*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Sanz]

I am not saying it is easy. But they are not like-bowlers. One is a spinner, the other is a fast-bowler for example. One opens, the other doesn't. There are these kinds of factors that make 2 runs difference negligible.

And you accuse others of 'Cop Out' ? You seem to make up so many excuses when pure simple stats do not work in your favor yet you never get tired of harping about Warnie's success in WC final (sometime passing as success in overall WC Grand finals) and how is so much better than Murali because of that.

Murali is a spinner too, yet he averages better than Warne (and Wasim too),better SR, more fifers etc etc. Apparently none of those facots are applicable to him, none of that matters. All that matters to you is the one World Cup Grand Final record and hence Warne is bettere.

So much for your fair statistical analysis and your contexts.

 

[Sanz]

Whether one played well in 1/2 or 1/3 is not a problem for what I am arguing. The number of innings played in a WC grand final are too small to get a definitive answer as to how who would perform - this is one of the reasons why despite Ponting's finals record I still hold Tendulkar ahead.

If You mean All Finals in the WC then Tendulkar has better record than Ponting. Please check your facts and then post. Tendulkar 46, Ponting 42.

Now I can see you switiching back to Grand Finals and how How Ponting has proved himself and Tendulkar hasn't and same BS.

However, having said that, when a player like Warne has shown his worth in so many instances, including a final, I find that a greater quality than the difference between their averages. This is my argument for Warne's superiority.

And he has also showed that he is a mere mortal by failing in 'a' Final. The more one thinks, the more it seems like a mere co-incident than rising to the occasion. The greatest challenge that Warnie faced was to do well against the best players of spin and he failed miserably there.

As you said before, Aravinda played 1/1 finals superbly. But does that mean he will always do it? No.

Why not ? Tell me a reason why he will not.

But the distinction should be made that he has dealt with that pressure and he was a success. If I were going to compare him to a like-batsman that didn't have this distinction then I would say Aravinda is superior to said batsman.

It is hard to find a batsman like Aravinda who career span was 3 decades, for a weaker team.

It depends which post you are quoting. His record in all WC finals is much better than his prelims record. Even if it was the same, would that be bad? The difference is that it is essentially harder to get the same figure in a final than the prelims because a) you are facing inferior opposition and/or b) you aren't under as much pressure.

Why cant you be consistent. You keep switching from grand Finals to all finals and that creates the confusion. You switch according to what benefits your argument, hence the confusion.

As for more pressure in the finals - It is such a ridiculous generalization, Australia chasing 133 something in 1999 and Gilchrist scoring in that match is hardly a pressure situation or Warne taking a 4 wickets when Mcgrath decimated the top order is hardly pressure situation. I would say Tendy's 90 something against Pakistan in 2003 Prelimis had 2000 times more pressure than any of Ponting's or Gilchrist's innings in the finals.

That's why I say, Your stats mean ZERO at face value. An inning doesn't become a 'scored under pressure' by virtue of being a final match innings.

 

[Sanz]

In there, I just said the EXACT opposite of what you just said I said. I am essentially saying in the above that you have to look at what said bowlers achieved (with consideration of stats also, of course) and how they did it. What makes them such great bowlers, 2 runs difference? Pssh! But longevity, big-game performances, world cup medalists...these are important differences.

Warne's achievements are not comparable to Akram's, neither does he have the longevity of Wasim's career.

500+ wickets Vs. 300 wickets, 6 fifers Vs. 1. And please do not bring up the longevity argument here Warne would have taken that many wickets if he had played that much and blah. Besites it would have taken Warne almost 1200 matches to get 6 fifers.

Otoh Murali has more fifers than Akram himself, in less matches, higher SR than both.

 

[Sanz]

Er, no I didn't do that. Show me where I ignore everything else. Thanks. How many times did I go "overall, they are close, but this sets them apart". I am frankly getting tired of repeating it.

Sets them apart how ? I have shown you that Tendulkar (All) Finals record in WC is better than Ponting's. And Gilchrist even though has better record in (All) Finals 50.5 something but not even in the same league in preliminary round where Tendulkar is close to 59 or so and Gilly is in low 30s. How is that a Close Battle When the Prelims difference is > 15 whereas the finals differece < 5 ?

In World Cup Gilchrist's Contribution (avg.) in matches won is - 38.92, Ponting's - 46.62, Tendulkar's - 79.06.

Still not Clear who has contributed more to his team's wins ?

In the World Cup, As an opener - SRT averages 61.19, Gilchrist 36.16

Its Hayden Vs. Hussain Kinda argument, really.

