*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

Yes, but that was because he was blocked out to an even bigger extent, as an ER of 2.2 an over shows. And he played in unfavourable conditions, compared with what Murali plays on.

He may've been blocked out to a bigger extent than Murali but the ability to take wickets despite being blocked out is what makes a better bowler.
And unfavourable conditions ? please - Warney's style is tailormaide for this so-called 'unfavourable conditions'. If the unfavourable condition you speak of is so high on the list, why don't you rate practically every great pakistani pacer ahead of every great Aussie pacer ?
You forget, that Murali has had to bowl in more batting-friendly wickets than Warney has had to.
Another thing you forget is that Warney is backed up by an excellent fielding unit, who snap on to the chances far better than SL do. It is nothing a bowler can do, but i think a bowler's average would be dictated by the fielding side's competency to hold on to the catches.

 

[Tom Halsey]

He may've been blocked out to a bigger extent than Murali but the ability to take wickets despite being blocked out is what makes a better bowler.
And unfavourable conditions ? please - Warney's style is tailormaide for this so-called 'unfavourable conditions'. If the unfavourable condition you speak of is so high on the list, why don't you rate practically every great pakistani pacer ahead of every great Aussie pacer ?
You forget, that Murali has had to bowl in more batting-friendly wickets than Warney has had to.
Another thing you forget is that Warney is backed up by an excellent fielding unit, who snap on to the chances far better than SL do. It is nothing a bowler can do, but i think a bowler's average would be dictated by the fielding side's competency to hold on to the catches.

I do (though I don't support the theory that Lillee was rubbish because he failed in Pakistan). Imran, Wasim and Waqar were all amazing bowlers (though Pakistan isn't as unfavourable as you think because the abrasive wickets simply aided their reverse swing). As for unfavourable conditions, I'd rather be bowling in Columbo than Perth (as a spinner). Then there's the fact that during the period before McGrath came along, and Warne was blocked out, he never played Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. Murali's most successful country (wicket-wise) is Zimbabwe.

 

[social]

You forget, that Murali has had to bowl in more batting-friendly wickets than Warney has had to.

I'll be charitable and assume this is nothing more than flame-bait as otherwise it is the statement of someone with absolutely no idea.

 

[C_C]

bowlers (though Pakistan isn't as unfavourable as you think because the abrasive wickets simply aided their reverse swing)

If PAK isnt unfavourable to pacers, OZ most definately is spinner's haven.

By your line of thought - pitches being supposedly unfavourable - if Warne is better than Murali because Murali gets to bowl on 'allegedly' friendlier spin surfaces, Wasim, Waqar and Imran are better than any pacer OZ has ever produced because they operated in far more unfavourable conditions than any OZ pacer.
If you dont see this, then you are being inconsistent by your own standards.

 

[C_C]

I'll be charitable and assume this is nothing more than flame-bait as otherwise it is the statement of someone with absolutely no idea.

Au contraire. Subcontinental pitches are also blasted a lot of the time for being batsmen friendly. That leads to the direct conclusion that Murali has had to bowl on more batsmen friendly wickets than Warne.

 

[social]

Au contraire. Subcontinental pitches are also blasted a lot of the time for being batsmen friendly. That leads to the direct conclusion that Murali has had to bowl on more batsmen friendly wickets than Warne.

When has any such thing been said about Sri Lankan pitches?

Not even going to waste my time debating it - youre talking utter nonsense.

 

[C_C]

It is also strange that many posters use inconsistent reasoning when it comes to various players.
Lets take Warne vs Murali and Hadlee vs Imran Khan.

Murali and Hadlee are in similar situations while Imran was more like in Warney's situation.
Like Imran, Warney allegedly bowls on 'unfavourable' sufaces more. Like Imran, Warney had little support in the beginning and ended up getting quite a good suppor later on ( Qadir, Iqbal Qasim, etc. were all excellent bowlers and Akram was simply brilliant).
Like Imran to his counterpart ( Hadlee), Warney has lower wicket/match ratio than his counterpart ( Murali).
On the other hand, like Murali,Hadlee bowled most of his life on 'allegedly' favourable surface.
Like Murali, Hadlee was the lone warrior of his team.
Like Murali compared to Warney, Hadlee took a lot more wickets than Imran per match.
Yet, some rate Hadlee better than Imran but don't rate Murali better than Warney.
Eh ??!?

 

[C_C]

When has any such thing been said about Sri Lankan pitches?

Not even going to waste my time debating it - youre talking utter nonsense.

