Murali/Warne Vs Sachin/Lara

[honestbharani]

We have all seen the never ending Murali Vs Warne and Sachin Vs Lara thread.


But this strange idea occured to me just now. Are Murali/Warne better as bowlers than Sachin/Lara are as batsmen?



The record seems to suggest that, doesn't it?


Warne and Murali will comfortably be judged as the greatest spinners of all time, just on the basis of their numbers alone.


The same cannot be unfortunately said for Sachin and Lara. Their overall tally is higher than most, sure. But their averages don't really beat out the rest of the band as it does with Warne and Murali in terms of their averages and strike rates.



Of course, I am sure that most people would rate Murali and Warne as the greatest spinners of all time and not many will confer Lara/Sachin as the greatest batsmen of all time. For one, there is the Don factor but also, even in this forum, a lot of people have been inclined to put the likes of Richards, Pollock, Sobers, Chappell ahead of these two. I have even seen Gavaskar and Barry Richards being put ahead these two.


But the funny thing is, as great as Murali and Warne are, they never really bothered these two batting geniuses too much. And everyone knows that Warne and Murali have always had trouble against the side that is supposibly the best in playing spin, INDIA.


On the other hand, both Lara and Sachin have got tremendous records against the best bowling line up in the world, Australia.



So, guys, let's hear it. Who would you put ahead?

Are Murali and Warne better spinners than Lara and Sachin are as batters?


or, would you guys rate Sachin and Lara as better batters than Murali and Warne are as spinners?

 

[Pratters]

Haha. Brilliant HB.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You raise an interesting point, but in reality I think both Sachin and Lara are far more flawed cricketers than Murali or Warne are, and there's more players you could reasonably rate ahead of them. Different games though, batting and bowling, and you can't make a clear comparison.

 

[honestbharani]

I know it is difficult to compare, but it would be fun to do it.


Would be a sight for sore eyes to see Kazo advocate Murali and CC advocate Warne.


Also would be fun to see CC talk for Lara and maybe you, Sean, talk for Sachin.

 

[Richard]

To say Murali has never had success against India is grossly incorrect. Sure, he didn't do much against them when his career was in it's infancy and he didn't do much on the flattest pitches in history (around the time Jayasuriya scored that 340), but more recently he's been more than adaquete against India.

And just imagine what might've happened had Warne played at Mumbai when Hauritz took 5\110 or whatever and Clarke 6\9...

EDIT: and I think it's a great shame that people so unequivocally confer on Warne and Murali the "greatest spinners of all-time" title - it's pretty ludicrous IMO. They're the best spinners of their era - nothing more, because comparison to the Grimmetts and O'Reillys is pretty stupid for mine.

Though not as stupid as those who call Murali "best bowler ever" when their team's playing Sri Lanka then 2 months later call Warne "best bowler ever" when their same side is playing Australia...

 

[The Sean]

To say Murali has never had success against India is grossly incorrect. Sure, he didn't do much against them when his career was in it's infancy and he didn't do much on the flattest pitches in history (around the time Jayasuriya scored that 340), but more recently he's been more than adaquete against India.

And just imagine what might've happened had Warne played at Mumbai when Hauritz took 5\110 or whatever and Clarke 6\9...

Great call - I've always thought it was a shame that after all his struggles in India, Warney didn't get to play that Test.

Though if he had been fit for the match, perhaps the pitch would not have been prepared as quite the minefield it was...?

 

[Richard]

Can't remember when he picked-up that injury, before or after the pitch had been prepared.

I think it was probably just prepared to counterbalance the one in the previous game, where the genius in charge of the local Association decided to deliberately sabotage his own national team's chances... IMO that ropey pitch (batting wise) was a fair enough redress for the disgrace we saw at Nagpur.

 

[honestbharani]

Great call - I've always thought it was a shame that after all his struggles in India, Warney didn't get to play that Test.

Though if he had been fit for the match, perhaps the pitch would not have been prepared as quite the minefield it was...?

