I am sure there are but if it was that bad, why was Warne bowling in the second innings itself and also playing in the second test? I think the injury did have a part in why he wasn't able to bowl as well as could have, but even given the injury, he did bowl at his best (in the sense that on another day, even with the injury, he would have bowled better) and also Bangladesh played him really well.
There was a post of yours, honestB, that I wanted to quote but I couldn't find it. So I'll summarise.
Firstly I think Bangladesh played Warne fairly well. Nobody wanted to give them credit, and while Australia played pretty poorly, Bangladesh did play arguably their best game.
Warne wasn't at his best and it was obvious. His balls weren't hitting the spots and yeah, just obvious he wasn't at his best. Warne was going to miss the 2nd test but wanted to play.
What irks me is how quickly people are unfairly trying to knock Warne because he didn't do as well as Murali. These are people who live and breath on stats and could not care if Bangladesh played great... all they cared about was Warne failing. Stats don't... and will never show how well Bangladesh played in that test. Has Murali ever played Bangladesh when they played that well? Probably not but I don't want to knock Murali.
Lets not forget that it was the batting pitch as well... at least on day one. The pitch held up quite nicely throughout the test.
Another problem is that all cricketers have bad days. One bad test will badly skewer your stats. Warne took 8 wickets in this last test against Bangladesh at an average of 20. If he played 6 tests, like Murali has, against Bangaldesh like that, he'd have 48 wickets against Bangaldesh. 2 less than what Murali has in that time. Yet with one bad test all of a sudden people are jumping all over him.
I also will note that Murali has played most of his tests against Bangladesh in Sri Lanka, where his record is significantly better. If Murali had one bad test against Bangladesh and Warne kept up the wicket-taking he had in this last test. Then they'd be very similar.
This is all a lot of ifs and butts that I'm not interested in. My point is that people are so quick to try and use ONE TEST to prove Murali is superior when I think that's unfair. Just like it's unfair that they use one series in Pakistan, JUST ONE, to criticise Dennis Lillee.
This whole things has gotten out of control. Warne took 8 wickets at 20 today... not too shabby.
This really shouldn't be a Warne/Murali debate. But I just can't write this post without using some comparisons. This is really about people jumping all over Warne after one bad test. This whole Warne vs. Murali debate has made people so annoyed with some points that when something happens they come up with unfair criticisms.
This doesn't just relate to Warne, it relates to Murali. Murali gets unfair criticism when some little thing happens. Like when Murali goes for 1-99 in a ODI. It's just one match! Murali's a gun and has done fairly well against Australia. Yet people say, "oh he can't do it against good competition." Ridiculous.
Look forget all my post and listen to this if it's helps. My simple point is both are great and the swift reactions of some people when there's a failure is getting silly. Both have accomplished so much in cricket that if they sucked for the rest of their career, if their averages went up to 30 or whatever, it wouldn't matter because they've done so much.
So lets tone it down with this debate and not get so heated about every little minimal (and it is small) failure each man has from time to rime. Especially over one match.
I'm not sure who had what mind you, one of them may have been bowling with half a shoulder while the other one had to deliver it with his tongue. 
