• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
shortpitched713 said:
I'm not convinced Murali got a fair shake when playing in Australia, except when there were neutral umpires.

Still a hostile, even verging on unsporting environment for him, so I don't consider at all his record in Australia when judging him as a cricketer.
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound like a valid excuse for someone put forward as the greatest spinner ever.

Had he succeeded against them, even moderately, I think that would have given him a much more valid claim to be better than Warne.
 
Victor Ian

Victor Ian

International Coach
The problem about these comparisons with Warne and Murali is that the deviate into something something about India. Who gives a **** about India? It is one country and there are valid reasons for why so and so sucked. Ashwn and Jadeja are **** ***** because they cant take a single wicket against India. It's not all about India.
There are also valid reasons for why Murali sucked in Australia. The treatment of him when he began here was horrendous. They left him out for what seems the next couple of visits. He barely got to get a feel for the wildly different conditions to anything he had bowled on.
The best comparison about Murali and Warne is that trophy of both their hands. One to the left, one to the right.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Victor Ian said:
The problem about these comparisons with Warne and Murali is that the deviate into something something about India. Who gives a **** about India? It is one country and there are valid reasons for why so and so sucked. Ashwn and Jadeja are **** ****s because they cant take a single wicket against India. It's not all about India.
There are also valid reasons for why Murali sucked in Australia. The treatment of him when he began here was horrendous. They left him out for what seems the next couple of visits. He barely got to get a feel for the wildly different conditions to anything he had bowled on.
The best comparison about Murali and Warne is that trophy of both their hands. One to the left, one to the right.
Click to expand...
Yeah so Murali didn't definitely fail in Australia but he certainly didn't succeed and there was little indication that he troubled the Aussie bats in 2007.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Warne simply a more tactically intelligent bowler than Murali and more aggressive.

Murali was too reliant on his natural variety and the need to keep things tight with his fields that he often lacked a plan B. This is why his own captain Jaya called him a defensive bowler.

Warne had control but didn't mind being hit once in a while if it meant getting a wicket by inducing risk. He rarely went into a shell.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
subshakerz said:
Warne simply a more tactically intelligent bowler than Murali and more aggressive.

Murali was too reliant on his natural variety and the need to keep things tight with his fields that he often lacked a plan B. This is why his own captain Jaya called him a defensive bowler.

Warne had control but didn't mind being hit once in a while if it meant getting a wicket by inducing risk. He rarely went into a shell.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's purely "tactical intelligence", and the differences in approach had nothing to do with vastly different quality of teammates, leading to very different match situations that both of them found themselves under.

I mean, he was attacking as **** when he was against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, as suited the predominant match situations, but you don't find people giving him any credit for that, do you?
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
shortpitched713 said:
Sure, it's purely "tactical intelligence", and the differences in approach had nothing to do with vastly different quality of teammates, leading to very different match situations that both of them found themselves under.

I mean, he was attacking as **** when he was against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, as suited the predominant match situations, but you don't find people giving him any credit for that, do you?
Click to expand...
Not saying those aren't factors, but having watched their careers, I think Warne and Murali were both wired that way as bowlers. I dont think Warne would be defensive if was in a weaker team. Even when he was getting hammered in India, as Sidhu pointed out, Warne refused to call cover for mid-off whereas Murali would. More nature than nurture.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I rate Murali higher primarily on three factors:
  1. Caused more trouble to famed Indian batting line-up.
  2. Top batsmen like Lara and Sehwag have confessed to being clueless about Murali's variations. I rate that a tad more than tales of mental toughness.
  3. Massive aggregates that make your jaw drop. 67 fivers and 22 ten-fers ffs. I refuse to put it down to the fact that he played for SL. It's all hypothetical what someone else would have done in another player's place.
The last one is the reason why I not only put Murali ahead of Warne in head to head battle, but even give Murali a place in top 5 test cricketers across disciplines.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
ankitj said:
I rate Murali higher primarily on three factors:
  1. Caused more trouble to famed Indian batting line-up.
  2. Top batsmen like Lara and Sehwag have confessed to being clueless about Murali's variations. I rate that a tad more than tales of mental toughness.
  3. Massive aggregates that make your jaw drop. 67 fivers and 22 ten-fers ffs. I refuse to put it down to the fact that he played for SL. It's all hypothetical what someone else would have done in another player's place.
The last one is the reason why I not only put Murali ahead of Warne in head to head battle, but even give Murali a place in top 5 test cricketers across disciplines.
Click to expand...
1. Murali caused India more trouble at home, as well as the ATG Australia lineup. But he didn't succeed against them away.

2. Lara rates Warne better based on mental toughness.

3. Nobody rates Hadlee above McGrath based on that.

 
Last edited:
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
trundler said:
That's not a refutation. Warne didn't do that anywhere. Also, Warne was worse in India too.
Click to expand...
They were both roughly as bad in India. Yes Murali succeeded at home so overall you can claim he did better against India but it wasn't an unqualified success.

Murali missing performances in Australia is a bigger issue though. That was the ultimate test for bowlers of the era.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
1. Murali caused India more trouble at home, as well as the ATG Australia lineup. But he didn't succeed against them away.

2. Lara rates Warne better based on mental toughness.

3. Nobody rates Hadlee above McGrath based on that.

Click to expand...
1. Wrong. Your checklist can't write off Murali's 7 fivers, 2 ten-fers and 2 MoMs against India.

2. I have seen that clip. It doesn't contradict what I said about what Lara said.

3. I rate Hadlee > McGrath. So do many others.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/threads/glenn-mcgrath-vs-richard-hadlee.85431/
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
ankitj said:
1. Wrong. Your checklist can't write off Murali's 7 fivers, 2 ten-fers and 2 MoMs against India with your checklist

2. I have seen that clip. It doesn't contradict what I said about what Lara said.

3. I rate Hadlee > McGrath. So do many others.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/threads/glenn-mcgrath-vs-richard-hadlee.85431/
Click to expand...
1. Murali is better against India overall, nobody is arguing otherwise, but based on home and not away performances.

2. Lara basically suggests that Murali didn't have a plan B once a batsman stuck in and negotiated his varieties.

3. Based on fifers/tenfers? It is clear that is because Hadlee, like Murali, had the advantage of being the sole prime ATG threat.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
1. Murali is better against India overall, nobody is arguing otherwise, but based on home and not away performances.

2. Lara basically suggests that Murali didn't have a plan B once a batsman stuck in and negotiated his varieties.

3. Based on fifers/tenfers? It is clear that is because Hadlee, like Murali, had the advantage of being the sole prime ATG threat.
Click to expand...
1. If Warne got exact same conditions as Murali, his record would still be substantially inferior to Murali's against India. Just look at their ODI records for supporting evidence.

2. Plan B and mental toughness has a lot to do with bunch of other things including match situation, captaincy and support cast. I take that as less insightful than his admission that he couldn't pick Murali. Sehwag said exact same thing about Murali. I value that a lot. Although I don't take away from Warne's theatre and mental game, he was pretty good at it.

3. No, not on that alone. But on ability to do it day in and day out even in absence of much support or scorecard pressure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top