Huh? No, you were the one who said Gilchrist's 37 average is just 'average'. I said it was very impressive in the context of how he would go about getting those runs (i.e. dismantling the bowling line-ups and creating time for his teammates). The only reason I got into the difference between them was for your doodling on 1 run and 1 ball.

Gilchrist was wetting his Diapers when Aravinda started playing in 1984. Its not even a comparison. Aravinda is a far better batsman than Gilchrist and the only reason people talk about his batting because of his wicketkeeping else he would not even have played for Australia.

 

[Sanz]

Er. They both only did it in ONE world cup FINAL. Whereas Warne is consistently good in ALL WC finals (quarters/semis included)

Do You understand the meaning of ALL ? If you do then how about Warne's performance in WC 1996 Final ?

AND he is excellent in the Prelims. It's simply not an argument. I didn't base my assertion on ONE final but the whole career. Whereas the Aravinda argument is argued based ONLY on ONE final - not any other final or prelim.

Not any other Final ?? Your ignorance is just so unbearable ? Who was the man of the match In India-SL Semifinal 1996 ? Get your facts right before you post.

 

[zaremba]

Most would agree that the bent arm man is a more likeable human being than the banned diuretics man. I can't choose between them as bowlers. Maybe the banned diuretics man has the edge.

I can't believe this thread has over 2,300 replies.

 

[Sanz]

What has Wasim achieved that Warne didn't?

1. 500 Wickets
2. 6 Fifers
3. 2 Hat-tricks in ODIs
4. 55 World Cup Wickets
5. Bowling avg. of 23.52
6. "Wasim Akram is definitely the most outstanding bowler I've ever faced." - Lara
7. "Wasim Akram, to me, is one of the greatest bowlers of all time." - Glen Mcgrath
8. Youngest Bowler to take a Fifer
9. Oldest (among 200+ wicket takers) to take a Fifer
10. Away Average of 23.89 (Compared to a poor 30.41)
11. 5 Fifers, while defending a target
12. Akram's Longevity despite the Diabetes


I could just go on and on forever..Dont ask that again.

 

[Migara]

LMAO, do you not have any sense of logical thinking? You responded to my post regarding 1/31 as opposed to 0/58. Migara called it 'magnificant'. My contention was that it was NOT magnificent, not that it isn't better than 0/58. The whole point was that I did not accept it, but you came arguing for him - so you can only argue what I disagree with and that was the only contention.

This one is plain laughable. Murali was only hit for two boundries in the whole spell. But Warne was simple manhandled. Gurusinha and Arjuna pummelled him. Only de Silva gave him some respect, but he also hit some boundries off Warne too. On that night Warne was made to look as a novice by the SL lefthanders. And because Aussies chickened out of preliminary matches, he survived another pasting against that line up, which was the best ODI lineup SL ever had.

 

[funnygirl]

6. "Wasim Akram is definitely the most outstanding bowler I've ever faced." - Lara
7. "Wasim Akram, to me, is one of the greatest bowlers of all time." - Glen Mcgrath


There could be more, I am out of time.

[/QUOTE]

first of all Lara considers Warne as the greatest ever ''bowler '' including fast and spin .Secondly ,Warne is rated higher than any other bowlers from his era by the majority.

 

[honestbharani]

first of all Lara considers Warne as the greatest ever ''bowler '' including fast and spin .Secondly ,Warne is rated higher than any other bowlers from his era by the majority.

that I understand but honestly, as much of a massive Warne fan that I am, I still think Wasim is the better ODI bowler of the two. In tests, it is a different issue but surely, in ODIs, Wasim does have the edge?

 

[Sanz]

first of all Lara considers Warne as the greatest ever ''bowler '' including fast and spin

Hey, Don't Blame Me, I quoted The Herald (Sydney) :-

"Over my 15 or 16 years of playing international cricket in Tests and one-day internationals, Wasim Akram is definitely the most outstanding bowler I've ever faced" - Brian Lara

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/Lara-rates-Akram-better-than-McGrath/2007/03/29/1174761627979.html

.Secondly ,Warne is rated higher than any other bowlers from his era by the majority.

And I dont dispute that, I myself rate him very highly and at par with Akram. I didn't ask 'What has Warne Achieved that Wasim didn't '. I was just replying to the query asked by Kazo.

 

[Laurrz]

Most would agree that the bent arm man is a more likeable human being than the banned diuretics man. .

True more likeable human being, but in general more liked?
I think if we're talking about off the field, Murali just doesn't match.
There is no doubt Warne is one of the most colorful sportsmen in this age, and let me say cricket is so much good for it, in terms of the hollywood appearance Warne brought on the cricket field, Murali just doesn't match him in this area, sorry
Yes he was controversial off the field, and on the field he sledged a fair bit, but isnt that why we love him? or love to hate him?

