*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Ikki]

Common, you cant use that as an excuse, Oh Warnie is not bowling well because of injury or some other reason, that's why he was not able to pick up Bangla wickets. That's the excuse I hear for Warnie's performance against India. Every time he has played us, he has done poorly and that has been attributed to his injury. As for the assumption "Warne won't get wickets against Bangladesh, or Murali wouldn't have gotten as many wickets against England" - Well Murali has played 10 tests against England and taken 69 wickets, 6.9 wickets/test. On the other hand he has played 20 tests against Zim and BD and taken 137 wickets i.e. 6.85 wickets/test. Warne has played 2 tests against Zim and BD and has taken 9 wickets. Now you decide if Murali would have taken any less wickets against England in same no. of tests than he has done against ZIM+BD.

I know my answer, do you ?

Why is an injury seen as an excuse? It's explanation that there is a reason for his off form. Indian batsmen playing him very well is different to him being totally off in Bangladesh. So you're saying he's using excuses against Bangladesh...as in...he wouldn't get wickets against them? As for the England comparison, cut Murali to 20 overs and give him a McGrath, I think I know who I would pick.

Yes, I think he is the kind of guy, he is insecure about his world record being broken by Murali and that's why all these statements coming out now when they both are competing for the World Record. He needed to clarify his statement because he was doing the same thing he accused Murali off. And no these are not facts, these are, as you said, 'pathetic arguments' and clutching @ straws. First he questioned his action (I think), then talked about cheap wickets in April 2005 and in december again his fear that it would be taken over by 'Some guy who bowls all day from one end against Minnows'.

Never heard of Warne questioning Murali's action. Never heard him say Murali is taking cheap wickets, in fact he went on to clarify to say he didn't. It seems to me mate you're clutching straws as well. Your attitude best exemplifies it. First glance at your first sentence bolded above shows it. Why is it that the record has been such a big deal for Warne all of a sudden? You'd think it would be an ongoing occurance, maybe you're right, overnight he's become insecure of the record and wanting to keep it..etc. Warne may be insecure about his weight, but about his cricket he's the most confident competitor out there. As I mentioned before...one word, one sentence and some love running with it.

I object to the timing, If he was misquoted misquoted or something, he should have said so next day, next week, not after 5 months before his adventures against the same minnow. In any case, I read the quoted statement, I dont see how and where it was quoted out of context. He meant every word of what he said and it is crystal clear what he was trying to say there. If he thinks it was true, then why is he backtracking from that now. Which version should we trust, the one he is saying now or the one he said 6 months ago.

So because he learned about it late, apologised late, he's still the villain. I'm not too sure he'll ever win with you folks. Indeed, why would he take it back if he thinks it true? He wouldn't, we both know Warne. What makes you think he'd be afraid to show his real feelings on the matter? So obviously, him clarifying what was said is him rebutting against the implications of the message. So obviously the man isn't the villain at all. The villain is the truth.

 

[honestbharani]

Perfectly summed up. The rest of the post was correct and it was a fine post... but I'd rather just quote that. People don't like it because its true and if you ask me, its truth is a major reason why the Warne/Murali debate is so heated. I never want to debate that again because people just can't be civil. I thought myself and C_C had a good debate on it a while back, but it was shut down for some reason... but I'm just done there and it's a shame.

But your absolutely right it irks people because its true. I have no idea why there isn't an official Lara vs. Tendulkar debate, but I'd be willing to bet it could be more civil because there aren't little truths that annoy and irritate people. Lara and Tendulkar is a more civil debate because you can't undermine or belittle some of their accomplishments. You can with Murali and since you may be right that becomes annoying and can even be seen as insulting, when it isn't. Saying Murali has over one fifth of his wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe or that without playing them his average would be nearly 25 are truths. But they are accomplishments and belittling them can come off as insulting. Are we insulting Murali? Nope. Is Warne? Nope. It's just the truth. In some unfortunate cases the truth can shine a light on the obvious. Warne said Murali could beat his record that way and he's right? It's not insulting to say that. What that truth reveals is how Murali's gotten so so many of his wickets. Hence this is why people think Warne feels Murali takes cheap wickets. It's not what Warne said, but what the truth reveals. And you know what, what the truth reveals is always correct.

Nobody's gonna belittle many of Lara or Tendulkar's achievments and hence its a more fun civil debate. Why isn't there an official thread for Lara/Tendulkar?

Please lets not start a Warne vs. Murali debate. I'm just trying to extend on what Kazo said which I fully agree with. He summed up my opinion perfectly. This post isn't a Warne vs. Murali post, its a "what does the truth say?" And my point is that there's the truth and then there's what the truth can reveal. That's what this is about.
You can hear politicians say something on a policy or issue that shines a light on other things. In this case, Warne said something true about how his record can be beaten (that is what he was talking about), that shines a something else - how Murali's gotten over one fifth of his wickets.

