*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[adharcric]

I don't know who's being misquoted or misrepresented or vilified or what not, but is it really such a big deal that Warne mentioned that Murali has taken plenty of wickets against weaker opposition such as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe? It is the truth, isn't it? Of course, maybe he shouldn't say things like that because it isn't "politically correct" to imply that another cricketer hasn't really worked as hard for ALL of his wickets.

As for a few of these Aussies being blunt and oblivious to the consequences when they talk, that reminds me ................................................. Greg Chappell
India isn't exactly the best place to do this stuff is it ..

Btw, correct me if I've got it all wrong, I don't know much about this situation ... just trying to make sense of what I know.

 

[Dasa]

Take Ponting, he asks teams to accept fieldmens word when they take a catch, all refuse to agree with him. He asks again at the ICC captains metting and they refuse again. That's the end of the issue.

I thought the story was that he wanted batsmen to take the fielders word and for there to be no use of television replays for the third umpire, while the other captains wanted the option to go for the replay if neither the fielder or the umpires could say conclusively to remain?

 

[Francis]

Yeah something like that. But since teams dont want to go along with Ponting, it makes no sense for Ponting to do it either. It just gives his opposition the advantage. I was suprised with Tony Greig making such an estutue point when he said that.

 

[Sanz]

Yeah something like that. But since teams dont want to go along with Ponting, it makes no sense for Ponting to do it either. It just gives his opposition the advantage. I was suprised with Tony Greig making such an estutue point when he said that.

Would Ponting accept fielder's word ? Has he ever ?

 

[Francis]

We dont know because there's never been an accord between captains where they'll both accept fieldsmens word.

You misunderstood my point. Before every game the captains sometimes make an accord on how they want the game to be played. If Ponting wants fieldsmens word and nothing else, but that isn't accepted by the other captain, then they don't have an accord.

You can't judge Ponting on how he'd react if both sides agreed that fieldsmens word should be accepted because he's never been in that situation. All he's done is play the game in the same manner other teams do. Unless teams want to play Ponting's way, Ponting has to play their way unless its unfair to his team.

 

[Sanz]

We dont know because there's never been an accord between captains where they'll both accept fieldsmens word.

You misunderstood my point. Before every game the captains sometimes make an accord on how they want the game to be played. If Ponting wants fieldsmens word and nothing else, but that isn't accepted by the other captain, then they don't have an accord.

You can't judge Ponting on how he'd react if both sides agreed that fieldsmens word should be accepted because he's never been in that situation. All he's done is play the game in the same manner other teams do. Unless teams want to play Ponting's way, Ponting has to play their way unless its unfair to his team.

It's not like Ponting's way or the other team's way. The other team is playing cricket the way it is supposed to be i.e. let the umpires decide who is out and who is not.

Why should team's play Ponting's way, they have no reason to believe him ? If Ponting wants, let him and his teammates start doing it, let others know that he is sincere about what he has proposed. Watch Justin Langer's reaction everytime he is dismissed.If Ponting wants to start such a trend, first of all he should set an example. Why should a team accept his proposal, why should they take his word for it ? Imagine a situation where he Ponting and the opponent make such a deal (first of all it shouldn't be allowed, else all those Latif, Ganguly, Slater, Waugh catches would be valid now) and the opponent team follows it in the first inning and then Ponting's team ignores it. Australia wins the test, Ponting refuses to acknowledge that any such deal was made or accuses the fielder of blatantly claiming a catch that was not there. Then what ?

Ponting's suggestion is Stupid and impractical at best and I am happy that no team accepted it.

 

[Sanz]

Pretty much everybody assumed it must have been a misquote, which indeed it was. That is in fact the point.

Nope, Almost everyone said that Wasim was an Idiot for making that statement, you can check the thread out.

 

[Sanz]

I think his main problem is he isn't a political person, the same with many of the Aussies. He gets asked a question, he'll answer it straight, oblivious to the fact that they'll probably want to misquote him even if they don't. The thing with most of the Aussies are, even if you don't like what they've done and they know you won't, they won't lie. They'll be honest about it. If need be, cop it. But whenever they haven't done something and are honest about it, it's not believed.

What part of the following is a misquote :-

"It would be nice if it (the new record) lasted another 25 years, but I don't think it will. There's a lot more cricket being played these days and you have teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in there, with some teams playing them a lot more (than others). I've never played a Test against Bangladesh and only one against Zimbabwe, but there are some teams out there that play them a lot. And some blokes bowl at one end all day against those sort of countries and take lots of wickets. I'm sure that whoever those people are, they might get it (the record) next year."