Anyway adding in my two cents

As you guys have talked about, part of Warne's greatness was his ability to perform under the most amount of pressure, when his team needed him the most.
He produces match turning spells..in the two semis and then the MOM performance in the final, he was younger in 96 and was dissappointed obviously losing the final, but made sure history was not repeated, cometh the man, cometh the hour.

Even though Murali has taken truckloads of ODI wickets - these sorta spells actually stick in your head and will for a while... for them alone i am willing to say Warne is the better ODI spinner.. he proved you can actually bowl wrist spin in ODI's without getting smashed and you can bowl leg spin to lefties too.
IMO Murali can be a tad defensive when the batsmen are on top of him as well..and let things drift... I reckon Warne is probably the more aggressive spinner and gives more 'freebies' to the batsmen as a result.. trying to lure him out, Murali I feel generally prefers strangling them more, bowling more flat and relying on the doosra to keep the batsmen in check, whilst Warne bowls with lots of drift tempting the batsmen to hit him for six.

Well for me i'd always choose Warne because i don't know how the game would be without him - he did revive the art of leg spin and made it '***y', everyone seems to have tried to bowl like Warney once in the backyard or the park (admit it, you have) ..and you can't help but think the many youngsters who have switched to legspin because of him.
I just think without him we may not know what a wonderful art leg spin is, it truly is amazing to watch when you do bowl like him... one for the purists
In short - there are only a few cricketers that can claim to have changed the game... he is one of them

It's more than wickets taken, its the aura the bowler possesses, Warne has it, Murali doesnt.

 

[Burgey]

When discussing the 96 WC final, can everyone please bare in mind Warne bowled with a cake of soap?
Aside from that, I'm not entering into it.
Nor am I saying that's why SL won, coz I think they deserved to win.
Nor am I saying it's an excuse, nor am I saying Warne has ever used it as an excuse to the best of my knowledge.
Nor am I saying Murali would or would not have struggled in the same conditions.
Nor am I, by mentioning how wet it was, saying Warne > Murali, or Murali > Warne.
I hope the above disclaimer at least gets me out of here without some numb skull making a personal insult at me for raising it. I'm hopeful about that, but realistically it won't happen.
So FFS, please don't have anyone get carried away about me saying it, coz it only really shows an inability to have a reasonable discussion about things.
All I'm saying is the ball was really, really slippery in the night session - there was heaps of dew around.
That's all I'm saying.

 

[Top_Cat]

When discussing the 96 WC final, can everyone please bare in mind Warne bowled with a cake of soap?
Aside from that, I'm not entering into it.
Nor am I saying that's why SL won, coz I think they deserved to win.
Nor am I saying it's an excuse, nor am I saying Warne has ever used it as an excuse to the best of my knowledge.
Nor am I saying Murali would or would not have struggled in the same conditions.
Nor am I, by mentioning how wet it was, saying Warne > Murali, or Murali > Warne.
I hope the above disclaimer at least gets me out of here without some numb skull making a personal insult at me for raising it. I'm hopeful about that, but realistically it won't happen.
So FFS, please don't have anyone get carried away about me saying it, coz it only really shows an inability to have a reasonable discussion about things.
All I'm saying is the ball was really, really slippery in the night session - there was heaps of dew around.
That's all I'm saying.

Such a lawyer.

 

[zaremba]

True more likeable human being, but in general more liked?
I think if we're talking about off the field, Murali just doesn't match.
There is no doubt Warne is one of the most colorful sportsmen in this age, and let me say cricket is so much good for it, in terms of the hollywood appearance Warne brought on the cricket field, Murali just doesn't match him in this area, sorry

If by "colourful" you mean getting banned from the sport for taking prohibited diuretics, serially cheating on his wife, stitching up the team that he's meant to be captaining (Hants) by deciding he'd rather play poker, and propping up the world's SMS and hair restorer industries then I agree wholeheartedly.

Murali's off field achievements, by contrast, involve more philanthropy than philandering.

 

[Laurrz]

If by "colourful" you mean getting banned from the sport for taking prohibited diuretics, serially cheating on his wife, stitching up the team that he's meant to be captaining (Hants) by deciding he'd rather play poker, and propping up the world's SMS and hair restorer industries then I agree wholeheartedly.

