*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Tom Halsey]

Does not take away from the fact that Australia suits Warne.

It doesn't though.

There is some bounce, but that's about it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Interesting that like in the first innings Murali hasn't done much damage early in the innings. Will be interesting to see how he goes tomorrow.

 

[honestbharani]

But Murali is a more skilled bowler than Warne - he has more control than Warne ( which is why he is hit around the park far less often than Warne is) and his bag of variations are far more lethal.
QUOTE]

I respect that people can have their favourites, but sweping statements like the above are simply nonsense.

(BTW, you forgot to mention that Warne has never been dominated in a fashion like Lara, Fleming, Ponting, etc all managed to do to Murali for entire series at a time in conditions specifically designed to assist him)

Are you forgetting a team called India? Warne was basically cannon fodder for Sidhu, Sachin and Azhar in the test series in 98 in India...

 

[honestbharani]

LMAO! Whilst admitting he bowled brilliantly, you're trying to make excuses for why he took 7 wickets and why Warne couldn't.

A spell of 5 for 23 against the Indians on their home turf, including the wickets of Tendulkar on 100+ and Ganguly...t hat is absolutely superb, not just 'very well' bowled.

Except in this case, India weren't 3/450. They were around 3/250 with Tendulkar on 100. Despite Tendulkar probably just getting theb etter of him the previous day, Murali comes out and bowls an awesome spell ensuring India are out for 290.

Let's not apply what Murali did in one series to every bowling instance. This wasn't a case of not having better bowlers on the other end (I acknowledge your overall point however). This was a case of a bowler who hasnt had the opportunity to play India in India since 1997 showing just how great he is, by taking on the best spinners in the world and making them look like they don't have a clue.

I assume you mean "batsmen" there, Jono.

 

[lobo_5001]

Completely nonsensical arguments from all and sundry, using or misusing statistics to advance their point of view. Two different types of bowlers, one off-spin other leg-spin which make comparisons difficult, might as well compare them with fast bowlers.
Because of the way the ball leaves the hand, leg spin imparts more spin but generally is less accurate. Hence perhaps the slightly worse average by Warne.
The two are the greatests exponents of their art Warne because he has been much more accurate and miserly than previous leg spinners, Murali because he spins the ball far more than other off-spinners.
On the use of statistics, if Murali's tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are taken out his average goes to 24.3, not that much less than Warne.
Another amusing concept is that your average will be better if you play within a better attack. Imagine a player is the only one good enough to take wickets within a team, can bowl all day without getting tired, the others are trundlers who without being carted for 6 an over are too innocuous to take anything. The other side gets bowled out for 700 runs in 6 sessions in 160 odd overs. Your star bowler will bowl 80 overs, get 10 wickets and assuming he is less expensive than the rest because they block him, concede 250 runs. which gives an average of 25 and a strike rate of 48. And even the best bastman will get out to the best spinners eventually if they only try to block.
On the other hand if the other bowlers are world class you will get fewer wickets, and those world class bowlers are equally as likely as you to mop up the tail, therefore reducing your ability to improve your bowling average by getting wickets for not much.
All in all I would say they are the best spinners of their generation if not ever, comparing them is a bit of a pointless exercise.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

LMAO! Whilst admitting he bowled brilliantly, you're trying to make excuses for why he took 7 wickets and why Warne couldn't.

A spell of 5 for 23 against the Indians on their home turf, including the wickets of Tendulkar on 100+ and Ganguly...t hat is absolutely superb, not just 'very well' bowled.

Who's trying to make excuses? All I said that if it was Warne bowling, he probably wouldn't have been able to bowl much more after he had 2/70 or whatever at stumps on day 1. My point was a general one about Murali and the huge number of wickets he takes, not about this specific instance alone.

Except in this case, India weren't 3/450. They were around 3/250 with Tendulkar on 100. Despite Tendulkar probably just getting theb etter of him the previous day, Murali comes out and bowls an awesome spell ensuring India are out for 290.

Let's not apply what Murali did in one series to every bowling instance. This wasn't a case of not having better bowlers on the other end (I acknowledge your overall point however). This was a case of a bowler who hasnt had the opportunity to play India in India since 1997 showing just how great he is, by taking on the best spinners in the world and making them look like they don't have a clue.

As I said, it was obviously a very good (or superb, or whatever superlative you like) spell. I've always expected that Murali would do a bit better than Warne against India in India, for a number of reasons, including that he is more at home on slow, dusty turners, that Indian batsmen usually play leg-spinners better than off-spinners (this is actually true to a remarkable degree if you look at the stats, presumably because of their excellent leg-side play), and that with he's not suffering from the fitness and form problems that Warne had in '98 and 2001. So, it's not as though I'm totally surprised to see him doing well. What interested me, and the point that I raised, is that Murali is extremely good at running through a side and finishing with good figures after a poor starts, and that in a better team he might not get the opportunity to do that, as Warne (Ashes aside) does not. Nothing more, nothing less.

