*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[marc71178]

I dare you to put forward ONE single comment I've ever made that is a generalisation pertaining to a race.

Is there a prize for doing so?:

1. All Australians over 50 are racist. You fit the bill

 

[Sanz]

But I didn't see any outcry from certain people towards Harbhajan the other day...

Common Marc, Dont keep us in doubt, name those people.

 

[C_C]

Is there a prize for doing so?:

You know, it surprises me that so many guys who went to english-speaking schools have such poor grasp of English grammar. especially when its their mother-tongue.
Its really pathetic to say the least that people cannot differentiate between a statement and an illustration.
When i say " Okay. lets see if you can tell the difference between these two statements 1. All aussies are racists 2. mark should have his balls (if he has any) stomped on" people take it as a literal statement instead of an illustration.

I had no idea that grammar skills are so lacking in your average english-aussie highschools.

 

[C_C]

But I didn't see any outcry from certain people towards Harbhajan the other day...

Err i wasnt 'on' the other days and neither did it come up in a thread i was looking at particularly. It was pretty despicable to say the least. But for a paranoid android, its about par for the course i would say. keep it up!

 

[Son Of Coco]

You know. it surprises me that so many guys who went to english-speaking schools have such poor grasp of English grammar. especially when its their mother-tongue.
Its really pathetic to say the least that people cannot differentiate between a statement and an illustration.
When i say " Okay. lets see if you can tell the difference between these two statements 1. All aussies are racists 2. mark should have his balls (if he has any) stomped on" people take it as a literal statement instead of an illustration.

I had no idea that grammar skills are so lacking in your average english-aussie highschools.

When a large majority of English speaking posters misinterpreted what you said the fault may not lie on their side. I wouldn't get too high and mighty with regards to grammar if I were you.

 

[Dasa]

When a large majority of English speaking posters misinterpreted what you said the fault may not lie on their side. I wouldn't get too high and mighty with regards to grammar if I were you.

I think you'd find that most people are misinterpreting C_C on purpose just to support their petty points. They clearly know what he was talking about.

 

[C_C]

When a large majority of English speaking posters misinterpreted what you said the fault may not lie on their side. I wouldn't get too high and mighty with regards to grammar if I were you.

Or maybe they should learn their languages better first mayhaps ?
Especially once the grammar has been explained. Dont make the silly assumption that just because someone is English or Aussie, they speak/understand English better.
You toil away over a 300 page wren and martin book of grammar for two years and you could be a pygmy bushman for all it matters but you wouldnt be hunting for a dictionary reading Churchill.
There is nothing ambiguous about interpreting an illustration and a comment, especially when its said in second person. You'd find that my clarification maybe a bit jerky but the essential difference remains.
Besides, i am no grammar nazi. I dont go around whining (like some do here to score brownie points) correcting people's spelling or punctuation. The reason grammar exists is so that you can understand the other person. And inorder to accomplish that, you need to have basic understanding of figures of speech and inflections.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Or maybe they should learn their languages better first mayhaps ?
Especially once the grammar has been explained. Dont make the silly assumption that just because someone is English or Aussie, they speak/understand English better.
You toil away over a 300 page wren and martin book of grammar for two years and you could be a pygmy bushman for all it matters but you wouldnt be hunting for a dictionary reading Churchill.
There is nothing ambiguous about interpreting an illustration and a comment, especially when its said in second person. You'd find that my clarification maybe a bit jerky but the essential difference remains.
Besides, i am no grammar nazi. I dont go around whining (like some do here to score brownie points) correcting people's spelling or punctuation. The reason grammar exists is so that you can understand the other person. And inorder to accomplish that, you need to have basic understanding of figures of speech and inflections.

Perhaps what you wrote wasn't that clear!? It happens to all of us.

I certainly don't assume that we write it better that's for sure. You do need to be fairly certain the mistake wasn't in your depiction before you go around slagging off people re: the way they interpret their own language though.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I think you'd find that most people are misinterpreting C_C on purpose just to support their petty points. They clearly know what he was talking about.

You're possibly right...

I think the massive chip he seems to have on his shoulder re: all things Oz may rankle at times though. Apparently we're supposed to understand the cultural differences we have with other nations yet it doesn't run the other way. A narcissistic approach never really gathers too many fans.

 

[honestbharani]

I did see your apology. Your argument was the same, just using a different reference/evidence. I'm not saying the Aussies are angels at all. But how often do you see them take back what they've said or deny saying it altogether? Usually they stand their ground no matter how silly they look. Yet, when they do try to clarify it's left unappreciated. I.E Warne + Ponting = Humble Pie.

It is about truth, in both instances: Bangladesh and Murali.

