*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Dasa]

So basically, you're saying Murali is a better bowler because Wasim and Imran played on spinner wickets?

That's not what he's saying at all..what he's saying is that some people think it's ok to denigrate Murali's achievements because he plays more on spin-friendly wickets while not using the same criteria to judge other bowlers....you can't have both.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

That has no relevance as to whether Murali is better than Warne, he didn't make one point to actually back up his statement.

 

[honestbharani]

He made a statement to show up the double standards (or atleast what he perceives as double standards, as I haven't checked these threads) of some posters, who have made a point on the issue of this thread.

 

[C_C]

That has no relevance as to whether Murali is better than Warne, he didn't make one point to actually back up his statement.

I've been following this board long enough and if you think my statements are baseless, all you need to do is browse through a dozen or so threads debating which bowler is better than which to see a clear pattern.

The reason i consider Murali superior is because in my criterion, he comes out superior overall.

My criterions are ( not necessarily the same weightage) :

1. Overall statistics - Murali has a clear advantage in this regard.
2. Record away from home - Warne has a marginal lead in this category ( this is a big cat. for me)
3. Overall bowling support - Murali is the clear winner here as his bowling support is nowhere close to Warney's bowling support ( this is a huge factor for me)
4. Performance vs the best batting attack against spin ( India) - Murali leads this category by a country mile ( this is the biggest category for me after #2 and #3)
5. Performance vs the best batting attack against spin(India) in their backyard- Warne leads this category by a fair bit
6. Record vs the common opposition ( ie, opposition both teams have played) - Murali leads this category
7. Record in opposition ground against common opposition - Both are about evenly matched in this regard


As it stands now, Murali is the overall better bowler from those criterion ( PS: None of those criterions consider bangladesh and zimbabwe by the way) but Warney has closed the gap by a good margin owing to his recent form.
Actually, on second thought, i would rate Murali to be a fair bit better, not significantly better than Warney.

 

[parttimer]

I've been following this board long enough and if you think my statements are baseless, all you need to do is browse through a dozen or so threads debating which bowler is better than which to see a clear pattern.

The reason i consider Murali superior is because in my criterion, he comes out superior overall.

My criterions are ( not necessarily the same weightage) :

1. Overall statistics - Murali has a clear advantage in this regard.
2. Record away from home - Warne has a marginal lead in this category ( this is a big cat. for me)
3. Overall bowling support - Murali is the clear winner here as his bowling support is nowhere close to Warney's bowling support ( this is a huge factor for me)
4. Performance vs the best batting attack against spin ( India) - Murali leads this category by a country mile ( this is the biggest category for me after #2 and #3)
5. Performance vs the best batting attack against spin(India) in their backyard- Warne leads this category by a fair bit
6. Record vs the common opposition ( ie, opposition both teams have played) - Murali leads this category
7. Record in opposition ground against common opposition - Both are about evenly matched in this regard


As it stands now, Murali is the overall better bowler from those criterion ( PS: None of those criterions consider bangladesh and zimbabwe by the way) but Warney has closed the gap by a good margin owing to his recent form.
Actually, on second thought, i would rate Murali to be a fair bit better, not significantly better than Warney.

Re no3. Is it not a fact that Warney had NO SUPPORT from the 2nd test onwards (Mcgrath was bowling rubbish after Lords, and as for the rest...) and yet he had what was probably his BEST series ever?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Re no3. Is it not a fact that Warney had NO SUPPORT from the 2nd test onwards (Mcgrath was bowling rubbish after Lords, and as for the rest...) and yet he had what was probably his BEST series ever?

Is it also a fact that England's plan to him was slog early, and then if he gets a wicket go back into your shell?

Despite their protestations, they still played him poorly.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Thank you for supporting your statement.

I don't really see a need for this argument. It is pointless, BUT, if I were choosing a side, and had to choose between the two, I would choose Warne. Maybe it's Australian bias, I don't really care at this point. Warne has had more impact on me as a cricket fan.

 

[C_C]

Re no3. Is it not a fact that Warney had NO SUPPORT from the 2nd test onwards (Mcgrath was bowling rubbish after Lords, and as for the rest...) and yet he had what was probably his BEST series ever?

Irrelevant.
Best series mean squat without worst series into consideration - ie, The peaks must be balanced by the Nadirs to get the overall picture of a player.
Warney without McGrath averages about 26 with the ball. He still has Gillespie ( who is as good as, if not better than Vaas as a test bowler) and the various other bowlers apart from McGrath, such as Fleming, Kasprowicz,Lee,McGill, etc. were significantly better than almost every single bowler the SL have fielded in the last 10 years apart from Vaas and Murali.
And with McGrath present ( which has been for the bulk of Warney's career), OZ attack is simply a quantum ahead of Sri Lanka's.

