*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[parttimer]

Yeah, ur probably right, cos I doubt anyone could be worse at playing Warne than the poms

 

[Sanz]

It didn't hurt him at Edgebaston or Trent Bridge where he took 10 and 8 wickets respectively at 22.

..and obviously Strauss-Tresco-Vaughan-Flintoff-Bell-Jones-KP are as good against spin as SRT-Sehwag-Sidhu-VVS-Dravid-Ganguly.

 

[parttimer]

..and obviously Strauss-Tresco-Vaughan-Flintoff-Bell-Jones-KP are as good against spin as SRT-Sehwag-Sidhu-VVS-Dravid-Ganguly.

Well, he had the wood on VVS during the 2004 tour, and we know how badly he bowled then. Also took the wickets of Sehwag and Dravid cheaply in the Super Test. Ganguly, don't make me laugh. SRT on on the other hand i'll give you that one

 

[Sanz]

Heres an interview with Warne previewing the 2004 tour, that also touches on past tours..

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/14/1089694425046.html?from=storylhs

Well the man himself says that "...In my 13 years of playing of international cricket, it's the one place we haven't won and I think they've played me extremely well,..."

Anyways the point is even when he was fully fit in 2004 against an Indian batting that was awefully out of form, SRT was not there for the most part either. Warnie still ended up being the worst Aussie bowler on the tour and had a 30 plus average.

 

[parttimer]

Well the man himself says that "...In my 13 years of playing of international cricket, it's the one place we haven't won and I think they've played me extremely well,..."

Anyways the point is even when he was fully fit in 2004 against an Indian batting that was awefully out of form, SRT was not there for the most part either. Warnie still ended up being the worst Aussie bowler on the tour and had a 30 plus average.

Read what i said about that to HB.

 

[Sanz]

Well, he had the wood on VVS during the 2004 tour, and we know how badly he bowled then. Also took the wickets of Sehwag and Dravid cheaply in the Super Test. Ganguly, don't make me laugh. SRT on on the other hand i'll give you that one

Actually Ganguly is a very good player of spin and slow bowling, he has been figured out by fast bowlers and in any case I would pick even the current Ganguly over Bell any day. VVS may have struggled in the last series but then so did every other Indian batsman.

And no he didn't take Sehwag's wicket cheaply in the ICC series, Sehwag had already scored 76 in 82 balls and besides anyone who watched the catch Katich took would tell you that it was more of Katich's wicket than Warnie's About Dravid I have always maintain that Dravid (along with cullinan) is Warnie's favorrite bunny in test cricket so hardly any surprise there.

 

[parttimer]

Actually Ganguly is a very good player of spin and slow bowling, he has been figured out by fast bowlers and in any case I would pick even the current Ganguly over Bell any day. VVS may have struggled in the last series but then so did every other Indian batsman.

And no he didn't take Sehwag's wicket cheaply in the ICC series, Sehwag had already scored 76 in 82 balls and besides anyone who watched the catch Katich took would tell you that it was more of Katich's wicket than Warnie's About Dravid I have always maintain that Dravid (along with cullinan) is Warnie's favorrite bunny in test cricket so hardly any surprise there.

Considering he took 3/23 including Sehwags wicket its pretty safe to assume he wasn't smashed around, which is what i was alluding to, not Sehwags score

 

[Sanz]

Well Sehwag didn't stay too long, did he ?? In any case I wont judge his success against Sehwag on the basis of just one test where Sehwag smashed almost every bowler he faced except Warne and Mcgill and that suggests me that it was not because Warnie was successful against Sehwag but more because Sehwag didn't last long enough and was out to a freakish catch by Katich.

Anways, I dont think we are going anywhere with this discussion and you can certainly have you opinion and I can have mine.

 

[parttimer]

OK with me

 

[Tom Halsey]

better cricket brain overall.

A fantastic point, I've often felt Murali just bowls the biggest spinning off-spinners and doosras he can, Warne thinks about what he's doing.

(AMZ to say Warne takes all his wickets against tailenders after today's play in 5... 4... 3...)

 

[Tom Halsey]

My much debated analysis belongs in this thread.

Points in Favour of Murali

1) Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (43 wickets at 47.18). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94).

2) Murali has a better average, strike rate, economy rate, and takes more wickets per match than Warne; despite the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team.

3) Murali has a better record against all countries, except South Africa and Pakistan.

4) Murali is far more consistent. Warne has been known to be hammered occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he is very rarely hit around the park.

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur

Murali
36 6 123 1 3.42 1 L 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
54 3 224 2 4.15 2 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1 L 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin

5) Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee - Marshall having a better average because the high class West Indian bowlers put greater pressure on the batsmen, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. Same with Lindwall vs Bedser, Ambrose vs Akram, Laker vs Tayfield, and many, many others. Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.

6) A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway). What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?

7) Although Warne has been less effective since his shoulder injury, even at his peak (1993-97) he was not as good as Murali has been this century.

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 2000-2003 37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97 57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24

8) Murali on top form is more devastating than Warne on top form.