Bangladesh - Too many matches in cricket, Bangladesh aren't of the standard (apart from one innings against Australia and a single test win in their entire history) they haven't proved it really. I am an advocate of giving them a chance. The Aussies aren't the only team/people to be saying that.

Murali - Gets a good proportion of his wickets from the weaker test nations.

Both are true and accurate in their scope. It may not be nice to say, but it's definately there. As you can see the Aussies, at least recently, have not been shy of saying these kind of comments. Now when something is clarified before the tests (which serves to show 0 need for saving face, as they haven't even played bad to come retract something on those grounds) they're still seen in the same light. My argument is: they're given no leeway to be good. No praise, it's only the worst aspect that's focused on. I'm sure if we got a big enough magnifying glass on other test nations we can dislike what they do too.

England in the 90s are as weak as they come when handling quality spinners.


And the only reason he has a lot of wickets against them is because he has played a lot more against them than the other teams. He has a better wickets/match ratio against England and if he had played as much against them as Warne has, he would have even more wickets than he does at this point. Using that as a way to claim Warne > Murali is just plain pathetic. There are a lot of reasons why I can argue Warne > Murali, but that is most definitely not one of them.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't know if this is the kind of proof you will like but Steve Waugh in his autobiography mentioned how he was indeed injured throughout the tests and carried on.

And yet it wasn't mentioned when the tour was on. And BTW, I think you are confusing the 98 series and the 2001 series. I think Warney had that shoulder strain (not a big injury as far as affecting your bowling is concerned, but he needed surgery to get it completely healed.) throughout the 2001 series, but even then John Buchanan mentioned that more than the shoulder strain, it was him being overweight that was affecting his potency in that series. There was a bit of a mini-controversy within the Australian side because of that statement. The 98 series was the one when he picked up an injury during the ODI series. Actually, shoulder strains happen a lot to both Warne and Murali. Both guys play with it and I don't think it has particularly restricted either bowler in terms of potency. They were still able to bowl almost all their deliveries like the flipper, top spinner, big leg spinner, flatter one etc. for Warne and the doosra, the top spinner, the quicker one and the big offie for Murali. Warne himself accepts that he got clobbered when he was bowling at his best to the Indians. The injury things he has only mentioned recently and even then, it is his fans who make more of it than he himself does.

 

[honestbharani]

So of all these Cricket teams....what are the odds....only one of them behave badly. The rest are saints .

It's not about worshipping those who tell it straight. It's actually irrelevant to the point. The point is if Australians are so uncouth that they WILL say what they think, then what makes you think they're trying to HIDE something by retracting a statement.

That's a contradictory statement. It would bare more sense if you had said "Oh, well the Aussies pull no punches, so if they're saying that it isn't what they mean't then it must have been something else". Because, as stated, if they're so 'bad', why would they retract anything? This happening before the test even began. It's non-sensical.

If I rob cars and I'm forthcoming with it, what makes you think I'd be lying if I said: "No, not that one." This is what I mean when I say people will pick up some tripe and run with it, even if isn't consistant in reasoning, just because the price fits the bill.

In the result of the thread, I'm more inclined to Social's thinking.

I don't think there is any doubt about the fact that Aussies perhaps are the poorest examples on the cricket field. The other teams all have their fair share of uncouth behaviour and sometimes, they can actually get worse than anything the Aussies ever did, but I think the Aussies are #1 here as well. But to speak the truth, most sides around the world have upped the bar recently and trying very hard to match Australia here, instead of their cricketing skills.

 

[honestbharani]

5 Innings, lord, we've been overrating him.





So called injury eh?





.. > You can assume whatever you want, but that doesn't mean it is true.



Murali has played 36 less matches and has roughly the same amount of balls bowled. I'm not arguing whether he would have a better strike rate or average (would be hard to gauge considering he's played vastly more tests with Glenn than without) but I am arguing he'd get similar amount of wickets. Murali is a marathon bowler who's flurry of wickets comes from the mass amount of overs he bowls in each game. Warne is the opposite. Warne has to make batsmen play to get wickets. Warne also has an All-Timer at the other end taking wickets and also has had world class support to compete with. Whilst that can be an advantage at times, to a bowler he has such a devastating effect in his spells, and is dangerous with pretty much every delivery...it's not going to help him that much. It would be much better if he didn't have so much competition. Average could go higher, but then again taking wickets could bring it back down.




Uh, no mate. That wasn't the implication at all. Me suggesting that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are the worst test nations is not as ridiculous as suggesting Warne will not do well against these teams given more time. Yes, while I guage this looking at their careers, you're comparing this with 2.5 games worth of tests between the two teams. Not only that, you fail to acknowledge that for whatever reason, Warne wasn't well for the first day which is why he DIDN'T play the second day. Someone who was on form, and did play well was Macgill (8-fer). You said his wickets weren't cheap, they were when you take his own figures into consideration. And the same kind of numbers Murali also gets even when his side loses. It's not to fault Murali, he can't help not having great support, and it's an attribute to him to be able to burden so much burden. But as said, he bowls a lot of overs and he is given sovereignty in taking wickets for Sri Lanka. So, of course he'll have a great average and wicket count.