I dont think the pitch was PREPARED that way. More a case of unseasonal rains hampering pitch preparation.


3 day tests benefit nobody.

 

[The Sean]

Fair enough mate, I'd had the impression that there was slightly more doctoring to it than that - and 3 day Tests invariably benefit the winners in some way!

I always loved what Dizzy said about it in an interview after the game:

"I'm not allowed to comment on the pitch - but I spoke to my mate and he said it was a f*cking disgrace."

Classic.

 

[Richard]

I'd had the impression that there was slightly more doctoring to it than that

I don't think there was any doctoring, I don't think it changed while the match was in progress, did it?

 

[The Sean]

No, I used the term "doctoring" as a generic catch-all to include preparation to favour a certain kind of bowler. That's all.

 

[Richard]

Oh, right, I'd say that's a bit misuse-ish.

Doctoring means changing the pitch while the match is in progress - preparation to favour a certain kind of bowler is just, well... preparation to favour a certain kind of bowler! There's no catch-all phrase to describe it, really.

And I have to say that IMO trying to find one is just a way to try and make such a practice illicit. IMO it's just legitimate use of home-advantage.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah mate, fair enough - I understand what you're saying, I guess it's just habit that I refer to that kind of thing as doctoring whether it happens in either preparation or during the match.

Anyway, there are more interesting chats going on here than this, so I'll leave it at that!

 

[Jono]

Though not as stupid as those who call Murali "best bowler ever" when their team's playing Sri Lanka then 2 months later call Warne "best bowler ever" when their same side is playing Australia...

English fans?

 

[Richard]

Well clearly English coms are those who I've experienced doing so, but I'd not be at all surprised if those from, say, New Zealand and Pakistan said similar things.

I just can't understand why people can't just say "they're two incredibly good bowlers who for all intents and purposes can't realistically be separated".

 

[Jono]

Well clearly English coms are those who I've experienced doing so, but I'd not be at all surprised if those from, say, New Zealand and Pakistan said similar things.

I just can't understand why people can't just say "they're two incredibly good bowlers who for all intents and purposes can't realistically be separated".

Just the nature of cricket fans (and probably many sport fans).

Their team comes up against one great player who tears them apart, and they're put on a pedestal.

Australian fans do it a lot, but just without the "greatest player ever" tag. If anyone comes down to Australia and does reasonably well in a match or two, they are immediately elevated to some status as if they're a proven performer now. Fair enough, performing in Australia is admirable and often a sign of greatness (see Lara and Sachin) but its far too easy to overrate a player simply because they performed against the best a couple of times. Marlon Samuels comes to mind, as does Ramdin.

 

[Richard]

Not to mention Rana Naved-Ul-Hasan.

I quite agree that people are often quick to big-up players when they do well against their teams but it just gets a bit tedious when the exact same thing happens for 4 series in a row (I first saw it in 1998-followed-by-1998\99, then 2000\01-followed-by-2001, then again in 2002-followed-by-2002\03 then shock-horror - yet again!!!! in 2006-followed-by-2006\07).You'd think they'd remember the fact that they'd said the same thing several times by now.

 

[Jono]

Not to mention Rana Naved-Ul-Hasan.

Haha he was praised to the roof back in 04/05 for a couple of decent performances.

To be fair I did praise him too, but it had more to do with the fact that he has the courage to show his face to millions of TV viewers with that bald head at the age of 26.

 

[Richard]

More than anything IIRR that praise was because he was perceived to be taking Shoaib's place after Shoaib was being perceived as a disruptive influence.

But I still struggled to believe people were waxing lyrical about someone who, at that time, looked rather on the rubbish side of average.

 

[Dasa]

To be fair I did praise him too, but it had more to do with the fact that he has the courage to show his face to millions of TV viewers with that bald head at the age of 26.

Haha a guy I know went bald at 18. Started shaving his head in high school to try and cover it up, but everyone knew the real reason.