 

[parttimer]

Is it also a fact that England's plan to him was slog early, and then if he gets a wicket go back into your shell?

Despite their protestations, they still played him poorly.

Why don't you go and research and find out every plan every team has ever had for both Murali and Warne, and the bowlers around them, and how well they were played, and then explain the relevance.

 

[parttimer]

Irrelevant.
Best series mean squat without worst series into consideration - ie, The peaks must be balanced by the Nadirs to get the overall picture of a player.
Warney without McGrath averages about 26 with the ball. He still has Gillespie ( who is as good as, if not better than Vaas as a test bowler) and the various other bowlers apart from McGrath, such as Fleming, Kasprowicz,Lee,McGill, etc. were significantly better than almost every single bowler the SL have fielded in the last 10 years apart from Vaas and Murali.
And with McGrath present ( which has been for the bulk of Warney's career), OZ attack is simply a quantum ahead of Sri Lanka's.

Its not irrelevant it blows your theory out of the water

 

[C_C]

Its not irrelevant it blows your theory out of the water

How exactly does it blow my 'theory' outta water ?

You are comparing Warne's success in a series lacking McGrath to Murali's overall performance.
Might i remind you that Murali has had several series where he's singlehandedly steamrolled the opposition and that his record is significantly better when McGrath is absent from the Aussie lineup.
This is despite the fact that Kasprowicz-Warne-Gillespie-Fleming-Lee-McGill are a much better bowling unit than Vaas-Murali-noname-noname-noname-noname bowlers. Overall, Murali has had much less support than Warne has had.

So how exactly does it 'blow my theory' out of the water ?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Why don't you go and research and find out every plan every team has ever had for both Murali and Warne, and the bowlers around them, and how well they were played, and then explain the relevance.

To claim that because Warne bowled well without support, on wickets that were, in the main, fairly responsive against a side which plays spin poorly over four Tests as conclusive evidence that Warne bowls well without support is a bit rich.

 

[magsi23]

Well i dont know what to say but is it right to compare Leg spinner with Off? both are legends there is no question about it

 

[parttimer]

Fairly responsive tracks? No. He bowled beautifully on pretty flat tracks in the first innings. They had Lee, Tait etc to score off and tried to block him out the game (exclude Pieterson) and he was still good enough to take wickets. There is no doubt it was one of the best exhibitions of bowling you'll ever see.

When i see Murali do that on unresponsive pitches, in particular i'd like to see it in Oz, I'll call Murali a better bowler.

 

[C_C]

When i see Murali do that on unresponsive pitches, in particular i'd like to see it in Oz, I'll call Murali a better bowler.

Murali has played quite a few games on unresponsive pitches in the subcontinent. You forget, not all pitches in the subcontinent are spinning paradises, some of them are dead flat batting beauties and some of them are quite springy/abrasive enough to aid pacers/reverse swingers of the ball.

Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that Murali has a better record overall getting only credible support from Vaas throughout his career, while Warney has help from McGrath and Gillespie, one of whom is far superior to Vaas and the other atleast comparable, while others such as Lee, Kaspa, Fleming,McGill etc. are a few miles ahead of the likes of Malinga, Chandana, Pushpakumara, Zoysa, etc.

So Murali has had far less support even in the best of times and even when Warney is playing without McGrath, he is still backed up by a better cast of bowlers than Murali.

 

[parttimer]

True. Otoh they are also taking wickets away from Warne

 

[Tom Halsey]

I consider Murali to be a significantly better bowler in both Tests and ODIs and it is completely illogical to conclude otherwise.
The same folks who say Warne is better than Murali ( due to Murali playing more on spin-friendly wickets) do not, however, stick to the same argument when we debate Akram vs McGrath or Imran vs Hadlee or Imran vs Lillee. Apparently, when its Warne vs Murali, the whole 'Murali plays on more responsive pitches more often' line of thought can be used but the same reasoning is never applied for it is obvious that Lillee, McGrath, Hadlee etc. have played far more matches on responsive wickets than Akram or Imran.

I do.

 

[luckyeddie]

My two penn'orth...

To argue whether Warne or Murali is the greatest spinner is a completely and utterly futile exercise.

Either or both would walk into any side in the history of the game.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

My two penn'orth...

To argue whether Warne or Murali is the greatest spinner is a completely and utterly futile exercise.

Either or both would walk into any side in the history of the game.

Smartest statement so far.

Also, to add to the "Warne has had better support" doesn't that mean that the other bowlers would be taking wickets away from him as well?

 

[C_C]

Smartest statement so far.

Also, to add to the "Warne has had better support" doesn't that mean that the other bowlers would be taking wickets away from him as well?

Yes, but the real deal is the average, since the whole goal is to restrict the opposition for less runs than your team scored.
Having better support helps your average.