*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Tom 1972]

IMHO. Warne > Murali due to the * next to Murali's records.

just an opinion for the record.

and am happy to drop the discussion as it has been done to death.

 

[vcs]

Another 20 pages by tomorrow IMO.

 

[andyc]

Haha, well of course it's been done to death, it's a cricket site. This is obviously the place to do it though, so no need to drop it if there are some others out there who still want to debate the topic... just don't expect many people to be super keen about it all. Have to say though that reading through a lot of the debates here on CW has helped get a much clearer picture on the whole thing, and am probably much more in the Murali camp than the Warne camp.

 

[Ikki]

TBF, when I look back on my earlier posts in this thread with regards to Murali's action I cringe a bit. Was biased and a tad ignorant about it all. Can say I have no problems with his action at all now.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Have no problem with Murali, but have always preferred to watch Warne bowl (have also spent more time doing so, as I don't tend to watch a lot of matches that don't involve Australia). He had such an aura about him when he bowled.

Murali probably had the same aura though if you were a Sri Lankan watching him play.

 

[Migara]

Have no problem with Murali, but have always preferred to watch Warne bowl (have also spent more time doing so, as I don't tend to watch a lot of matches that don't involve Australia). He had such an aura about him when he bowled.

Murali probably had the same aura though if you were a Sri Lankan watching him play.

Fair observation. In fact there's hardly anything to separate the two in tests, so personal preference is justified.

 

[Migara]

IMHO. Warne > Murali due to the *next to Murali's records. just an opinion for the record. and am happy to drop the discussion as it has been done to death.

At least it is not a foot note as some others.

 

[honestbharani]

IMHO. Warne > Murali due to the * next to Murali's records.

just an opinion for the record.

and am happy to drop the discussion as it has been done to death.

AFAIC, there is no * and there was none put officially. Those who do put the * are, to put it simply, plain ignorant of facts.

 

[ankitj]

I am perhaps in the rare group of people who actually enjoyed watching Murali more. If there is less to separate the two in tests, limited overs cricket does put Murali ahead. It's interesting to note that Murali has the second best ER (behind S Ashwin) in 3 seasons of IPL combined. Just one stat I can pull out to illustrate how incredibly hard Murali has been to attack.

Needless to say though, both are real champions and blessed the cricketing world by emerging at about the same time.

 

[kingkallis]

I am perhaps in the rare group of people who actually enjoyed watching Murali more. If there is less to separate the two in tests, limited overs cricket does put Murali ahead. It's interesting to note that Murali has the second best ER (behind S Ashwin) in 3 seasons of IPL combined. Just one stat I can pull out to illustrate how incredibly hard Murali has been to attack.

Needless to say though, both are real champions and blessed the cricketing world by emerging at about the same time.

RARE? You will find hundreds of such RARE groups then...

I started loving Murali after his heroic effort against England in England in a high scoring test match where he helped Sri Lanka win their maiden test win in England.

 

[Tom 1972]

AFAIC, there is no * and there was none put officially. Those who do put the * are, to put it simply, plain ignorant of facts.

Fair enough.

Given that the rules have been changed, Murali is officially legal and statistically superior to anyone else. But people are entitled to their opinions, whether you agree with them or not.

 

[aussie]

My position on the Warne vs Murali debate has evovled over the years to believe that Murali was fractionally better than Warne.

I think batsmen found Murali slightly harder to pick/read that Warne at their peaks.

What titled it in slight favour of Murali for me was watching Warne & Murali bowling in consecutive English summers in 2005 & 2006. Warne bowled a pretty much his absolute peak, single handedly keeping AUS in the Ashes. But the next year i honestly thought England's batsmen where even more lost againts Murali.

 

[ankitj]

RARE? You will find hundreds of such RARE groups then...

I started loving Murali after his heroic effort against England in England in a high scoring test match where he helped Sri Lanka win their maiden test win in England.

The key word there was 'more'. I have heard lot of people say they never get bored of watching Warne and that I have failed to appreciate because for me Murali was always a greater delight. It may partly have to do with the fact that I watched Warne mostly against India who routinely reduced him to a mortal.