Yes this is honest opinion about what he thinks of his World Recod and his fear and true feeling that it may be broken by Murali.

 

[Ikki]

What part of the following is a misquote :-

"It would be nice if it (the new record) lasted another 25 years, but I don't think it will. There's a lot more cricket being played these days and you have teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in there, with some teams playing them a lot more (than others). I've never played a Test against Bangladesh and only one against Zimbabwe, but there are some teams out there that play them a lot. And some blokes bowl at one end all day against those sort of countries and take lots of wickets. I'm sure that whoever those people are, they might get it (the record) next year."

Yes this is honest opinion about what he thinks of his World Recod and his fear and true feeling that it may be broken by Murali.

That's not misrepresenting him though. He's saying it will be broken due to those factors. Is he wrong? No. Does this comment irk people? Yes, it does, because it's true. But in that, he isn't implying that this is how Murali intends to break the record. Or indeed, it's his approach. If you wish to vilify him for this, then he should also be praised for the comments he made a week back. But is he? No, he's vilified further. Of course, if Warne really wanted to he could come out and say exactly what he thinks, knowing warne, what makes you think he wouldn't?

 

[Francis]

It's not like Ponting's way or the other team's way. The other team is playing cricket the way it is supposed to be i.e. let the umpires decide who is out and who is not.

And that's the way Ponting has been playing it in South Africa. If an Aussie didn't think the ball carried and the umpires didn't see it, they weren't given out.

Why should team's play Ponting's way, they have no reason to believe him ?

Huh? That makes no sense. All Ponting's done is play the way teams intend on playing Australia. We don't know if Ponting would still hold his ground if both teams agreed to walk on a fieldsman's word.

If Ponting wants, let him and his teammates start doing it, let others know that he is sincere about what he has proposed. Watch Justin Langer's reaction everytime he is dismissed.If Ponting wants to start such a trend, first of all he should set an example. Why should a team accept his proposal, why should they take his word for it ?

This gives his opposition an immediate advantage which would be silly to give away. Why give away your wicket when other teams aren't playing in the same spirit. I think every captain in the world has an accord with other captains on how the game is to be played and in what spirit. That's why the ICC has the captains metting. It's why Inzi was upset earlier this year when he was given out for obstruction of the field... it was against the spirit of the game. I think all captains would like to think that the game is being played in the same spirit by both teams. There is absolutely nothing to gain, especially when your giving the opposition the advantage.

And since when has trust been an issue? There's been no reports of captains not trusting Ponting's word, the captains simply want the option to question catches, and they have every right to make that choice, there's nothing wrong with them making that choice. But if Ponting stands his ground then just remember he's only playing the game in the same spirit his opposition is.

Imagine a situation where he Ponting and the opponent make such a deal (first of all it shouldn't be allowed, else all those Latif, Ganguly, Slater, Waugh catches would be valid now) and the opponent team follows it in the first inning and then Ponting's team ignores it. Australia wins the test, Ponting refuses to acknowledge that any such deal was made or accuses the fielder of blatantly claiming a catch that was not there. Then what ?

Trust isn't the issue. How the game should be played is the issue. Ponting wants it to be played in a certain way but that's been knocked back by all other world captains. Ponting didn't get what he wanted but he doesn't seem to upset. What he and all captains have is an accord that catches can be disputed. So what when Ponting disputes decisions? That's how all captains have chosen to play the game.

Ponting's suggestion is Stupid and impractical at best and I am happy that no team accepted it.

I disagree with it as well, Kevin Pietersen didn't take a few catches that he claimed that weren't disputed a while back, and because he was on the boundary the batsman never disputed it. It was an injustice and sometimes the ball travells so fast that even fieldsmen think they've caught balls they haven't. The Sri Lankens made that mistake last February and five minutes later appologised to Pointing when word came to them. So I agree Ponting's aiming for something that's a bit silly.

This is all besides the point though. Ponting shouldn't be criticised for playing the way teams intend on playing them. Its custom for captains to decide in what spirit the game is to be played before a series and Ponting's just playing in that spirit. Anybody calling him a hypocrit is wrong and anybody wanting him to set an example is asking him to hand an advantage to a team that wont change its position.

Expecting Ponting to set an example is as impractical as Ponting's original suggestions...

 

[Francis]

Yes, it does, because it's true

Perfectly summed up. The rest of the post was correct and it was a fine post... but I'd rather just quote that. People don't like it because its true and if you ask me, its truth is a major reason why the Warne/Murali debate is so heated. I never want to debate that again because people just can't be civil. I thought myself and C_C had a good debate on it a while back, but it was shut down for some reason... but I'm just done there and it's a shame.