I like Warne, but I've also criticised his behaviour as written in the Australia vs. South Africa thread and believe me, he's a disappointment in so many ways with his behaviour. But in this case its just like Ricky Ponting, people are quick to jump all over somebody.

When the no. of wickets is over 600, I don't think it matters if 1/5 was against non-test class opposition. Murali has more than proved himself against most other teams in most other conditions, except against Australia in Australia, but that sample space is so small that you cannot judge stuff based on that, esp. since we saw how well Murali bowled in the SS. Plus, Murali's history in Australia has meant that it was never going to be easy for him to go and play there. I have no problem with people taking away wickets taken against Zim and BD if they will do teh same with pre 2000 England. England, post Gooch and Gatting, was one perhaps THE worst side (excluding the recent Zim side) in playing quality spin. Stewart was really good but the others weren't really upto scratch. Not sure about Atherton as I never got to see him facing Warne or Murali.

 

[Ikki]

HE rubbished wickets taken against Bangladesh and then got mauled by the same team. In fact, Murali JUST won matches against almost the same batting line up a few months ago. End of story. If you take Bangla and Zim out of the test world, Murali will STILL break the world record, because he is younger and with those teams out he will have more rest periods. Him bringing up Zim and the Tigers into the interview when the question was about the world record says it all, really. I never thought he suggested that Murali could only break the record by playing against Zim and BD. Even he cannot be that dumb. But he certainly rubbished wickets taken against Zim and BD by Murali.

Which is why he went on to clarify that he didn't mean that...Hmm.

A question I've asked, I'll ask again: Why would Shane Keith Warne retract his statement? He also did this BEFORE the tests started. So the notion that he was belted around and was served humble pie is laughable.

 

[honestbharani]

I never suggested any such thing. In fact, I said the exact opposite - Warne DID imply that Murali takes a lot of cheap wickets against the weaker sides. What he didn't do is retract the statement after Bangaldesh belted him to cover his tracks - he retracted it beforehand, presumably because he felt he had been misrepresented.

The distinction that Warne made was between saying that Murali takes a lot of cheap wickets, and saying that taking the cheap wickets reduces Murali's quality as a bowler. His statement was about who would break his record, not about who was the better bowler. Whether or not you think that's a reasonable distinction to make, that's what he said.

As I have said plenty of times on this subject, Warne was out of line to come out and criticise another player's achievements in that way, but it's not as if he's the only person to do it.

He isn't but in this issue (given what happened to Murali in Australia and SL's uneasy relationship with Australia in cricket) he certainly could have been more civil, esp. since he was the one who started this particular slanging match.

 

[honestbharani]

Which is why he went on to clarify that he didn't mean that...Hmm.

A question I've asked, I'll ask again: Why would Shane Keith Warne retract his statement? He also did this BEFORE the tests started. So the notion that he was belted around and was served humble pie is laughable.

he ate the humble pie because he insinuated that wickets taken against zim and Bangla were cheap and he couldn't buy one against them a few days later. simple, really. It is not about retracting statements, for me. It was bound to happen once they were in Bangladesh. I mean, Punter and Warney weren't gonna rubbish the home team on their own turf, were they?

 

[Ikki]

he ate the humble pie because he insinuated that wickets taken against zim and Bangla were cheap and he couldn't buy one against them a few days later. simple, really. It is not about retracting statements, for me. It was bound to happen once they were in Bangladesh. I mean, Punter and Warney weren't gonna rubbish the home team on their own turf, were they?

With the unpolitical nature the Australians have, you have a nice story to explain it all.

 

[honestbharani]

What difference does it make to take 200 test wickets at the start of your career than towards the end? None, they're going to be added the same. So whether he does so because of them in the near future is irrelevant, it's more than certainly helped him. Again, average is not everything.

He didn't accuse him of playing test against minnows. In fact he didn't accuse him. He simply stated a large proportion of Murali's wickets come from those two nations. If I say this is it immature and insulting? If Benaud says it, or any other person besides Warne says it? See what I mean? Just any tit-bit to take out of context and bash the guy. Sometimes he may deserve it, but even he's honest if he does. When he doesn't, he isn't accorded any respect. It's like WANTING to believe in the worst of someone. It's prejudice.

1/5 is large now? And again we come down to the quality of wickets debate.

 

[Ikki]

1/5 is large now? And again we come down to the quality of wickets debate.

It's almost a quarter. Quality of wickets. Biggest problem with that debate is that in cricket you're not realising, there is a batter and a bowler. It's just grounds for Murali to save some face mate. Nothing more, nothing less, when you're discussing it.

 

[honestbharani]

I think 'fanatical' is an appropriate term here.