As far as all the statistical comparisons go, I think one has to keep in mind that Murali became a force some time around 1999. So a real picture of how good he was at peak would emerge if you look at his next 10-11 years after that. And though I haven't yet dug into stat databases, but my gut feel is that in that period he will be considerably ahead of Warne in any period of comparable length.

 

[Ikki]

Personally, I hate it when people mention Murali being statistically superior as if it's a given. It certainly isn't and more than a strong case is made for Warne in this thread, if people care to read.

As for watching them; I don't think Murali came close to Warne in terms of being wonderful to watch. Although that's clearly it's a subjective thing. As Chappell said recently, with Warne I felt every ball was an event. With Murali there seemed more of an inevitability.

 

[Ikki]

The key word there was 'more'. I have heard lot of people say they never get bored of watching Warne and that I have failed to appreciate because for me Murali was always a greater delight. It may partly have to do with the fact that I watched Warne mostly against India who routinely reduced him to a mortal.

As far as all the statistical comparisons go, I think one has to keep in mind that Murali became a force some time around 1999. So a real picture of how good he was at peak would emerge if you look at his next 10-11 years after that. And though I haven't yet dug into stat databases, but my gut feel is that in that period he will be considerably ahead of Warne in any period of comparable length.

Depends really whether you include Bangladesh and Zimbabwe; otherwise post 2000 Warne has more impressive figures.

Incredibly, Warne's neck and neck with McGrath in terms of SR in the 2000s, which for a spinner is almost unbelievable.

 

[honestbharani]

Fair enough.

Given that the rules have been changed, Murali is officially legal and statistically superior to anyone else. But people are entitled to their opinions, whether you agree with them or not.

yeah, opinions are fine but the poster mentioned as though it were some sort of given.. It never was and honestly, is factually incorrect...

 

[Slifer]

Personally, I hate it when people mention Murali being statistically superior as if it's a given. It certainly isn't and more than a strong case is made for Warne in this thread, if people care to read.

As for watching them; I don't think Murali came close to Warne in terms of being wonderful to watch. Although that's clearly it's a subjective thing. As Chappell said recently, with Warne I felt every ball was an event. With Murali there seemed more of an inevitability.

Ikki if a Neube to cricket looked at the stats of both men then it s quite obvious that Murali's are a bit more impressive than Warnes. WPm, SR, Average, 10 fors 5 fors etc. Only when u look at the stats more closely does one realise the differences.

Either way I dont rate spinners at all (sorry to say) which is probably y Ive kept mostly quiet on this thread.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Either way I dont rate spinners at all (sorry to say) which is probably y Ive kept mostly quiet on this thread.

Really, why?

Not trying to pick an argument, am just interested in why you wouldn't rate them.

Personally, I rate people like Murali and Warne very highly. It's incredibly difficult to do what they do to such an impressive level. This is evidenced by the fact that there have been so few spinners who have performed to this level over the years (actually, there's been none! haha They're the best 2, arguably).

Like almost everyone, I've tried Warne's leggies (can't bowl like Murali) and usually I come up with a top-spinner and that's about it. It's such a difficult art to master.

Pace bowling is difficult too, but I'd argue that hitting the seam and moving it about is slightly easier than bowling a leggie, wrong-un, flipper, slider etc etc etc.

 

[Migara]

Really, why?

Not trying to pick an argument, am just interested in why you wouldn't rate them.

Personally, I rate people like Murali and Warne very highly. It's incredibly difficult to do what they do to such an impressive level. This is evidenced by the fact that there have been so few spinners who have performed to this level over the years (actually, there's been none! haha They're the best 2, arguably).

Like almost everyone, I've tried Warne's leggies (can't bowl like Murali) and usually I come up with a top-spinner and that's about it. It's such a difficult art to master.

Pace bowling is difficult too, but I'd argue that hitting the seam and moving it about is slightly easier than bowling a leggie, wrong-un, flipper, slider etc etc etc.

Some people even don't rate wicket keepers.

 

[vcs]

I don't rate slow left-arm offspinners much. Must be all the scars of watching Raju as a kid.