the end, at least.

 

[Swervy]

It will be very interisting to see how many Tests it takes for Murali to catch up with Warne, and pass him. Certainly he wouldn't have expected Sri Lanka to commit ritual suicide against Warne to see the record broken. I'm sure I wasn't the only one here expecting Warne to take 3, then in the next Test Sri Lanka are asked to bowl and Murali takes the record. But anyway, it's a staggering difference in number of Tests and Murali must be looking at around 630 wickets by the end, at least.

as i say Murali bowls on average 57 overs per game (compared to 46 per game for Warne)...with a very similar strike rate to warne he is bound to take the wickets in less tests..only one bowler in the top say 30 bowlers wicket taking wise has bowled a many overs per test as Murali has and that was Lance Gibbs

 

[ReallyCrazy]

swervy u gotta realise the reason Murali bowls so much per game. There is nobody else in the team who the captain can rely on. Sri Lanka want Murali to fire every time he comes onto bowl, thats the kind of pressure he is working with. Its not easy to come in and bowl so much per game but Murali carries the whole responsibilty. If he doesn't get the wickets, SL will lose. He's done better than Warne against most teams.

In OD cricket too Murali's got a better figures.

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

great job Warne, that apart what a fantastic performance by the Aussies to clinch the first test.


truly remarkable.

 

[Swervy]

coincidentally cricinfo have an article on this very thing:

'For all those who doubted Shane Warne's abilities after a one-year lay-off, there couldn't have been a more emphatic response than his performance at Galle. Apart from the Indians, against whom he has struggled, Warne has been more than a handful for the other teams. Before this Test, Warne's record against Sri Lanka hadn't been too hot – 23 wickets in eight Tests at nearly 31 – but now, those stats look far more impressive – 33 wickets at 26. Not much room for Arjuna Ranatunga to take a jibe at him now.

For a while now, experts have opined that Warne is past his best, that the zing in his legbreaks have disappeared. If it is true, the opposition batsmen certainly haven't noticed: Warne's last 20 Tests have fetched him 117 wickets at 22.85 – not returns which are typical of a man on his last legs.

Wkts Runs Ave Wkts/Test
In his first 88 Tests 384 10110 26.33 4.36
In his last 20 Tests 117 2673 22.85 5.85


Warne may have got there first, but it is only a matter of a few days before Muttiah Muralitharan joins the exclusive club. The contrast in their styles is huge – one is the ultimate classicist, the other highly unconventional – yet, a look at their records reveals some amazing similarities.

Both bowlers have a strike rate of around 60 balls per wicket, and have a nearly equal percentage of top-order and lower-order wickets, while the split between right-handed and left-handed victims is also almost the same for both. Where the numbers do differ is in the manner in which they get most of their wickets: 25% of Murali's victims are bowled – that's once every four dismissals – while for Warne it's a much lower 16% (one out of six). Warne, on the other hand, gets many more lbws than Murali. Both those stats aren't surprising, given the amount of spin Murali imparts to the ball.

Tests Wkts Ave SR 5-I 10-M
Warne 108 501 25.51 60.32 25 7
Murali 86 496 22.87 59.34 41 13


Warne Murali
Top order wkts (%) 55.49 56.85
Right handers (%) 79.64 80.44
Dismissals for duck (%) 13.77 14.52
Bowled (%) 16.57 24.40
Lbw (%) 19.56 15.73
Caught (%) 58.88 54.03
conceded >100 in inng. 22 39


Murali has played 22 fewer Tests than Warne, but Sri Lanka's over-reliance on him means that he has bowled an average of 57 overs per match, 11 more than the corresponding figure for Warne. Not surprisingly, Murali has scalped almost 40% of the total wickets taken by Sri Lanka in those matches. Also, he has gone for more than 100 runs in an innings an incredible 39 times, while his tally of five-fors stands at 41 – an indication that Sri Lanka have often had no back-up plan other than to bowl Murali … and then to bowl him some more. By contrast, Warne has conceded more than 100 only on 22 occasions.

As the table below shows, Murali's success curve has been especially steep over the last few years: in his last 52 Tests, he has taken an astonishing seven wickets per match, at an average of less than 20. Compare that with 135 wickets in his first 34 Tests – effective, but hardly the lethal force he has become more recently. Given the crowded international calendar and the fact that Murali is at the peak of his abilities, getting up to 650 or even 700 Test wickets isn't too far-fetched a possibility.