But your absolutely right it irks people because its true. I have no idea why there isn't an official Lara vs. Tendulkar debate, but I'd be willing to bet it could be more civil because there aren't little truths that annoy and irritate people. Lara and Tendulkar is a more civil debate because you can't undermine or belittle some of their accomplishments. You can with Murali and since you may be right that becomes annoying and can even be seen as insulting, when it isn't. Saying Murali has over one fifth of his wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe or that without playing them his average would be nearly 25 are truths. But they are accomplishments and belittling them can come off as insulting. Are we insulting Murali? Nope. Is Warne? Nope. It's just the truth. In some unfortunate cases the truth can shine a light on the obvious. Warne said Murali could beat his record that way and he's right? It's not insulting to say that. What that truth reveals is how Murali's gotten so so many of his wickets. Hence this is why people think Warne feels Murali takes cheap wickets. It's not what Warne said, but what the truth reveals. And you know what, what the truth reveals is always correct.

Nobody's gonna belittle many of Lara or Tendulkar's achievments and hence its a more fun civil debate. Why isn't there an official thread for Lara/Tendulkar?

Please lets not start a Warne vs. Murali debate. I'm just trying to extend on what Kazo said which I fully agree with. He summed up my opinion perfectly. This post isn't a Warne vs. Murali post, its a "what does the truth say?" And my point is that there's the truth and then there's what the truth can reveal. That's what this is about.
You can hear politicians say something on a policy or issue that shines a light on other things. In this case, Warne said something true about how his record can be beaten (that is what he was talking about), that shines a something else - how Murali's gotten over one fifth of his wickets.

I like Warne, but I've also criticised his behaviour as written in the Australia vs. South Africa thread and believe me, he's a disappointment in so many ways with his behaviour. But in this case its just like Ricky Ponting, people are quick to jump all over somebody.

 

[Francis]

Nope, Almost everyone said that Wasim was an Idiot for making that statement, you can check the thread out.

I forgot to mention Wasim. Wasim strikes me as a very temperamental guy. On commentary he's quite nice. But in one interview Wasim telsl Ricky Ponting to "shut the hell up" in regard to his former stance against Bangladesh. Wasim can be pretty inflammatory and you can maybe argue his temper can cut off the blood flow to his brain when he gets upset. When Wasim is upset he has a short history of saying some pretty rash statements.

 

[Sanz]

That's not misrepresenting him though. He's saying it will be broken due to those factors. Is he wrong? No. Does this comment irk people? Yes, it does, because it's true. But in that, he isn't implying that this is how Murali intends to break the record. Or indeed, it's his approach. If you wish to vilify him for this, then he should also be praised for the comments he made a week back. But is he? No, he's vilified further. Of course, if Warne really wanted to he could come out and say exactly what he thinks, knowing warne, what makes you think he wouldn't?

It irks people because it is immature and stupid and not because it's true, Murali averages better even if you remove his performance against those two countries from his resume.

And yes he is wrong, it wont be broken because of those factors. How many test Murali is going to play against Bangladesh & Zim in next 5 years ? 4-5, are you saying that Warne's record will be broken because of those 4/5 tests ?

And no I dont think I can praise Warnie for his hyporitical remarks, he is doing the same thing he accused Murali off i.e. play tests against minnows.

 

[Ikki]

It irks people because it is immature and stupid and not because it's true, Murali averages better even if you remove his performance against those two countries from his resume.

And yes he is wrong, it wont be broken because of those factors. How many test Murali is going to play against Bangladesh & Zim in next 5 years ? 4-5, are you saying that Warne's record will be broken because of those 4/5 tests ?

And no I dont think I can praise Warnie for his hyporitical remarks, he is doing the same thing he accused Murali off i.e. play tests against minnows.

What difference does it make to take 200 test wickets at the start of your career than towards the end? None, they're going to be added the same. So whether he does so because of them in the near future is irrelevant, it's more than certainly helped him. Again, average is not everything.

He didn't accuse him of playing test against minnows. In fact he didn't accuse him. He simply stated a large proportion of Murali's wickets come from those two nations. If I say this is it immature and insulting? If Benaud says it, or any other person besides Warne says it? See what I mean? Just any tit-bit to take out of context and bash the guy. Sometimes he may deserve it, but even he's honest if he does. When he doesn't, he isn't accorded any respect. It's like WANTING to believe in the worst of someone. It's prejudice.

 

[Sanz]

And that's the way Ponting has been playing it in South Africa. If an Aussie didn't think the ball carried and the umpires didn't see it, they weren't given out.