The incident CC mentioned happened against Sri Lanka. Langer flicked off the bails when Samaraweera (I think, I may be wrong) was batting and Ponting and Hayden appealed for hit wicket and the matter was actually almost referred to the third umpire. (or maybe it was, been seeing too much cricket recently, can't remember)

 

[honestbharani]

It's almost a quarter. Quality of wickets. Biggest problem with that debate is that in cricket you're not realising, there is a batter and a bowler. It's just grounds for Murali to save some face mate. Nothing more, nothing less, when you're discussing it.

Not really. When I am bowling, it would DEFINITELY give me more satisfaction if I get a batsman out through my skills and set him up, than him playing a rash stroke and giving it away. YOur argument is, actually, something that you use to save face for Warne, really.

 

[honestbharani]

With the unpolitical nature the Australians have, you have a nice story to explain it all.

not sure what you mean here, but I, for one, was surely expecting some nice remarks about the improvements of the Bangladesh team the moment I heard that Australia were touring there. Happens everywhere and in every sport. We had Australia praise India's tennis when we were worse than almost all countries in the world group of Davis Cup.

 

[Ikki]

Not really. When I am bowling, it would DEFINITELY give me more satisfaction if I get a batsman out through my skills and set him up, than him playing a rash stroke and giving it away. YOur argument is, actually, something that you use to save face for Warne, really.

Ok, let me break it down...

Your arguments your points, would hold even if I'm batting against Murali. I'm a ***** batter in comparison to test batsmen, but because he bowled a good bowl and got me out? It's a quality wicket? You're making it trivial to cement some ground for Murali. In any case, you have to be relative, the only team worse tham Bangladesh is Zimbabwe, and what a coincidence, Murali's doing fine there as well . The ability of a batsman to deal with quality bowls is what makes it harder to get them out. You're actually going to say Bangladeshi batsmen pertain to that kind of difficulty, to then call them quality wickets? Not likely, not common.

 

[Ikki]

not sure what you mean here, but I, for one, was surely expecting some nice remarks about the improvements of the Bangladesh team the moment I heard that Australia were touring there. Happens everywhere and in every sport. We had Australia praise India's tennis when we were worse than almost all countries in the world group of Davis Cup.

Check the boards, I'm glad they've improved, I've been touting them as well. Better cricketing nations, the higher the standard, who doesn't want that? That's not the point, where have you seen Warne or Ponting hold their tongue because they're the guests? So your theory doesn't ring consistant for me, that's all.

**ADD: The Tennis and pretty much all Australians involved in sports are generally very friendly and humble. I've been raised here mate, I don't need to lie to you, these are good people. Not as nice as the New Zealanders , but they're good folk.

 

[honestbharani]

Check the boards, I'm glad they've improved, I've been touting them as well. Better cricketing nations, the higher the standard, who doesn't want that? That's not the point, where have you seen Warne or Ponting hold their tongue because they're the guests? So your theory doesn't ring consistant for me, that's all.

**ADD: The Tennis and pretty much all Australians involved in sports are generally very friendly and humble. I've been raised here mate, I don't need to lie to you, these are good people. Not as nice as the New Zealanders , but they're good folk.

When did I say they were bad people as a whole?


And why do you think I will judge Australia based on Warne and Ponting?

 

[honestbharani]

Ok, let me break it down...

Your arguments your points, would hold even if I'm batting against Murali. I'm a ***** batter in comparison to test batsmen, but because he bowled a good bowl and got me out? It's a quality wicket? You're making it trivial to cement some ground for Murali. In any case, you have to be relative, the only team worse tham Bangladesh is Zimbabwe, and what a coincidence, Murali's doing fine there as well . The ability of a batsman to deal with quality bowls is what makes it harder to get them out. You're actually going to say Bangladeshi batsmen pertain to that kind of difficulty, to then call them quality wickets? Not likely, not common.

The point is, the Bangladesh batsmen aren't ***** batsmen, esp. when compared to the way England (tried to) play spin in the 90s post Gooch and Gatting. I always felt Bangladesh were more than decent players of spin and so far we have seen that. AT least their top order has more than a clue about playing top class spin. It is the seam and swing that they struggle more against. Hence why Pathan ran through them so many times, while they handled Kumble more than competently.

And BTW, Murali is doing more than fine against most other sides as well. Sanz posted some stats about his no. of wickets against England as well. Plus, Murali never looked as poor as Warne did against India, and no, Warney didn't carry any injuries in the tests in 2001 and in 1998, when he so clearly picked up the injury during the ODI circus, when they were moved to all parts of India, as it always happens.

 

[Ikki]

When did I say they were bad people as a whole?


And why do you think I will judge Australia based on Warne and Ponting?

I don't think that. I'm implying that Warne and Ponting are decent people as well. Especially their cricketers are put in the worst of lights just for controversy.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think that. I'm implying that Warne and Ponting are decent people as well. Especially their cricketers are put in the worst of lights just for controversy.