LOL, we've really gotten off topic. But it's proved to me that really you're not judging Warne by a just basis (at least not to me) and it's hard to see rationality in the midst of "supposed injury" and implying Warne wouldn't do well against those nations. It shows a bit of bias to me.

Why is 5 innings not a fair shot at Bangladesh for Warney? And what about the fact that Murali did take a lot of wickets against a good Zim side, not this present one going around at the moment? Why are his wickets so easily disposed of and of course, Warne's relative lack of success against similar opponents?


And regarding the injury issue, why do you have to bring it up every time he doesn't do well? Shoulder strains are not a big injury for spinners. Murali has played and taken loads of wickets carrying the same injury in 2002, I think. And Warne has been playing all the tests, including this recent one even though he has this shoulder strain. Ditto in 2001 in India. And he has bowled a lot of overs as well. Injured guys, esp. guys as good as Warney, won't be treated this way, not against BD, who are the worst test playing team in the world, since Zim don't play anymore in tests. To use this injury as an excuse is pathetic. Sure, he may only be 90% bowling fit because of this injury (as he has been in the past when he carried on with this injury and as Murali must have been when he played on with this injury) but that should still be good enough, considering how good he is. Like I said, there are lots of reasons and some guys brought out some very good points in the Murali Vs Warne thread before it was locked (Sean and a few others, esp. English posters). There were more than a few who were mocking Murali and his action etc, but these guys made sensible points and points that I will easily acknowledge. But to claim Murali takes cheap wickets and that the only reason Warney got clobbered in the matches he did get clobbered is because of injuries is just a lot of whining.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Treating all shoulder strains as the same inhibitance (i.e. the severity of the injury) is silly. Now, for all I know Murali's could have been 15 times worse than Warne's, but from an outsiders point of view you can't just match periods where they are both carrying injuries.

 

[honestbharani]

Treating all shoulder strains as the same inhibitance (i.e. the severity of the injury) is silly. Now, for all I know Murali's could have been 15 times worse than Warne's, but from an outsiders point of view you can't just match periods where they are both carrying injuries.

yeah, I accept that I am generalizing there and that there can be exceptions but the point is, if the injury was that serious, he shouldn't be bowling or playing in the first place. And the fact that he still was, to me at least, it shows that he was fit enough to bowl and bat and field. Perhaps he was only at 90% or so, but still, they reckoned he was good enough to do what they expect from him and therefore, to use that as an excuse is rather odd and it almost always crops up whenever he gets hammered as well. It gets a little too repetative at times. I guess it is almost taboo for some here to accept that even the best bowlers will get hammered at times by players playing them well.

 

[vic_orthdox]

yeah, I accept that I am generalizing there and that there can be exceptions but the point is, if the injury was that serious, he shouldn't be bowling or playing in the first place. And the fact that he still was, to me at least, it shows that he was fit enough to bowl and bat and field. Perhaps he was only at 90% or so, but still, they reckoned he was good enough to do what they expect from him and therefore, to use that as an excuse is rather odd and it almost always crops up whenever he gets hammered as well. It gets a little too repetative at times. I guess it is almost taboo for some here to accept that even the best bowlers will get hammered at times by players playing them well.

They, is who I am referring to. I'm not here making a defense for Warne. Just stating that, what you seemed to be doing, saying that their impairment would cancel each other out, isn't really correct.

 

[honestbharani]

They, is who I am referring to. I'm not here making a defense for Warne. Just stating that, what you seemed to be doing, saying that their impairment would cancel each other out, isn't really correct.

WEll, I am not saying they would cancel each other out or anything. But having seen both Murali and Warne bowl with shoulder strains in actual matches, I don't think either of them were affected THAT much due to that particular injury, at least as far as bowling is concerned. That is the reason I drew the parallel there. I just supposed that, having seen both men bowl and bowl well with shoulder strains, maybe shoulder strains just don't affect spinners (wrist spinners, to be exact) that much, as say it might do to a fast bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

They, is who I am referring to. I'm not here making a defense for Warne. Just stating that, what you seemed to be doing, saying that their impairment would cancel each other out, isn't really correct.

yeah, sorry, could have put they and them in there instead of he and him. But my point is that I don't think shoulder strains affect either of them that much as far as their bowling is concerned.

 

[Ikki]

England in the 90s are as weak as they come when handling quality spinners.