Wkts Runs Ave Wkts/Test
In his first 34 Tests 135 4229 31.326 3.97
In his last 52 Tests 361 7113 19.7 6.94


Murali might have lost the race to 500, but here's a contest in which he might still beat Warne: at the end of the Galle Test, both have dismissed 399 right-handers. The race for 400 is on.

© Wisden Cricinfo Ltd

so can we not accept thatthe gap between the two is negligible and so to outright claim one is more successful than the other is invalid

 

[Rik]

as i say Murali bowls on average 57 overs per game (compared to 46 per game for Warne)...with a very similar strike rate to warne he is bound to take the wickets in less tests..only one bowler in the top say 30 bowlers wicket taking wise has bowled a many overs per test as Murali has and that was Lance Gibbs

Just because you bowl more overs doesn't mean you are more likely to take more wickets, especially as Murali's only human and does tire. He also tends to bowl with injuries most of the time due to his workload. Indeed, his average is amazing for someone who bowls so many overs, and it could be even better if he wasn't asked to bowl when he's totally worn out.

People come up with "Well Murali doesn't have to bowl against Sri Lanka" when the "Warne doesn't have to bowl against Australia" arguement comes up. To be fair though, who would you rather bowl to out of those attacks? Even taking into account, Australia's often crazy need to score 4 an over and weakness against spin when doing that. Sri Lanka for me, even if Ponting and Gilchrist often show huge weaknesses against spin.

I feel Murali's a superior bowler to Warne, everything I've seen and all the figures back it up, but I'm not going to force anyone to believe that. I still think Warne's a bloody fantastic bowler, but after his dodgy early few years, Murali's turned into a bowler who's almost unplayable.

 

[a massive zebra]

swervy why do you keep insisting on the deluded belief that the difference between them is negligible? It is pretty obvious that Murali is substantially better. IMO if Murali was Australian and Warne Sri Lankan we would not even be having this debate.

 

[Swervy]

swervy why do you keep insisting on the deluded belief that the difference between them is negligible? It is pretty obvious that Murali is substantially better. IMO if Murali was Australian and Warne Sri Lankan we would not even be having this debate.

1. the difference in success between the two bolwers is negligible..esp when you consider Murali's record away from home pitches geared towards his bowling compared to Warnes record

2. the most important thing is that they are two completely different types of bowler (howmany more times do i have to repeat that),so you cant really compare the two..because it isnt a like for like comparison...leg spinning is a completley different art than that of off spin

It isnt obvious that Murali is better for those two reasons

 

[a massive zebra]

Ok lets agree to disagree, im not going to convince you and your not going to convince me.

A bit of topic, but, your from Keighley are you? Im originally from Ilkley and my parents still live there.

 

[Swervy]

Ok lets agree to disagree, im not going to convince you and your not going to convince me.

A bit of topic, but, your from Keighley are you? Im originally from Ilkley and my parents still live there.

you must be quite posh then...hehehehe..I have recently moved to Keighley....but i am a Lancastrian Australia.

 

[a massive zebra]

you must be quite posh then...hehehehe..I have recently moved to Keighley....but i am a Lancastrian Australia.

aaaahh.......that explains why you think Warne is as good as Murali. Anyway, im not remotely posh, I live in a flat in Nottingham. My parents are quite wealthy though, yeah.

 

[Swervy]

aaaahh.......that explains why you think Warne is as good as Murali. Anyway, im not remotely posh, I live in a flat in Nottingham. My parents are quite wealthy though, yeah.

well me being Australian has nowt to do with my opinion of Warne....i think Murali a brilliant bowler...the best offy i have ever seen.

yeah Ilkley is a lovely little place...it is amazing that it is only about 5 miles froma dump like Keighley

 

[a massive zebra]

yeah Ilkley is a lovely little place...it is amazing that it is only about 5 miles froma dump like Keighley

lol

 

[a massive zebra]

well me being Australian has nowt to do with my opinion of Warne....i think Murali a brilliant bowler...the best offy i have ever seen.

Yeah and I think Warne is a fantastic bowler too - the best legspinner i have ever seen. But Murali is superior IMO.

 

[marc71178]

Murali must be looking at around 630 wickets by the end, at least.

If looked after properly, I would go for 700+

 

[marc71178]

but i am a Lancastrian Australia.

Stuart Law?!

 

[Tom Halsey]

Note that Murali has played far less matches and his overall record is much better.

Note that the 'brilliant' Murali has over 300 wickets at home.

Inflation to the extreme.

Also, he takes all their wickets, because there is no-one else to take them.