So ?? There is something called 'UMPIRE'. How would Ponting react to an LBW, if the umpires said not out but the bowler said, he was plumb, would he walk ? to me this idea is just ridiculous and shows how stupid Ponting is. He should just bat and not offer any suggestion in the future on how cricket should be played.

Huh? That makes no sense. All Ponting's done is play the way teams intend on playing Australia. We don't know if Ponting would still hold his ground if both teams agreed to walk on a fieldsman's word.

What other teams ? Other teams dont define rules, ICC does. Yeah we wont know Ponting would still hold ground, but we wont know he would walk after the opposition team ?

This gives his opposition an immediate advantage which would be silly to give away. Why give away your wicket when other teams aren't playing in the same spirit. I think every captain in the world has an accord with other captains on how the game is to be played and in what spirit.

If you want to be a messiah and start a crusade, better be ready for some sacrifices.

That's why the ICC has the captains metting. It's why Inzi was upset earlier this year when he was given out for obstruction of the field... it was against the spirit of the game. I think all captains would like to think that the game is being played in the same spirit by both teams. There is absolutely nothing to gain, especially when your giving the opposition the advantage.

Spirit of Game and Ponting. Puhlese....

And since when has trust been an issue? There's been no reports of captains not trusting Ponting's word, the captains simply want the option to question catches, and they have every right to make that choice, there's nothing wrong with them making that choice.

If there is no report then why didn't captains accept his suggestion ? Clearly they were not impressed enough by his suggestion or his approach. Either way If Ponting was so honest why didn't he accept the technology help ?

But if Ponting stands his ground then just remember he's only playing the game in the same spirit his opposition is.

How many times are you going to repeat it ? Spirit is something Ponting and his supporters should not talk about. oh and it is ICC rules not the other teams, as you have been trying to portra.

Trust isn't the issue. How the game should be played is the issue. Ponting wants it to be played in a certain way but that's been knocked back by all other world captains.
Ponting didn't get what he wanted but he doesn't seem to upset. What he and all captains have is an accord that catches can be disputed. So what when Ponting disputes decisions? That's how all captains have chosen to play the game.But if Ponting stands his ground then just remember he's only playing the game in the same spirit his opposition is.

Now Ponting is going to teach us how the game of cricket should be played ? If Ponting was so sincere about it why didn't he accept to take help of the technology in stead of only relying on the Fielder's word ? And for the last time, Ponting isn't the best example of playing games with spirit.

I disagree with it as well, Kevin Pietersen didn't take a few catches that he claimed that weren't disputed a while back, and because he was on the boundary the batsman never disputed it. It was an injustice and sometimes the ball travells so fast that even fieldsmen think they've caught balls they haven't. The Sri Lankens made that mistake last February and five minutes later appologised to Pointing when word came to them. So I agree Ponting's aiming for something that's a bit silly.

Exactly, so what is the point, I dont think its going to improve the game because when players know that the other team is going to take their word for it, they would lie more ofte and that's very discouraging. I would rather trust the trchnology than fielder.

This is all besides the point though. Ponting shouldn't be criticised for playing the way teams intend on playing them. Its custom for captains to decide in what spirit the game is to be played before a series and Ponting's just playing in that spirit. Anybody calling him a hypocrit is wrong and anybody wanting him to set an example is asking him to hand an advantage to a team that wont change its position.

what on the earth you are talking ?? This thread was about Ponting's and Warne's statements about Bangladesh, and you have started a different RAGA.

Expecting Ponting to set an example is as impractical as Ponting's original suggestions...

Yet you want others to accept Ponting's impractical suggestion.

 

[Sanz]

Oh btw Francis, on the trust issue :-

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Cricket/...-Ashes-proposal/2005/06/13/1118645749509.html

Vaughan looks for the catch in Ponting's Ashes proposal
June 14, 2005

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
Southampton: England captain Michael Vaughan is yet to commit to Australian skipper Ricky Ponting's proposal that batsmen take the word of fielders over contentious catches this Ashes tour.

Vaughan stood his ground in the 2002-03 series and was coy when asked if he was keen to agree to Ponting's suggestion. "Yeah, I think we'll be talking about it before the Ashes," he said.

Ponting has made a point of approaching rival captains before each Test series to try to cut contentious catches being referred to the third umpire, with replays often inconclusive.

Vaughan raised the ire of the Australians in the second Test in Adelaide 2½ years ago when he refused to take the word of Justin Langer, who claimed he had taken a clean catch at point.

Vaughan, who was on 19 at the time, was given the benefit of the doubt when the umpires intervened, and he went on to make 177.