And the only reason he has a lot of wickets against them is because he has played a lot more against them than the other teams. He has a better wickets/match ratio against England and if he had played as much against them as Warne has, he would have even more wickets than he does at this point. Using that as a way to claim Warne > Murali is just plain pathetic. There are a lot of reasons why I can argue Warne > Murali, but that is most definitely not one of them.

Maybe I'm not getting this accross right...here it goes. What I am saying is that IF MURALI didn't play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and in those number matches played more competitive teams he wouldn't have as many wickets. It isn't about Warne V Murali. But in this board if you say something against Warne or Murali, it suddenly because a bout.

Why is 5 innings not a fair shot at Bangladesh for Warney? And what about the fact that Murali did take a lot of wickets against a good Zim side, not this present one going around at the moment? Why are his wickets so easily disposed of and of course, Warne's relative lack of success against similar opponents?


And regarding the injury issue, why do you have to bring it up every time he doesn't do well? Shoulder strains are not a big injury for spinners. Murali has played and taken loads of wickets carrying the same injury in 2002, I think. And Warne has been playing all the tests, including this recent one even though he has this shoulder strain. Ditto in 2001 in India. And he has bowled a lot of overs as well. Injured guys, esp. guys as good as Warney, won't be treated this way, not against BD, who are the worst test playing team in the world, since Zim don't play anymore in tests. To use this injury as an excuse is pathetic. Sure, he may only be 90% bowling fit because of this injury (as he has been in the past when he carried on with this injury and as Murali must have been when he played on with this injury) but that should still be good enough, considering how good he is. Like I said, there are lots of reasons and some guys brought out some very good points in the Murali Vs Warne thread before it was locked (Sean and a few others, esp. English posters). There were more than a few who were mocking Murali and his action etc, but these guys made sensible points and points that I will easily acknowledge. But to claim Murali takes cheap wickets and that the only reason Warney got clobbered in the matches he did get clobbered is because of injuries is just a lot of whining.

This is what I detest in these arguments: Where people who can clearly see the guy isn't bowling right and is grabbing his shoulder not to play the second day can ignore that for the sake of competition. Mate, I could care less if you consider Murali better or worse than Warne. I watched the match, to say it didn't affect his bowling is ridiculous. What's more ridiculous is when the aforesaid "But Murali plays injured too sometimes" is inserted. Why is he automatically inserted? You say Bangladesh is good at playing spin and hype them up and in the same breath say: "Even an injured Warne should do well against Bangladesh". Really, come on mate. This never was a Warne V Murali thread, but I see that one of the reasons the Aussies are disliked is for this rivalry. As said before...I got my answer to this thread...

 

[honestbharani]

Maybe I'm not getting this accross right...here it goes. What I am saying is that IF MURALI didn't play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and in those number matches played more competitive teams he wouldn't have as many wickets. It isn't about Warne V Murali. But in this board if you say something against Warne or Murali, it suddenly because a bout.



This is what I detest in these arguments: Where people who can clearly see the guy isn't bowling right and is grabbing his shoulder not to play the second day can ignore that for the sake of competition. Mate, I could care less if you consider Murali better or worse than Warne. I watched the match, to say it didn't affect his bowling is ridiculous. What's more ridiculous is when the aforesaid "But Murali plays injured too sometimes" is inserted. Why is he automatically inserted? You say Bangladesh is good at playing spin and hype them up and in the same breath say: "Even an injured Warne should do well against Bangladesh". Really, come on mate. This never was a Warne V Murali thread, but I see that one of the reasons the Aussies are disliked is for this rivalry. As said before...I got my answer to this thread...

I never said they were good. They were decent. BIg difference there.


And regarding the issue about wickets, Murali averages more wickets/match against England (and he has 10 tests against them which is a fair sample space) than he does against Zim and Bangla combined. So, let us say if he had played 10 tests lesser against Zim and Bangla and instead played England (which is what has happened with Warne basically), he would have actually ended with more wickets than he has right now.


And no, the reason I bring in Murali regarding the injury issue is to show that quality spinners (both him and Warne) can and HAVE played with shoulder strains and done well. Sure he was grabbing his shoulders from time to time as Murali did as well, but in terms of reducing their potency, it wasn't THAT big. I saw the 2001 series as well and Warne was turning the ball as much as he has ever done. And he got in his flippers, zooters and top spinners etc as well. He was just clobbered after the second innings at Kolkata, plain and simple. And given how much Murali and Warne bowl, I think it is obvious that they will suffer from shoulder strains from time to time.


And the reason why I think even a 90% Warne would do well against Bangladesh is because I think he is THAT good. I still rate Bangladesh as reasonably decent players of spin and I definitely think they struggle more against seam and swing than they do against spin.