Best innings:

9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02 [1583]
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998 [1423]
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001 [1559]

Best Series:

Murali
Sri Lanka in Pakistan, 1999/00 [Series]
3 213.1 516 26 6/71 19.84 2.42 49.1 1 1
South Africa in Sri Lanka, 2000 [Series]
3 227.4 480 26 7/84 18.46 2.10 52.5 3 1
Zimbabwe in Sri Lanka, 2001/02 [Series]
3 203.1 294 30 9/51 9.80 1.44 40.6 2 1
England in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 231.4 320 26 7/46 12.30 1.38 53.4 1 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 209.1 649 28 6/59 23.17 3.10 44.8 4 1

Warne
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1993 [Series]
6 439.5 877 34 5/82 25.79 1.99 77.6 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1994/95 [Series]
5 256.1 549 27 8/71 20.33 2.14 56.9 2 1
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2001 [Series]
5 195.2 580 31 7/165 18.70 2.96 37.8 3 1
Australia v Pakistan Test Series in Sri Lanka/U.A.E., 2002/03 [Series]
3 124 342 27 7/94 12.66 2.75 27.5 2 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 168 521 26 5/43 20.03 3.10 38.7 4 2
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2005 [Series]
5 252.5 797 40 6/46 12/246 19.92 3.15 37.9 3 2


9) You could take a look at their respective records in the English county championship (note Murali was by far the star bowler in every season he played, while several Hampshire bowlers took wickets more cheaply than Warne in all his seasons):

Mat B M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 25 7695 391 2735 185 14.78 7-39 21 6 41.5 2.13
Warne 36 8423 323 3858 162 23.81 6-34 9 0 51.9 2.74

10) One reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.

Warne constantly gets so many accolades/awards that he doesn't deserve, purely through a God like reputation galvanised by ill educated media hype. In truth, his career has been highly inconsistent, he has constantly failed against the best, benefited from the opportunity to nail tails after McGrath and co have dismissed the better batsmen, and his overall career figures fall short of the truely great category.

Points in Favour of Warne

1) Has much greater competition for wickets, and yet still has more victims than any other Test bowler in history.

2) Has not had the opportunity to destroy Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Murali has taken over a fifth of his wickets against these teams while Warne has played a combined total of 2 matches against them.

3) Has a better average and strike rate outside Sri Lanka than Murali.

4) Recognised by the (biased) Anglo-Australian media as the best spinner of all times.

5) At his peak he had more variation than Murali.

6) He has a better record away from home than Murali.

7) Does not get the opportunity to play half his matches on dustbowls.

Conclusion: Murali > Warne

The only way any statistics will convince me is if you break them down into Asia and outside of Asia. I believe I noticed that Warne 93-95 (which was actually his peak, if you discount his recent revival from late 2002 onwards) compared to Murali 2000-2003, when broken down into countries played in, stats in those countries, is actually pretty heavily in favour of Warne.

And all your points in favour of Warne, apart from 1 or 4, are much more important to me than your stats of Murali, mostly on dustbowls.

 

[What-A-Player]

2 Greats

Murali can be better on Sub-Cons
Warne is more like "everywhere" except India

My Opinion ' Photo Finish '

 

[Pratters]

I don't think Warne can fairly described as crap against India. The super test showed that their batsman are no less fallible against him than the rest. He dismissed Dravid with a beaut classic leg break and felled Sehway to.

His lack of success on tours to India have IMO been in no small part explained by his shoulder and finger injuries. On the last tour (yer the excuses are comin thick and fast but are IMO valid) by poor form. In regards to the latter, he suffered from a technical fault ie. bowling around himself that caused him to lose drift and loop that has made him so effective in the past. The relative lack of success at home v NZ and then Pakistan, where he was outbowled by Danish Kaneria confirmed for me it was a technical thing.

His then subsequent return to form in Eng followed a crucial coaching session with Troy Cooley on the eve of the first test when Cooley helped him overcome the problem. As we know, he hasn't hasn't looked back since. As i type this he bowls Edwards with a beaut WRONGIN. Great to see him back to his best here..

Correction: It was Terry Jenner he consulted in England.
As i was saying I don't doubt Warnes ability to have success in India, if he's free of injuries and in good form.

I mentioned in India for Murali and Warne and not specificly againt India

In India apart from every thing there are two other factors - Indians play spin better at home than any where else, the grounds are small. So you can hit lofted shots which would be caught on the boundary in Australia but would go for sixes in India.

It is alarming that BOTH bowlers have a career average of above 40 in India.

 

[luckyeddie]

2 Greats

Murali can be better on Sub-Cons
Warne is more like "everywhere" except India

My Opinion ' Photo Finish '

Fortunately, that's what most intelligent individuals think.

 

[Pratters]

The only way any statistics will convince me is if you break them down into Asia and outside of Asia.

The statsguru comparisons I provide list region wise break up as well if you are interested.

 

[shaka]

Although I wasnt able to watch the 3rd days play (not sure if thats a bad thing) due to playing cricket, I heard Warne used the flipper again.

 

[King_Ponting]

yeh he did, got an lbw with it as well

 

[chaminda_00]

Yeah he was bowling it the best he has since his first shoulder injury, not a good sign for other teams.

 

[King_Ponting]

and his wrong un was quality also.... warne appears to be at the top of his game

 

[chaminda_00]

his been bowling his wrong un very well since the Ashes and NZ series IMO, it just that with more left handers in the Windies side its more noticable.