They certainly may be more than nice people in their private lives. But there is more than room for improvement in how they handle their public life, Warne esp. Ponting, night club incidents aside, he is not that bad, but he does whine a little too much and generally seems reluctant to give opposition credit. Certainly no Dravid or Vaughan or INzy, is he?

 

[Ikki]

The point is, the Bangladesh batsmen aren't ***** batsmen, esp. when compared to the way England (tried to) play spin in the 90s post Gooch and Gatting. I always felt Bangladesh were more than decent players of spin and so far we have seen that. AT least their top order has more than a clue about playing top class spin. It is the seam and swing that they struggle more against. Hence why Pathan ran through them so many times, while they handled Kumble more than competently.

And BTW, Murali is doing more than fine against most other sides as well. Sanz posted some stats about his no. of wickets against England as well. Plus, Murali never looked as poor as Warne did against India, and no, Warney didn't carry any injuries in the tests in 2001 and in 1998, when he so clearly picked up the injury during the ODI circus, when they were moved to all parts of India, as it always happens.

Bangladeshi's good players of spin? Which is why Murali has such a haul, and with a semi-decent Warne who's getting wickets there, and Macgill's first innings of 8-fer. Sorry mate, I don't buy that. In fact, in this series V Australia I'd reckon they did just as good if not better with the seam bowling.

Look, I'm not saying Murali wouldn't have done well against other opposition. You must think that I think Murali is poor, not at all, if that is the case. After Warne I place Murali firmly behind him. The implications are that he wouldn't have gotten as many playing better teams. As bad as you wish to make the English players appear, the worst two teams have already been mentioned. If it's all relative, surely that has some weighting, if not more. Anyway, this has digressed to another topic altogether (although inevitably so). This will be my last post unless I see something I need to say. I got the answer for the question I asked by starting this thread.

 

[honestbharani]

Bangladeshi's good players of spin? Which is why Murali has such a haul, and with a semi-decent Warne who's getting wickets there, and Macgill's first innings of 8-fer. Sorry mate, I don't buy that. In fact, in this series V Australia I'd reckon they did just as good if not better with the seam bowling.

Look, I'm not saying Murali wouldn't have done well against other opposition. You must think that I think Murali is poor, not at all, if that is the case. After Warne I place Murali firmly behind him. The implications are that he wouldn't have gotten as many playing better teams. As bad as you wish to make the English players appear, the worst two teams have already been mentioned. If it's all relative, surely that has some weighting, if not more. Anyway, this has digressed to another topic altogether (although inevitably so). This will be my last post unless I see something I need to say. I got the answer for the question I asked by starting this thread.

I am basing what I am saying on what I have seen. I have seen the matches and I think they play spin reasonably well for such a young team. They played Kumble alright and they were more than competent against Murali Kartik on their debut test. Have you seen all these matches that Murali took the wickets against them?


And BTW, regarding the thread, I think it is obvious that Warne DID attack Murali for taking wickets against Bangladesh and Zim. He only denied that he didn't mean that he plays against them a lot on purpose or something like that. And I never thought he had implied that even before this thread. He did suggest that he took easy wickets against zim and the Tigers and that he would break the record because of that. Wish to deny any of that?

 

[Sanz]

Why is an injury seen as an excuse? It's explanation that there is a reason for his off form. Indian batsmen playing him very well is different to him being totally off in Bangladesh. So you're saying he's using excuses against Bangladesh...as in...he wouldn't get wickets against them?

No Warnie is not making any excuse, his fans are. Those fans look for excuses every time Warne performs poorly.

As for the England comparison, cut Murali to 20 overs and give him a McGrath, I think I know who I would pick.

Incase you didn't know, Warne avg. against England is higher when Mcgrath didn't play, so what makes you think that Murali wouldn't benifit from Mcgrath's presence ? As for 20 overs...lol Warne bowls an avg. 66 overs per match when mcgrath is not around. Last match when Mcgrath wasn't around, Warne bowled 76 overs. So muc for 20 overs.

Never heard of Warne questioning Murali's action. Never heard him say Murali is taking cheap wickets, in fact he went on to clarify to say he didn't.

I thought it was warne Warne said something about Murali's action, I was not sure about it, I will have to research it, some aussie player did say it. Warne didn't name Murali about cheap wickets, but anyone with very little IQ would know where he was pointing.

It seems to me mate you're clutching straws as well. Your attitude best exemplifies it. First glance at your first sentence bolded above shows it.

Okay so when you cant beat my argument, start attacking me, start questioning my attitude.I used to do that a lot I have tried to change over the years and hence I am gonna stop here. You win, Warne is the saint, he has never said anything about anyone. It's media's poor attempt to vilify him, Hope that makes you happy.