Best cricketer for this decade ?

[bagapath]

It's actually not when you remove minnows. Warne's is better than Murali's, overall and especially post 2000. However, Murali was also a tad tighter in average.

you are right about post 2000 minus minnows

M Muralitharan 65 118 3907.1 928 9555 423 8/46 13/171 22.58 2.44 55.4 35 15
SK Warne 62 121 2903.1 585 8615 340 7/94 12/246 25.33 2.96 51.2 20 6

great figures for warne, too. he has the best SR in the top 10 and that includes mcgrath, lee, pollock etc. but clearly murali is the bowler of the decade, though. his numbers are stunning.

 

[Richard]

It's one thing separating how good a person is off the field, it's quite another separating how good a batsman they are in ODI cricket and how good a batsman they are in test cricket.

I don't really think so. Both are interesting, but both are completely unconnected. There is no game of cricket that is simualtaneously Test and ODI, so therefore there is in my book no use in an assessment of a player on the basis of both. How good a player is at Tests and how good he is at ODIs are not the same thing - though yes there are some skills that contribute to both, same way there are some skills that contribute to how good one is at ten-pin bowling and snooker.

 

[analyst]

One day cricket and Test Cricket are hardly similar to bowling and snooker. It is one sport and scoring at a faster rate or a slower rate should be something most modern cricketers post 2000 should be adept at doing. It hardly discredits the achievements of former cricketers or your understanding of the game to accept that cricket is evolving and needs to.

 

[Migara]

Why? Do you age faster as you bowl more?

There may be many strong points for you, but IQ and and understanding is not. "Heard of wear and tear" injuries? Ring a bell?

 

[The Sean]

There may be many strong points for you, but IQ and and understanding is not.

Not needed IMO.

 

[Migara]

Murali
Opposition 	Avg	ER	SR			
[COLOR="Orange"]v Australia	32.59	3.18	61.4[/COLOR]
v England	[B]20.37[/B]	1.99	61.1
v India		[B]23.45[/B]	2.83	[B]49.7[/B]
v New Zealand	[B]19.86[/B]	2.25	[B]52.9[/B]
v Pakistan	23.51	2.5	56.3
v South Africa	[B]21.59[/B]	2.31	[B]55.8[/B]
v West Indies	[B]21.2[/B]	2.58	[B]49.2[/B]
			
			
Warne			
Opposition 	Avg	ER	SR
v England	22.42	2.95	[B]45.5[/B]
v ICC World XI	11.83	2.29	31
v India		42	3.17	79.2
v New Zealand	30.08	3.06	58.8
v Pakistan	[B]18.14[/B]	2.99	[B]36.3[/B]
v South Africa	27.27	2.83	57.7
[COLOR="Blue"]v Sri Lanka	22.25	2.97	44.8[/COLOR]
v West Indies	22.87	2.76	49.6

Murali has done better against many oppositions than Warne Average wise. Although Warne has the lower composite SR, Murali has better SRs against higher number of oppositions.

So make out what is told by composite stats.

 

[Flem274*]

Warne wasn't crash hot against us or India was he?

Surprising.

 

[R_D]

Warne wasn't crash hot against us or India was he?

Surprising.

Not really, Indian players have been known to be best players of spin bowling.

Pretty well known fact that Warne has been terrible against Indian batsman.

 

[bagapath]

Not really, Indian players have been known to be best players of spin bowling.

Pretty well known fact that Warne has been terrible against Indian batsman.

in comparison, murali was quite successful against india. his 8 wicket haul on the first day of the test in sl was one of the most awesome spin bowling performances i have ever seen. warne never even came close to that kind of a performance against india.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63945.html

 

[Ikki]

Murali
Opposition 	Avg	ER	SR			
[COLOR="Orange"]v Australia	32.59	3.18	61.4[/COLOR]
v England	[B]20.37[/B]	1.99	61.1
v India		[B]23.45[/B]	2.83	[B]49.7[/B]
v New Zealand	[B]19.86[/B]	2.25	[B]52.9[/B]
v Pakistan	23.51	2.5	56.3
v South Africa	[B]21.59[/B]	2.31	[B]55.8[/B]
v West Indies	[B]21.2[/B]	2.58	[B]49.2[/B]
			
			
Warne			
Opposition 	Avg	ER	SR
v England	22.42	2.95	[B]45.5[/B]
v ICC World XI	11.83	2.29	31
v India		42	3.17	79.2
v New Zealand	30.08	3.06	58.8
v Pakistan	[B]18.14[/B]	2.99	[B]36.3[/B]
v South Africa	27.27	2.83	57.7
[COLOR="Blue"]v Sri Lanka	22.25	2.97	44.8[/COLOR]
v West Indies	22.87	2.76	49.6

Murali has done better against many oppositions than Warne Average wise. Although Warne has the lower composite SR, Murali has better SRs against higher number of oppositions.

So make out what is told by composite stats.

Playing in Sri Lanka on dust-bowls tends to do that. Being better by 0.4 points (i.e. W.Indies) and then worse by 16 (i.e. England) tends not to even itself out. Where Murali is better than Warne is usually a few points; where Warne is better than Murali is a bit more than a few points.

in comparison, murali was quite successful against india. his 8 wicket haul on the first day of the test in sl was one of the most awesome spin bowling performances i have ever seen. warne never even came close to that kind of a performance against india.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63945.html

Partly because he was never fit against them until 04...and never bowled at India in Sri Lanka.

