-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion
- Thread starter Mr Mxyzptlk
- Start date
Dissector
International Debutant
Well he was a bit expensive in terms of average but in terms of wickets per innings: 16 in 5 is excellent and better than Warne has ever done against India. And I don't think that anyone will soon forget his superb spell in the second test: particularly the doosra that bowled Dhoni. Overall I don't think the tour did anything to change my opinion that Murali is better than Warne though it also confirmed that Indians are superb players of spin. Will be interesting to see how Murali does in his next series. His doosra has reached new heights and I suspect most teams are going to find it hellishly difficult to play.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Murali now has 31 wickets @ 39.58 in India, to Warne's 34 wickets @ 43.12.
Given that Warne has toured India 3 times, twice in the worst period of his career and once where he did decently and missed the best pitch of the series, I'd say that reflects decently on Warne, and certainly puts to bed any suggestion that Murali has vastly outperformed Warne against the world's best players of spin.
Given that Warne has toured India 3 times, twice in the worst period of his career and once where he did decently and missed the best pitch of the series, I'd say that reflects decently on Warne, and certainly puts to bed any suggestion that Murali has vastly outperformed Warne against the world's best players of spin.
Dissector
International Debutant
If you add in their respective records against India at home, Murali is the clear winner, though. Overall both have played 14 tests against India (before this one) but Murali has taken 61 @ 32 while Warne has taken 43@47.
BTW in comparing India in 2005 with 2004, one important factor is that India's lower middle order is clearly stronger with Dhoni and a much improved Pathan. Both played a significant role in attacking Murali and upsetting his rhythm. Also in 2004 Australia won the three tosses and put up a good first innings score in 2 out of 3 tests. In 2005 India won all the tosses and obtained a first innings lead in both the full tests.
BTW in comparing India in 2005 with 2004, one important factor is that India's lower middle order is clearly stronger with Dhoni and a much improved Pathan. Both played a significant role in attacking Murali and upsetting his rhythm. Also in 2004 Australia won the three tosses and put up a good first innings score in 2 out of 3 tests. In 2005 India won all the tosses and obtained a first innings lead in both the full tests.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Murali has a better home record against India yes, but Warne has has little in the way of decent opportunities. He has played two home series against India, one of which was his first series ever in test cricket, and the other was yet another series against India which fell between 98 and 2001, in his worst period as a test bowler. He certainly struggled in that second series, but it was not a particularly good respresentation of his quality as a bowler, as he was struggling for fitness through several serious injuries at the time. I think, for both Murali and Warne, their most recent match-ups against India are the most accurate reflections on their genuine ability against the best players of spin, where both performed well without managing to dominate.
C_C
International Captain
Warney's performance against IND cannot be excused away - he plain and simple came second best.The series he played in IND and vs IND was not affected adversely by his shoulder injury. His injury happened after the test in the series and he bowled the test series perhaps not at his best fitness but definately not below par. His next series vs IND, he was already back from his injury and recovered- he even had matchpractice- played in 3 consecutive series before IND( i think) and almost the full quota as well.
In the first ever encounter, Warney was debuting and he got schooled- which was not unexpected against IND. ( he was pretty competent as a spiner though- in just over a year's time from his debut he was bowling the Gatting ball).
Next one, Warney came to IND at the top of the world and the contest of Warney vs IND was billed as 'battle of the decade' stuff. He had a few niggles ( not unlike many bowlers) and got simply annihilated- Tendulkar shattered his confidence in the tour game OZ played vs Mumbai and Warney was rattled- subsequently he was overbowled and broke down with his shoulder injury in the ODI series following the tests.
In the following series, in 99, he faced a woeful IND team - short on form - that got whitewashed by OZ in OZ. Yet, he was hammered in that series. He'd been back from injury/surgery for a while and had just played several matches on the trot but was found inadequate vs India.
The next series was the infamous '281' series and Warney was bowling pretty well - but he got swept aside as usual.
The last series he's played against India so far saw him take on the IND team woefully short of form and hampered by injury and doing decently. He missed the best spinning pitch in that series but at the same time, was smashed around by tail-enders while rarely troubling an established top-order batsman barring Laxman.
In short, Warne's performance, if it could be graded would've been something like F, F, F, F, C vs India.
In the first ever encounter, Warney was debuting and he got schooled- which was not unexpected against IND. ( he was pretty competent as a spiner though- in just over a year's time from his debut he was bowling the Gatting ball).