Murali seems to be running into the same issue in the second innings, with 0/80 odd.

 

[Anil]

that Indian batsmen usually play leg-spinners better than off-spinners (this is actually true to a remarkable degree if you look at the stats, presumably because of their excellent leg-side play),

that's a good point considering that the other good spinner that has had serious success against india in recent years has been saqlain mushtaq....

 

[Pratters]

It doesn't though.

There is some bounce, but that's about it.

Umm its no secret that Warne loves bowling in Australia because of I repeat - the bounce, larger grounds.

That he has a good record abroad as well shows his class - which no one is denying.

 

[C_C]

All I said that if it was Warne bowling, he probably wouldn't have been able to bowl much more after he had 2/70 or whatever at stumps on day 1. My point was a general one about Murali and the huge number of wickets he takes, not about this specific instance alone.

True, but Warne doesnt face well set opening batsmen/top order batsmen, with the middle order to follow, that often. And when he does, he averages far worse than Murali does.

 

[Dasa]

A very good article about Murali:
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/229290.html

 

[dinu23]

funny sections in the article:

You also couldn't help but notice how there were no airs about him. As we chatted, a young boy knocked and came in with room service - Murali's dinner of dal and roti. After enquiring about the steward's job and his family, Murali took up the bill to sign it. His eyebrows arched like those of a Kathakali dancer, and he said with a laugh: "Six hundred and fifty Rupees? This dal must be made of gold."

Arjuna Ranatunga is one legend who has done more than most to protect Murali from adverse reaction. When asked about the reaction to Murali in Australia, he said: "People only throw stones at ripe mangoes" - an oblique reference to what he saw as vested interests in those that ran the game.

Since we don't carry protractors with us into the press box, you can't really say whether the arm straightens 14 degrees or 16 while bowling the doosra. And sometimes you wonder if it even matters.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

True, but Warne doesnt face well set opening batsmen/top order batsmen, with the middle order to follow, that often. And when he does, he averages far worse than Murali does.

You mean like in the Ashes?

 

[C_C]

You mean like in the Ashes?

Yeah how often is that ? How come he averages 27ish with McGrath absent ( the other major bowler in the team) while Murali doesnt have the luxury of a McGrath anyways ?

 

[parttimer]

Vaas is no Mcgrath, but its funny how crap he suddenly becomes when this BS line is pushed

 

[marc71178]

Vaas is no Mcgrath

Indeed he isn't.

In fact there's one forum member who says that he's a far better bowler (!)

 

[a massive zebra]

Indeed he isn't.

In fact there's one forum member who says that he's a far better bowler (!)

This forum is definitely not the same without good old Mr Dickinson.

 

[C_C]

Vaas is no Mcgrath, but its funny how crap he suddenly becomes when this BS line is pushed

BS ? Can you frickin read or do you intend to put words in my mouth- I've said that Vaas is at best in Gillespie's category. Care to dispute that ?
I've also said that Murali has nowhere near the bowling support as Warney has- care to dispute that ?
Furthermore,i've mentioned that without McGrath, when Australia's overwhelming bowling superiority is negated somewhat with respect to Sri Lanka, Warney's average bloats up to 27ish while he takes more wicktes/match. ( OZ is still superior than SL without McGrath, largely owing to the fact that Lee/Kaspa/Fleming/McGill are far superior to any SL bowler who's last names arnt Vaas or Murali)
Care to dispute that ?

It is simply demonstrated that Murali is considerably better at taking on a full strength batting lineup, because without McGrath around, Warney comes on to bowl a lot sooner and with fewer wickets having fallen ( ie, similar conditions as Murali operates) but does significantly worse than Murali does.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Vaas is at best in Gillespie's category.

He's obviously not McGrath, but I think that is debateable. He bowls his heart out on some of the flattest pitches (for seamers) in the World, and still comes out of it brilliantly.

Personally, I think all 3 are terrific bowlers, but McGrath is IMO ahead of Vaas who is IMO ahead of Gillespie.

 

[a massive zebra]

He's obviously not McGrath, but I think that is debateable. He bowls his heart out on some of the flattest pitches (for seamers) in the World, and still comes out of it brilliantly.

Personally, I think all 3 are terrific bowlers, but McGrath is IMO ahead of Vaas who is IMO ahead of Gillespie.

Agreed but McGrath > Vaas by miles and Vaas > Gillespie by a very limited margin.

 

[C_C]

He's obviously not McGrath, but I think that is debateable. He bowls his heart out on some of the flattest pitches (for seamers) in the World, and still comes out of it brilliantly.

Personally, I think all 3 are terrific bowlers, but McGrath is IMO ahead of Vaas who is IMO ahead of Gillespie.

What i meant by Gillespie category is that he is in the same zone as Gillespie- some may think Vaas is a bit better, some may think Gillespie is.
Like how McGrath is in Ambrose/Hadlee/Marshall category.