murili and warne

[andmark]

Who is better warne or murili. (i think warne)

 

[adharcric]

Been there, done that. Bye.

 

[andmark]

I hope you dont mind me asking but what do you mean

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

This place explodes with this debate. There was an **Official** thread for it late last year, and it got so out of hand it was deleted (I think). Expect this to be closed.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I hope you dont mind me asking but what do you mean

I may be wrong, but he may be referring to the other 500 threads debating the same subject.

 

[Langeveldt]

Warne's by far the better batsman..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Warne's by far the better batsman..

True, but neither of them can sing like Rod Stewart.

 

[BoyBrumby]

True, but neither of them can sing like Rod Stewart.

Warney's probably shagged nearly as many blondes tho....

 

[a massive zebra]

Murali is easily the better bowler statistically and Warne is easily the better bowler according to popular opinion.

 

[a massive zebra]

Warne's by far the better batsman..

True but an average of 16 in Tests and 13 in ODIs with no centuries in 334 international matches is not really worth praising.

 

[andyc]

True but an average of 16 in Tests and 13 in ODIs with no centuries in 334 international matches is not really worth praising.

Well, is there that much difference between 99 and 100?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well, is there that much difference between 99 and 100?

I'd like to see you make that argument with Warney present.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Warne's by far the better batsman..

But on his day,Murali is a better entertainer with a couple or more slogs sailing over the fence.

 

[andyc]

But on his day,Murali is a better entertainer with a couple or more slogs sailing over the fence.

Cause, you know, Warne is an ardent blocker.

 

[andmark]

warne is a better batter and bowler as far as what i think

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

True but an average of 16 in Tests and 13 in ODIs with no centuries in 334 international matches is not really worth praising.

Warne's a decent batsman, but I think it's fair to say he could have made a lot more of his talent with the bat if he applied himself a bit more. A bit like Wasim Akram, he's a guy who could have been genuinely useful (though Wasim was obviously better and could have been a quality all-rounder) rather than occasionally devastating and usually a cheap wicket. When Warne applies himself to his batting he's very hard to dismiss, and he's a good player of pace bowling if ordinary against spin.

In the Ashes last year his batting was excellent at times, and at other times he stepped on his stumps or charged Giles for no reason. That's the way he's always been. Incidentally, doesn't he have three test scores in the 90s? Not a huge distance from making a century, really.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Didnt this have a massive sticky thread with 1,500 posts in and then a massive argument broke out and it was stopped, then I went awol for a couple of months and then came back and it went? Yeah, I think so

 

[SJS]

I may be wrong, but he may be referring to the other 500 threads debating the same subject.

Not counting the 5 million posts on the same subject in unrelated threads

 

[GIMH]

In his prime, Phil Tuffnell was better than both of them

 

[pasag]

Sigh.