*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[honestbharani]

1991/1992

Debut series for Warne?

Terribly relevant.

But fyi, Shastri played 1 test and made 206.

Sachin made 148 no and 2 failures.

I get your point. You meant that in recent years, Warne hasn't been dominated as much as Murali has been. But juz read my post previous to this one.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Could be argued that Lehmann and Martyn - since considered expendable by Australia - dominated Murali in his backyard, as well.

But what's that going to prove? All bowlers get smashed from time to time. Can't we measure greats by their good returns instead of their failings?

 

[social]

so, close to his debut series? Happy?


My point was that Warne has been dominated too. Averages don't always tell the whole story about whether a bowler has been dominated or not. For instance, I saw two of the three WI/SL tests (only the last two were televised, FYI) and Lara did not dominate Murali by any stretch of the imagination in the second one. And from what the people who saw the first one said, he didn't dominate Murali in the first one either. Lara himself said in an interview that it was only in the third test, after he had gotten used to picking Murali's deliveries off his hands at the point of release that he was able to dominate him. Juz because Lara scored a 178 in the first test doesn't mean he dominated Murali. Sidhu didn't average anything great in the 98 series against Australia, yet there is no doubt that he totally dominated Warne in that series.

What you have stated indicates why there is no guarantee, despite what others would have us believe, that Murali could carry on his unbelievable success into 5 test series.

Lara, Mark and Steve Waugh, Michael Slater, etc have all publicly stated that part of Murali's strength lies in the fact that his "unusual" action takes some getting used to (principally because it appears that the ball will be delivered much quicker than it actually is).

However, once that is sorted, playing him becomes much easier.

 

[social]

I get your point. You meant that in recent years, Warne hasn't been dominated as much as Murali has been. But juz read my post previous to this one.

C _ C 's criteria was success against outstanding opposition.

A debutant Warne was a decidedly different proposition to peak Murali bowling to peak Lara, Fleming, etc. That was supposed to be an even contest albeit in conditions favouring the bowler.

 

[luckyeddie]

Could be argued that Lehmann and Martyn - since considered expendable by Australia - dominated Murali in his backyard, as well.

But what's that going to prove? All bowlers get smashed from time to time. Can't we measure greats by their good returns instead of their failings?

The majority will.

Unfortunately, there are those who have to measure one player against another by other means - for them, this pedants' playground of a thread exists.

 

[honestbharani]

What you have stated indicates why there is no guarantee, despite what others would have us believe, that Murali could carry on his unbelievable success into 5 test series.

Lara, Mark and Steve Waugh, Michael Slater, etc have all publicly stated that part of Murali's strength lies in the fact that his "unusual" action takes some getting used to (principally because it appears that the ball will be delivered much quicker than it actually is).

However, once that is sorted, playing him becomes much easier.

it does, but then again, Warne has had negligible success against India when the pacers haven't given him a good platform. He never ran through us as Murali has done on a couple of occassions. (granted, one of them was when Sachin and Laxman were both missing.)


I think the major point here is that these two are very close to each other. If someone were to say that he simply thinks Warne is slightly better than Murali (or vice versa), I think it is a very acceptable point. But it juz gets annoying when people say "Murali sucks" or "Warne is a drug cheat" etc.


Plus, I think the fact that Murali has more opportunities to pick up wickets while Warne has a better bowling attack to maintain the pressure on the batsman evens itself out too, given how long both have been playing international cricket. I still rate Murali slightly higher, mainly because he hardly has a bad year these days, but I think Warney has closed the already small gap considerably by his performances this year. One more year like this and I think I would Warney ahead.

 

[dinu23]

Could be argued that Lehmann and Martyn - since considered expendable by Australia - dominated Murali in his backyard, as well.

But what's that going to prove? All bowlers get smashed from time to time. Can't we measure greats by their good returns instead of their failings?

then what does Lara,Fleming playing Murali well prove? nothing.

 

[honestbharani]

then what does Lara,Fleming playing Murali well prove? nothing.

BTW, I don't think Martyn actually dominated Murali. He never looked like smashing Murali out of the park every second ball, which is dominating, IMHO.

 

[SJS]

Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne

 

[social]

it does, but then again, Warne has had negligible success against India when the pacers haven't given him a good platform. He never ran through us as Murali has done on a couple of occassions. (granted, one of them was when Sachin and Laxman were both missing.)


I think the major point here is that these two are very close to each other. If someone were to say that he simply thinks Warne is slightly better than Murali (or vice versa), I think it is a very acceptable point. But it juz gets annoying when people say "Murali sucks" or "Warne is a drug cheat" etc.