Vaughan also spoke of the need for his key players to perform well in the Test series, which starts at Lord's on July 21.

 

[Ikki]

I can't speak for Francis, but... I don't think he was talking about the practicability because he already said it was impractical. Rather the ill-feeling toward him for actions that unfolded after. In that case he is right, why vilify him for playing the same game everyone is?

It's like me saying to you let's go halves on our pies and you say no. We eat our own pies then, and you say to me: "Why didn't you share your pie with me?" In that sense, which also pertains to this thread, it is non-sensical how people refer to him in a character sense.

 

[Sanz]

What difference does it make to take 200 test wickets at the start of your career than towards the end? None, they're going to be added the same. So whether he does so because of them in the near future is irrelevant, it's more than certainly helped him. Again, average is not everything.

First of all Murali's hasn't taken 200 wickets against Zim/BD, secondly it is still a lot less than the wickets Warnie has taken against England. Lastly averages certainly aren't everything, but they do suggest that Murali would probably have taken wickets against many other opposition in those many tests (i.e. he has 70 wickets against WI in 10 tests as opposed to 84 in 17 against Zim, 82 wickets against SA in 13 tests.). And look @ Warnie when he gets his oppostunity to play against BD, he was horrible.

He didn't accuse him of playing test against minnows. In fact he didn't accuse him. He simply stated a large proportion of Murali's wickets come from those two nations.

Yes he did. It's like saying Imran suggesting that Dennis Lillee's average looks a lot better because he didn't tour subcontinet.

If I say this is it immature and insulting? If Benaud says it, or any other person besides Warne says it? See what I mean? Just any tit-bit to take out of context and bash the guy. Sometimes he may deserve it, but even he's honest if he does. When he doesn't, he isn't accorded any respect. It's like WANTING to believe in the worst of someone. It's prejudice.

Benaud or you aren't Murali's competitor and contemporary, Warne is. Notice the difference. You call it homesty, I call it jealousy. And trust me I dont think I respect Warne any less as a bowler. If I have to pick one bowler out of Murali and Warne, I would pick Warne pretty much every time.

 

[Sanz]

Rather the ill-feeling toward him for actions that unfolded after. In that case he is right, why vilify him for playing the same game everyone is?.

I really dont know much about all the the ill-feeling effect, I would appreciate if you can elaborate. Thanks !!

 

[Ikki]

First of all Murali's hasn't taken 200 wickets against Zim/BD, secondly it is still a lot less than the wickets Warnie has taken against England. Lastly averages certainly aren't everything, but they do suggest that Murali would probably have taken wickets against any other opposition in those many tests (i.e. he has 70 wickets against WI in 10 tests as opposed to 84 in 17 against Zim, 82 wickets against SA in 13 tests.). And look @ Warnie when he gets his oppostunity to play against BD, he was horrible.

Murali has a bit under 150 I believe. I was rounding off assuming he'd have 200 for his career against them.

Warne getting wickets off England as opposed to Murali getting them off Bangladesh. Which do you suppose is the more difficult task? I've seen him play all summer, he's not bowling well, could be due to form/fatigue/injury, whatever. It is bad. He went wicketless for 1 innings. What is a more likely assumption: Warne won't get wickets against Bangladesh, or Murali wouldn't have gotten as many wickets against England?

Yes he did. It's like saying Imran suggesting that Dennis Lillee's average looks a lot better because he didn't tour subcontinet.

Benaud or you aren't Murali's competitor and contemporary, Warne is. Notice the difference. You call it homesty, I call it jealousy. And trust me I dont think I respect Warne any less as a bowler. If I have to pick one bowler out of Murali and Warne, I would pick Warne pretty much every time.

See this is what I'm trying to suggest. Is he jealous because you think that's the kind of guy he is...or because of what he is saying. If he's meaning to show Murali out, why would he clarify his statements? It's indeed the meaning behind what he's saying that irks people. However you wish to see it, it's the truth. Personally, I'd consider him jealous if he's clutching at straws or making pathetic arguments. That one is a very valid fact.

I really dont know much about all the the ill-feeling effect, I would appreciate if you can elaborate. Thanks !!

Alrighty, I thought it self-explanatory but I'll delve...

If I say or do something you don't like, you're going to depict a subconscious feeling towards me. Now if someone states something to further degrade your view of me, however incorrect, you may think it consistant and believe it. It's this process of thought I object to.

What's worse is when a player is honest and comes out and admits a fault in one instance and you vilify him, yet if he's also honest and dismisses something someone has reported, they're still vilified. It's like picking what you want to believe just because it fits in with your image of the person? I don't know, hope I've been clear.