There is no point in discussing this as Murali has never played in 4 or 5 Test series so no one can say for sure how he would perform. The chances are, however, that as he performs Warne in almost every other category, that he would come out on top.
Answered above.
Substantially better than Warne's as most of these series have consisted of 2 Tests so the impact on his average has been minimal. It's actually 83 wickets at 27.92 compared to Warne's average of nearly 32.
What a hypocrite. In this case I was simply using the statistics that you had claimed were in Warne's favour, and the so called 'notepad file' is one of the most thorough statistical analyses you can come across, incorpirating all matches that the two bowlers have played in and a looking at things from a wide variety of angles.
I might not know anything personal about you but 7000 posts is more than enough from which to develop a picture about somene and I have read nearly all your posts on other threads - they have only reinforced my views. For example, your choice of Australians for current and all time World XIs over many players from other countries who have performed better, your choice of Lillee over many other fast bowlers despite statistical proof to the contrary. I could go on and on but that wouldn't solve anything. If you actually read my well known analysis of this subject you will see that it goes well beyond who has the better average.
Murali has a better average, strike rate, economy rate, and takes more wickets per match than Warne; despite the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team.
Murali is far more consistent. Warne has been known to be hammered occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he is very rarely hit around the park.
Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur
Murali
36 6 123 1 3.42 1 L 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
54 3 224 2 4.15 2 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1 L 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin
Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee - Marshall having a better average because the high class West Indian bowlers put greater pressure on the batsmen, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. Same with Lindwall vs Bedser, Ambrose vs Akram, Laker vs Tayfield, and many, many others. Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.
A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway). What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?
8) Murali on top form is more devastating than Warne on top form.
Best innings:
9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02 [1583]
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998 [1423]
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001 [1559]
10) One reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.
Also, this is not a notepad file that I have saved on disk as you have claimed so many times, but infact a post I originally made on this board about a year ago. When it is required I just use the search button to find it and then copy and paste.
Personal insults are a sure sign of someone who knows he is losing an argument but is too stubborn to change his view even after he has run out of ideas to support his opinion.