Plus, I think the fact that Murali has more opportunities to pick up wickets while Warne has a better bowling attack to maintain the pressure on the batsman evens itself out too, given how long both have been playing international cricket. I still rate Murali slightly higher, mainly because he hardly has a bad year these days, but I think Warney has closed the already small gap considerably by his performances this year. One more year like this and I think I would Warney ahead.

The most appropriate thing to say is:

greatest leg-spinner ever - Warne

greatest off-spinner - Murali

If pressed to choose one for a team, I'd select Warne for his all-round cricket ability (appreciably better bat, field, and until proven otherwise cricket brain) rather than any outright advantage his bowling provides.

BTW, neither are the best bowlers in history IMO.

Most people that have played a 90 mph bowler would do anything to face a spinner, even allowing for as good as these 2 are.

 

[luckyeddie]

Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne is better than Murali is better than Warne

Ah, that's because you're not looking at the big picture - which is

Warne is worse than Murali is worse than Warne is worse than Murali is...

 

[SJS]

Most people that have played a 90 mph bowler would do anything to face a spinner, even allowing for as good as these 2 are.

hmmmm.... that would come with some qualifications

 

[honestbharani]

lol. Sounds like a logical conclusion.


You would know more about what cricketers prefer, but one thing I have heard from the few cricketers (Ex), they tell me that though it always sounds easier to face a great spinner than a great pacer, it is only when they face them that they feel the effects. One thing I know and have noticed as a spectator is that a batsman struggling against a fast bowler gets a lot of sympathy, but one who struggles against a spinner is simply the butt of jokes.


Edit: This was a response to Social's last post.

 

[social]

Warne and Murali are incredibly efficient at dismissing batsmen.

Imran and Wasim (my personal favourite because he had the added advantage of being left-handed) could do the same and hurt you!

McGrath (IMO, best of all contemporary bowlers) and Hadlee may not strike as much fear but would do the same job as Warne and Murali.

Thomson at his peak - ugggggh. Now that was ugly!

 

[honestbharani]

Warne and Murali are incredibly efficient at dismissing batsmen.

Imran and Wasim (my personal favourite because he had the added advantage of being left-handed) could do the same and hurt you!

McGrath (IMO, best of all contemporary bowlers) and Hadlee may not strike as much fear but would do the same job as Warne and Murali.

Thomson at his peak - ugggggh. Now that was ugly!

yeah, not to mention the Windies quartet. Ambrose would send shivers down my spine even if I am just meeting him. Imagine facing him.

 

[social]

yeah, not to mention the Windies quartet. Ambrose would send shivers down my spine even if I am just meeting him. Imagine facing him.

There's 4 (or probably 5 or 6) reasons that they didnt need spinners.

Actually, it's pat of Warne's attraction as he was the first bowler in years to prove that you could dismiss batsmen with guile alone.

 

[honestbharani]

There's 4 (or probably 5 or 6) reasons that they didnt need spinners.

Actually, it's pat of Warne's attraction as he was the first bowler in years to prove that you could dismiss batsmen with guile alone.

yes, although I think Saqlain must be mentioned in that regard as well. I have never seen batsmen look more bewildered than they were after they were dismissed by Saqlain's doosra.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Little flaw in your little world - Both Murali and Warney flex the elbow and the difference between their flexion is as thick as a cookie.

Really? When was Warney tested?

 

[Tom Halsey]

hmmmm.... that would come with some qualifications

I'd rather get out than have my block knocked off. Of course, if I was a batsman I might think differently.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Flexing the elbow does include hyper-extension. And yes, it is almost every bowler- the ICC champion's trophy survey was not the only survey and many bowlers were tested- both past and present- including bowlers from the 70s and the 80s.

Isn't it amazing how the ICC had these cameras to test players last September, and could even make a judgement on players from the past, yet now they seemingly have nothing that gives us similar results now! When a player's tested he still needs to go into the lab and have patches etc stuck to him to study angles and so on, yet in a few marvellous weeks last year none of that was needed and experts were able to make conclusions on a number of bowlers simply by using footage taken during games...technology that then mysteriously disappeared.

I accept that Murali's been shown to be ok, and that's fine.

Hyper-extension is a natural part of bowling IMO, not something that constitutes 'chucking'. It involves the arm flexing past the normal point of 'straightness' due to stresses placed on it during the bowling action. Ever since I was little I was under the idea that throwing meant your arm bent towards the shoulder and went back to (or past) its starting position...this isn't hyper-extension. If this is where the 'every bowler throws' line comes from then...as far as I'm concerned it's a myth.