Quite often actually.
And average innings scores for both teams shows SL to be more batting friendly surface than most nations.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If PAK isnt unfavourable to pacers, OZ most definately is spinner's haven.

By your line of thought - pitches being supposedly unfavourable - if Warne is better than Murali because Murali gets to bowl on 'allegedly' friendlier spin surfaces, Wasim, Waqar and Imran are better than any pacer OZ has ever produced because they operated in far more unfavourable conditions than any OZ pacer.
If you dont see this, then you are being inconsistent by your own standards.

Of course Pakistan is unfavourable to seamers - just not as unfavourable as you think.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Au contraire. Subcontinental pitches are also blasted a lot of the time for being batsmen friendly. That leads to the direct conclusion that Murali has had to bowl on more batsmen friendly wickets than Warne.

For seamers yes. For spinners, certainly not.

 

[C_C]

For seamers yes. For spinners, certainly not.

Please.
If its batting friendly, it implies that it helps batting.
A spinning minefield is no easier to bat on than a raging WACA pitch.

 

[C_C]

Of course Pakistan is unfavourable to seamers - just not as unfavourable as you think.

Same way as OZ is not as unfavourable to spinners as you think.
In either case, the point is, PAK pitches help pacers far less than OZ pitches do ( if you actually believe in that BS- i don't but hey, i am using the same line of thought as you are) and by the same logic, Akram, Imran and Waqar are better bowlers than McGrath or Lillee.
Whats so hard to see in that ?

 

[Tom Halsey]

It is also strange that many posters use inconsistent reasoning when it comes to various players.
Lets take Warne vs Murali and Hadlee vs Imran Khan.

Murali and Hadlee are in similar situations while Imran was more like in Warney's situation.
Like Imran, Warney allegedly bowls on 'unfavourable' sufaces more. Like Imran, Warney had little support in the beginning and ended up getting quite a good suppor later on ( Qadir, Iqbal Qasim, etc. were all excellent bowlers and Akram was simply brilliant).
Like Imran to his counterpart ( Hadlee), Warney has lower wicket/match ratio than his counterpart ( Murali).
On the other hand, like Murali,Hadlee bowled most of his life on 'allegedly' favourable surface.
Like Murali, Hadlee was the lone warrior of his team.
Like Murali compared to Warney, Hadlee took a lot more wickets than Imran per match.
Yet, some rate Hadlee better than Imran but don't rate Murali better than Warney.
Eh ??!?

IMO, Imran > Hadlee, and Warne > Murali. All 4 are great bowlers though.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Same way as OZ is not as unfavourable to spinners as you think.

Sydney aside, I don't reckon it is. Bounce is useless if it doesn't turn (and lets face it most Aussie pitches, Sudney aside, don't turn until the 4th and 5th days. Asian pitches turn from ball one - particularly Sri Lankan ones).

 

[C_C]

Sydney aside, I don't reckon it is. Bounce is useless if it doesn't turn (and lets face it most Aussie pitches, Sudney aside, don't turn until the 4th and 5th days. Asian pitches turn from ball one - particularly Sri Lankan ones).

Well bounce is useless if it doesnt turn and reverse swing is useless if it doesnt bounce - you keep reversing it at knee height and it will be dispatched to the boundary.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Please.
If its batting friendly, it implies that it helps batting.
A spinning minefield is no easier to bat on than a raging WACA pitch.

It only helps batting against seamers, not spinners (I'm talking about Asian pitches here).

 

[Tom Halsey]

Well bounce is useless if it doesnt turn and reverse swing is useless if it doesnt bounce - you keep reversing it at knee height and it will be dispatched to the boundary.

Not really because the reverse-swinging yorker will get you in the end. If there is low bounce it also helps LBWs etc (which, when it reversing in, are bound to be aplenty).

 

[C_C]

It only helps batting against seamers, not spinners (I'm talking about Asian pitches here).

Umm there are pitches in Asia that favour batting, period.
If the pitches really were spin friendly but not pace-friendly, there would be very little difference in the total team scores - what the pacers would lose out, the spinners would gain.
Its a bit like saying WACA only helps batting against spinners, not pacers.

 

[C_C]

Not really because the reverse-swinging yorker will get you in the end. If there is low bounce it also helps LBWs etc (which, when it reversing in, are bound to be aplenty).

Well thats a bit like saying Warney could bowl bouncers all day long because of more bounce- Yorkers are shock tactics - you dont bowl 2-3 yorkers every over.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Umm there are pitches in Asia that favour batting, period.

Yes there are the occasional ones. But they are not the norm.