Murali's off field achievements, by contrast, involve more philanthropy than philandering.

colorful because of his personality yes, it is unique and we won't see a cricketer like him again, he just oozed stardom..he didn't have to bowl you knew he was a star by just the presence he had really

 

[Jono]

colorful because of his personality yes, it is unique and we won't see a cricketer like him again, he just oozed stardom..he didn't have to bowl you knew he was a star by just the presence he had really

That says more about society in general really, rather than how good someone is.

I rate Warne highly, and his influence has been obvious, but his persona off the field isn't a credit to him IMO. His aura on it, yes, but him being an asshole which put him on front pages of newspapers doesn't make him any better.

 

[sanga1337]

colorful because of his personality yes, it is unique and we won't see a cricketer like him again, he just oozed stardom..he didn't have to bowl you knew he was a star by just the presence he had really

Agreed Warnie is a legend. He can be an idiot but I think that adds to his appeal, although a lot of people can't stand him.

 

[Laurrz]

That says more about society in general really, rather than how good someone is.

I rate Warne highly, and his influence has been obvious, but his persona off the field isn't a credit to him IMO. His aura on it, yes, but him being an asshole which put him on front pages of newspapers doesn't make him any better.

Yeah thats true, i guess there's a line and Warne does cross it a lot

Yea i agree society is like that, the fact is that there are blokes that are like Warney around, just because hes a cricketer who happens to perform magic with his wrists doesnt make him less of a human being, of course, he has to take care of his actions as he's a role model though.
But for all his scandals, i find it pretty cool that he can do whatever (no pun intended) and the next day rock up and take 5 wickets or something...for that sort of stuff, he has that charm that society seems to enjoy watching (well not all of course). Tis just the way it is.

I suppose Murali has his own charm, he's the quite assassin with a big smile..but i just think in this department Warne wins as the entertainer with more charisma.

 

[Sanz]

True more likeable human being, but in general more liked?
I think if we're talking about off the field, Murali just doesn't match.
There is no doubt Warne is one of the most colorful sportsmen in this age, and let me say cricket is so much good for it, in terms of the hollywood appearance Warne brought on the cricket field, Murali just doesn't match him in this area, sorry
Yes he was controversial off the field, and on the field he sledged a fair bit, but isnt that why we love him? or love to hate him?

Anyway adding in my two cents

As you guys have talked about, part of Warne's greatness was his ability to perform under the most amount of pressure, when his team needed him the most.
He produces match turning spells..in the two semis and then the MOM performance in the final, he was younger in 96 and was dissappointed obviously losing the final, but made sure history was not repeated, cometh the man, cometh the hour.

Even though Murali has taken truckloads of ODI wickets - these sorta spells actually stick in your head and will for a while... for them alone i am willing to say Warne is the better ODI spinner.. he proved you can actually bowl wrist spin in ODI's without getting smashed and you can bowl leg spin to lefties too.
IMO Murali can be a tad defensive when the batsmen are on top of him as well..and let things drift... I reckon Warne is probably the more aggressive spinner and gives more 'freebies' to the batsmen as a result.. trying to lure him out, Murali I feel generally prefers strangling them more, bowling more flat and relying on the doosra to keep the batsmen in check, whilst Warne bowls with lots of drift tempting the batsmen to hit him for six.

Well for me i'd always choose Warne because i don't know how the game would be without him - he did revive the art of leg spin and made it '***y', everyone seems to have tried to bowl like Warney once in the backyard or the park (admit it, you have) ..and you can't help but think the many youngsters who have switched to legspin because of him.
I just think without him we may not know what a wonderful art leg spin is, it truly is amazing to watch when you do bowl like him... one for the purists
In short - there are only a few cricketers that can claim to have changed the game... he is one of them

It's more than wickets taken, its the aura the bowler possesses, Warne has it, Murali doesnt.
And there is no doubt Warne is one of the most colorful sportsmen in this age... and let me say cricket is so much good for it..in terms of the hollywood appearance Warne brought on the cricket field, Murali just doesn't match him in this area
yes he was controversial off the field, and on the field he sledged a fair bit.... but isnt that why we love him? or love to hate him?

No, we do not love him for his controversies, sorry if you wanted to hear a 'Yes' there. The only reason Warne is still tolerated or liked (on or off the field) is because he is/was an awesome Cricketer, one of the rarest talents to ever play the game. Otherwise he is a Drug Cheat, Match Fixer on the field, Had trouble with his wife, team mates, coaches, opposition players, fans, sponsors etc. He is like Diego Maradona of Cricket.

Murali otoh doesn't have those issues, He is loved by his team mates, his country men, his fans. Above all his Charity work for his people is so well known. If one reads about Murali's efforts to lift the lives of his countrymen, it is very easy to like him and he really beats Warne hands down there.