Next one, Warney came to IND at the top of the world and the contest of Warney vs IND was billed as 'battle of the decade' stuff. He had a few niggles ( not unlike many bowlers) and got simply annihilated- Tendulkar shattered his confidence in the tour game OZ played vs Mumbai and Warney was rattled- subsequently he was overbowled and broke down with his shoulder injury in the ODI series following the tests.
In the following series, in 99, he faced a woeful IND team - short on form - that got whitewashed by OZ in OZ. Yet, he was hammered in that series. He'd been back from injury/surgery for a while and had just played several matches on the trot but was found inadequate vs India.
The next series was the infamous '281' series and Warney was bowling pretty well - but he got swept aside as usual.
The last series he's played against India so far saw him take on the IND team woefully short of form and hampered by injury and doing decently. He missed the best spinning pitch in that series but at the same time, was smashed around by tail-enders while rarely troubling an established top-order batsman barring Laxman.
In short, Warne's performance, if it could be graded would've been something like F, F, F, F, C vs India.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
There is no doubt that Warne has been relatively poor vs India. Whether or not it has been even moderately attributable to injury still seems open to debate.
However, for every criticism of Warne, an equal no. can be pointed at Murali.
Warne was annointed as one of the 5 cricketers of the last century by Wisden.
Just the other day, Dennis Lillee stated that Warne, in his opinion, was the greatest cricketer ever.
Warne himself has stated recently that Murali's record is padded.
However, Murali's record, IMO, demands that he be held in the same esteem.
However, for every criticism of Warne, an equal no. can be pointed at Murali.
Warne was annointed as one of the 5 cricketers of the last century by Wisden.
Just the other day, Dennis Lillee stated that Warne, in his opinion, was the greatest cricketer ever.
Warne himself has stated recently that Murali's record is padded.
However, Murali's record, IMO, demands that he be held in the same esteem.
Dissector
International Debutant
Yeah I don't think you can just downplay three consecutive series against India over a four year period in the middle of Warne's career. If nothing else it indicates that Warne has lacked consistency across his career relative to Murali.
Also I think the latest India tours by the two, illustrate advantages that Warne has had throughout his career. A better batting lineup than Sri Lanka. A better new ball attack to get the early breakthroughs and put pressure at the other end. Also probably better fielding and keeping on average than Murali has had. So IMO Murali's significantly better statistics both overall and against India understate his superiority to Warne as a bowler.
Also I think the latest India tours by the two, illustrate advantages that Warne has had throughout his career. A better batting lineup than Sri Lanka. A better new ball attack to get the early breakthroughs and put pressure at the other end. Also probably better fielding and keeping on average than Murali has had. So IMO Murali's significantly better statistics both overall and against India understate his superiority to Warne as a bowler.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Take a look at Warne's performances from his 98 shoulder injury onward.
Firstly he had what was, all things considered, his poorest series against India outright. He was carrying an injury (and this is widely documented... yes he was fit to play, but he was not at his best, and was due to break down), but he was a strong time in his career and was taken apart brilliantly.
He took 10 wickets @ 54.
After that he played an Ashes series for which he was not fit, having missed a significant amount of cricket with his shoulder problem, and only played 1 test, taking 2 wickets @ 55.
He then toured the West Indies, was so woefully out of form that he was -dropped- from the test side, and took 2 wickets @ 134.
He was in and out of both the test and ODI teams throughout this period, and following his shoulder problem he developed other injuries, most notably to his spinning finger, which would also require surgery in the future and sideline him.
He had two series in which he bowled only a little on his return, but did decently in both of them, taking 8 wickets against Sri Lanka (over 3 tests!) and 6 against Zimbabwe in one game, at cheap averages.
When India and Pakistan toured in the 99/00 season in Australia, Warne was available to play, but he was unfit, had bowled just 200 or so overs in test cricket since the India tour in 98 (in two years), and was bowling the worst of his career. He worked through a solid but unspectacular series against Pakistan, who are usually his bunnies, averaging 30, and then got belted by India, taking 8 @ 41.
He was then sidelined with another injury, which caused him a miss a significant part of Australia's record winning streak and the whole 00/01 home summer, before making his comeback with an average tour of New Zealand, taking 15 @ 27. He was finally getting over his long run of injuries at this point, and would eventually get back to his best, though he would not dominate anyone as he had until he toured Pakistan in October 2002, over a year later.
