*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[GotSpin]

That's not the only reason actually. But as I have said before performing against India is the biggest challenge for a spinner, just as performing in South Africa these days is the biggest challenge for batsmen bred on subcontinent pitches. That's my reasoning.

No the biggest challenge is bowling or batting against the best teams of the time, not a particular team that completes your argument.

 

[ankitj]

No the biggest challenge is bowling or batting against the best teams of the time, not a particular team that completes your argument.

No, not the one that completes my argument. Let me repeat. I am looking at the team that presents the strongest challenge to a particular kind of cricketer. So batting against India will not be critical even if they remain rank #1 for next few years. Bowling against WI in 70's and 80's was not critical for spinners. Hope it's clear.

If you want to look at the best team irrespective of what its strongest suit is, which team you think was Warne's toughest challenge in your opinion given that he played for the strongest team himself?

 

[ankitj]

And to repeat, that is not the only reason. Murali's wicket taking juggernaut that lasted for 11 years, no less, is quite unmatched by anyone in test cricket. That's the primary reason why I rate Murali as the best cricketer of last 2 decades, ahead of Tendulkar, Warne, Lara et al.

 

[vcs]

And to repeat, that is not the only reason. Murali's wicket taking juggernaut that lasted for 11 years, no less, is quite unmatched by anyone in test cricket. That's the primary reason why I rate Murali as the best cricketer of last 2 decades, ahead of Tendulkar, Warne, Lara et al.

That is justifiable but you are being way too simplistic when you keep criticising Warne based on his record against India. Believe me, I never once relaxed when Warne got the ball in his hand against India because a great bowler needs only one or two deliveries to completely change the course of the match. But it is possible that he can be nullified by great batting rather than his own limitations or performance... why do you find it so hard to give the credit to Indian batsmen?

 

[ankitj]

That is justifiable but you are being way too simplistic when you keep criticising Warne based on his record against India. Believe me, I never once relaxed when Warne got the ball in his hand against India because a great bowler needs only one or two deliveries to completely change the course of the match. But it is possible that he can be nullified by great batting rather than his own limitations or performance... why do you find it so hard to give the credit to Indian batsmen?

I know people don't like it much if you say anything criticising Warne on this forum, but I will still dare to give my explanation.

It's full credit to Indian batsmen of course. They have much more decisive footwork against spinners. This is when Warne in my opinion has struggled to trouble them given he lacked as much variety. Of course he didn't miss that variety against batsmen from other parts of the world who have far more uncertain footwork. They didn't know when to go forward and when to stay back against quality spin and could be foxed with big turners falling at a good length. Qualitatively, I think that's the slight difference between the two bowlers.

It's not that I underrate Warne. I put him in top 5 bowlers of all time. I fully appreciate the importance of his contribution. I just speak too often on Murali/Warne issue because I feel Murali gets hard done, partly because of his own humble conduct and partly because Warne had been put at a very high pedestal (deservingly so) a few years before Murali's emergence and no one it seemed was willing to undo that so quickly.

And I am massive Murali fanboy, I admit. I almost loved it when Murali took wickets against India, despite being an Indian supporter in general

EDIT: And yes, I was always relaxed when Warne bowled against India. Every single time.

 

[smash84]

It's not that I underrate Warne. I put him in top 5 bowlers of all time. I fully appreciate the importance of his contribution. I just speak too often on Murali/Warne issue because I feel Murali gets hard done, partly because of his own humble conduct and partly because Warne had been put at a very high pedestal (deservingly so) a few years before Murali's emergence and no one it seemed was willing to undo that so quickly.

And I am massive Murali fanboy, I admit. I almost loved it when Murali took wickets against India, despite being an Indian supporter in general

Murali gets hard done mainly because of his action (as somebody else pointed out as well). People are just not willing to accept that he would have been quite as effective had he had a conventional action. His action did give him an extraordinary leverage to turn the ball and that is something I feel has been held against him.

lol at your fan-boyism. Reminds me of Usain Bolt. He said the he just loved Waqar's bowling when he was a kid so much so that he would cheer for Pakistan when they played the WI. When he grew a little older he realized that he should be cheering for his own team lol

 

[GotSpin]

No, not the one that completes my argument. Let me repeat. I am looking at the team that presents the strongest challenge to a particular kind of cricketer. So batting against India will not be critical even if they remain rank #1 for next few years. Bowling against WI in 70's and 80's was not critical for spinners. Hope it's clear.

If you want to look at the best team irrespective of what its strongest suit is, which team you think was Warne's toughest challenge in your opinion given that he played for the strongest team himself?

It shouldn't matter though. Murali didn't fair much better against Australia or India, and Warne did exceptionally well against Sri Lanka who are generally extremely good players of spin, similar to that of India.

Using the argument of Warne failed in India = Murali is better doesn't hold much water when considering Murali didn't do that well against either Australia or India

 

[GotSpin]

Murali gets hard done mainly because of his action (as somebody else pointed out as well). People are just not willing to accept that he would have been quite as effective had he had a conventional action. His action did give him an extraordinary leverage to turn the ball and that is something I feel has been held against him.

lol at your fan-boyism. Reminds me of Usain Bolt. He said the he just loved Waqar's bowling when he was a kid so much so that he would cheer for Pakistan when they played the WI. When he grew a little older he realized that he should be cheering for his own team lol

That's true though. Because of his double jointed elbow he could bowl the doosra to great effect.

 

[ankitj]

It shouldn't matter though. Murali didn't fair much better against Australia or India, and Warne did exceptionally well against Sri Lanka who are generally extremely good players of spin, similar to that of India.