 

[bagapath]

Playing in Sri Lanka on dust-bowls tends to do that. Being better by 0.4 points (i.e. W.Indies) and then worse by 16 (i.e. England) tends not to even itself out.

murali's superior record against india is a significant stat; considering india has been australia's nemesis in this decade and that indian players are historically good players of spin. the current era indian bats are among the greatest players of spin in history and true to that claim, they destroyed warne's reputation again and again. but murali got the better of them quite a few times proving he was the greater match winner. i still like warne more. but murali is the bowler of the decade.

 

[bagapath]

Partly because he was never fit against them until 04...and never bowled at India in Sri Lanka.

dont jump to the defense of every australian cricketer ikki. warne bowled to them in india - on spinner friendly wickets, and in australia, his home country and he was mauled beyond recognition. no excuses.

 

[Ikki]

dont jump to the defense of every australian cricketer ikki. warne bowled to them in india - on spinner friendly wickets, and in australia, his home country and he was mauled beyond recognition. no excuses.

Yeh he bowled to them without a shoulder, a crooked finger, and was getting smashed by NZ at the same time too.

Murali's done just as bad as Warne IN India without any injury excuses AFAIK. And Warne in his last series had as good a series Murali ever had, and this is without playing in the last test where Michael Clarke and Nathan Hauritz cleaned up India. Away from home one bowls in Sri Lanka and the other in Australia - it's not exactly even. I suspect if Warne bowled to India in Sri Lanka his record would be much better...lest we forget Warne does better in Sri Lanka than Murali does.

 

[bagapath]

all i heard was some weak excuses to defend a great bowler. admitting to a gap in his resume (example; sachin is bad against SA at home; ricky is a flop in india; ambrose is crap vs india) would be more honorable. why should warne play india in sri lanka? what sort of a twisted fantasy is that? he played them in australia and in india because those are the two teams in question. and got mauled beyond recognition. better accept that.

if sachin palyed south africa in england he would kill them
if ricky played india in west indies he would rock
if hayden played genuine fast bowlers in his backyard he would score a double hundred....
what nonsense!!!

 

[aussie]

Yeh he bowled to them without a shoulder, a crooked finger, and was getting smashed by NZ at the same time too.

Murali's done just as bad as Warne IN India without any injury excuses AFAIK. And Warne in his last series had as good a series Murali ever had, and this is without playing in the last test where Michael Clarke and Nathan Hauritz cleaned up India. Away from home one bowls in Sri Lanka and the other in Australia - it's not exactly even. I suspect if Warne bowled to India in Sri Lanka his record would be much better...lest we forget Warne does better in Sri Lanka than Murali does.

Just to add. In 98 there was no McGrath, Dizzy or Fleming. Thus Warne had the impossible task of carrying the attack like the 05 Ashes.

 

[Ikki]

What's more honourable is stating things like his injuries during that time and the fact that he was being hit around regardless of opposition. Then mentioning that India got the better of him is fine. But the rest of that non-sense is just dishonest.

Who said I wanted Warne to face India in Sri Lanka (although it'd be fun to see for interest's sake)? I said compare them where they had somewhat the same conditions (vs India, in India) and you'll see their records are pretty much the same, and this is with the fact that Murali has no injury excuses. At home, it's an entirely different prospect. Of course Murali would do better in Sri Lanka than Warne would do in Australia. IIRC, there are only 2 places where spin averages better than pace in the world, they just happen to be India and Sri Lanka. Australia's not near that kind of benefit for Warne.

 

[bagapath]

Just to add. In 98 there was no McGrath, Dizzy or Fleming. Thus Warne had the impossible task of carrying the attack like the 05 Ashes.

even with all the support, perfect health, home support he failed against india. just accept that the indians had the wood on him and lets move on.

 

[Ikki]

even with all the support, perfect health, home support he failed against india. just accept that the indians had the wood on him and lets move on.

LOL, home support. What good is bowling spin in Australia against India? What help does that actually provide? Warne did much better in India than he did in Australia.

 

[bagapath]

LOL, home support. What good is bowling spin in Australia against India? What help does that actually provide? Warne did much better in India than he did in Australia.

before you laugh too much, note that what you say is correct only against india ikki. his record in australia against other teams is very very good. he is crap only against india in austraila .

now, if u r blaming injuries for his failure in india what is your excuse for his pathetic record against india in australia? he seems to do well against everyone else in australia. why was he horrible against india in australia?

 

[aussie]

even with all the support, perfect health, home support he failed against india. just accept that the indians had the wood on him and lets move on.

I aceept it to the point in that IND playerd him better than anybody even at his best. But when you say things like he was "got mauled beyond recognition" this where i feel you & other you feel the same have forget what where the situations in Warne's career in the tours he had to IND.

In IND 98. As i said Warne did not have a strong fast bowling attack to assist, thus he got hammered. That lost was huge since as AUS proved in 2004, WI in 80s & SA 2000. PACE is what wins you tests in IND.

In 99/00 in AUS. He was solid without being his usual self since during this period his injury woes had affecting his test bowling. But IND played him well even though the entire IND batting except Tendy where walking wickets to McGrath & co.

In 2001. He had just come back from a finger injury, had not played at test in a year & was in his worst period as a test bowler.

In 2004. Everything went well for Warne. He was in very good form & he had the strong pace attack to make his worst easier - thus AUS won.