Using the argument of Warne failed in India = Murali is better doesn't hold much water when considering Murali didn't do that well against either Australia or India

Warne never bowled to Aus and Murali never bowled to SL, so that comparison is difficult. Also, Murali didn't bowl much to Aus during his best years because of pulling out of one tour. Did decent when Aus played in SL though. At the same time Aus haven't been the single biggest challenge for spinners in last 2 decades.

Murali's performance against Ind wasn't bad. His overall average is respectable though not extra-ordinary. And he has triggered about 3 collapses in tests against India which deserves credit.

Anyway, I don't want to belabour that point so much.

 

[smash84]

Warne never bowled to Aus and Murali never bowled to SL, so that comparison is difficult. Also, Murali didn't bowl much to Aus during his best years because of pulling out of one tour. Did decent when Aus played in SL though. At the same time Aus haven't been the single biggest challenge for spinners in last 2 decades.

Murali's performance against Ind wasn't bad. His overall average is respectable though not extra-ordinary. And he has triggered about 3 collapses in tests against India which deserves credit.

Anyway, I don't want to belabour that point so much.

Warne did better against Pakistan than Murali IIRC???

 

[vcs]

I know people don't like it much if you say anything criticising Warne on this forum, but I will still dare to give my explanation.

It's full credit to Indian batsmen of course. They have much more decisive footwork against spinners. This is when Warne in my opinion has struggled to trouble them given he lacked as much variety. Of course he didn't miss that variety against batsmen from other parts of the world who have far more uncertain footwork. They didn't know when to go forward and when to stay back against quality spin and could be foxed with big turners falling at a good length. Qualitatively, I think that's the slight difference between the two bowlers.

It's not that I underrate Warne. I put him in top 5 bowlers of all time. I fully appreciate the importance of his contribution. I just speak too often on Murali/Warne issue because I feel Murali gets hard done, partly because of his own humble conduct and partly because Warne had been put at a very high pedestal (deservingly so) a few years before Murali's emergence and no one it seemed was willing to undo that so quickly.

And I am massive Murali fanboy, I admit. I almost loved it when Murali took wickets against India, despite being an Indian supporter in general

EDIT: And yes, I was always relaxed when Warne bowled against India. Every single time.

Mate, how much of Warne have you watched (especially his early years)? He had the most variety of any legspinner I've ever watched. Not having a googly != lacking variety. MacGill lacked variety, Warne had loads of it.

 

[smash84]

Mate, how much of Warne have you watched (especially his early years)? He had the most variety of any legspinner I've ever watched. Not having a googly != lacking variety. MacGill lacked variety, Warne had loads of it.

agreed

 

[ankitj]

Mate, how much of Warne have you watched (especially his early years)? He had the most variety of any legspinner I've ever watched. Not having a googly != lacking variety. MacGill lacked variety, Warne had loads of it.

Warne had variety. Murali just had a little more of it.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think Warne had more variety than Murali tbh. Murali just had a greater difference between his two most different deliveries.

Not that this should really factor into the debate - if one had slightly more success than the other despite having less variety then he was still better. Tools are only means to an end.

 

[GotSpin]

Warne never bowled to Aus and Murali never bowled to SL, so that comparison is difficult. Also, Murali didn't bowl much to Aus during his best years because of pulling out of one tour. Did decent when Aus played in SL though. At the same time Aus haven't been the single biggest challenge for spinners in last 2 decades.

Murali's performance against Ind wasn't bad. His overall average is respectable though not extra-ordinary. And he has triggered about 3 collapses in tests against India which deserves credit.

Anyway, I don't want to belabour that point so much.

Why shouldn't they have been? They were the best team for that time period. Again, you're suiting everything to your argument.

 

[ankitj]

Why shouldn't they have been? They were the best team for that time period. Again, you're suiting everything to your argument.

They were the best team, yes. But playing spin was not their strongest suit. Take Australia's annihilation at the hands of Harbhajan. India have never been similarly annihilated by a spinner in one entire series.

Poting himself said (IIRC) that Aus got past Murali by not destroying him but by playing with caution. India on the other hand destroy spinners routinely including Warne and Murali. The latter though on his days had India down on the mat.

 

[GotSpin]

They were the best team, yes. But playing spin was not their strongest suit. Take Australia's annihilation at the hands of Harbhajan. India have never been similarly annihilated by a spinner in one entire series.

Poting himself said (IIRC) that Aus got past Murali by not destroying him but by playing with caution. India on the other hand destroy spinners routinely including Warne and Murali. The latter though on his days had India down on the mat.

Granted, but that was in India. From memory, only Kumble has had some success down under in the last 20 years. IMO, Australia got past Murali easily because all he bowled was the Doosra against us and they began to pick it quite easily.

Like I've said before, India > Warne doesn't therefore imply Murali > Warne, just as failure against one country shouldn't immediately define a player as lesser

 

[smash84]

Granted, but that was in India. From memory, only Kumble has had some success down under in the last 20 years. IMO, Australia got past Murali easily because all he bowled was the Doosra against us and they began to pick it quite easily.

Like I've said before, India > Warne doesn't therefore imply Murali > Warne, just as failure against one country shouldn't immediately define a player as lesser

obviously it is not the ONLY criteria but an important criteria for some to rate spinners (i.e. how well they perform against the best players of spin).

 

[DingDong]

obviously it is not the ONLY criteria but an important criteria for some to rate spinners (i.e. how well they perform against the best players of spin).

i agree with smalishah84 u need to perform against the best

 

[Burgey]

i agree with smalishah84 u need to perform against the best

Hmmm....

Which was the best team in the world through the vast majority of Murali's career, and how did he go against them?