He then went to India, playing them for the third time in the 98-2001 period, and was once again belted. During this entire period, he struggled against all opposition, not averaging under 25 in any series in which he bowled 100 overs, and in fact averaging under 30 only against New Zealand. He averaged 33, 32, 33 and 31 overall year-by-year from 98 to 2001. In the 14 years that Warne has played test cricket, he has averaged over 30 only six times, four of them in this period, and one of the others being his debut year.
His test average rose from 23.82 to 26.62 in this period, and then levelled out as he gradually returned to his best, with a decreased range, having lost his wrong'un and his flipper, and having needed to rethink his bowling. When he next played India, he performed servicably well.
The point of all this, is that while it is true that Warne has struggled against India, the fact that he played them at times when it was most difficult for him to bowl at his best is not irrelevant, or simply making excuses. India have played Warne very well, and chances are he would probably have struggled aaginst them anyway, but not anywhere near as much as he did, particularly in 99/00 and in 2001.
Firstly he had what was, all things considered, his poorest series against India outright. He was carrying an injury (and this is widely documented... yes he was fit to play, but he was not at his best, and was due to break down), but he was a strong time in his career and was taken apart brilliantly.
He took 10 wickets @ 54.
After that he played an Ashes series for which he was not fit, having missed a significant amount of cricket with his shoulder problem, and only played 1 test, taking 2 wickets @ 55.
He then toured the West Indies, was so woefully out of form that he was -dropped- from the test side, and took 2 wickets @ 134.
He was in and out of both the test and ODI teams throughout this period, and following his shoulder problem he developed other injuries, most notably to his spinning finger, which would also require surgery in the future and sideline him.
He had two series in which he bowled only a little on his return, but did decently in both of them, taking 8 wickets against Sri Lanka (over 3 tests!) and 6 against Zimbabwe in one game, at cheap averages.
When India and Pakistan toured in the 99/00 season in Australia, Warne was available to play, but he was unfit, had bowled just 200 or so overs in test cricket since the India tour in 98 (in two years), and was bowling the worst of his career. He worked through a solid but unspectacular series against Pakistan, who are usually his bunnies, averaging 30, and then got belted by India, taking 8 @ 41.
He was then sidelined with another injury, which caused him a miss a significant part of Australia's record winning streak and the whole 00/01 home summer, before making his comeback with an average tour of New Zealand, taking 15 @ 27. He was finally getting over his long run of injuries at this point, and would eventually get back to his best, though he would not dominate anyone as he had until he toured Pakistan in October 2002, over a year later.
He then went to India, playing them for the third time in the 98-2001 period, and was once again belted. During this entire period, he struggled against all opposition, not averaging under 25 in any series in which he bowled 100 overs, and in fact averaging under 30 only against New Zealand. He averaged 33, 32, 33 and 31 overall year-by-year from 98 to 2001. In the 14 years that Warne has played test cricket, he has averaged over 30 only six times, four of them in this period, and one of the others being his debut year.
His test average rose from 23.82 to 26.62 in this period, and then levelled out as he gradually returned to his best, with a decreased range, having lost his wrong'un and his flipper, and having needed to rethink his bowling. When he next played India, he performed servicably well.
The point of all this, is that while it is true that Warne has struggled against India, the fact that he played them at times when it was most difficult for him to bowl at his best is not irrelevant, or simply making excuses. India have played Warne very well, and chances are he would probably have struggled aaginst them anyway, but not anywhere near as much as he did, particularly in 99/00 and in 2001.
C_C
International Captain
Here is my take on Murali's record against India so far:
In the first series vs India, he did decently for such a young spinner - averaged 34 while he didnt pick up too many wickets and kept the scoring under control.
Next up, he played India in India in 94 and did rather decently ( no spinner that decade did better in India barring Saqlain Mushtaq i think) while exclusively carrying the bowling attack. Picked up 12 wickets @ 35.00 in 3 tests.
After that, followed the series at home in 97, where he bowled on one of the worst bowling pitches in modern times- his performance was easily the best one amongst all frontline bowlers and it was a series not very kind to frontline bowlers - an average of 150 overs were bowled per innings with one of the highest scoring tests as well.
In the series after, in India, he absolutely bombed out, picking up 3 wickets @ 100 + average ..
Then he played against IND at home where he did excellently - 23 wickets in 3 matches at under 20 runs/wicket. That is better than any other bowler over a series vs IND in the last 15 years or so. And contrary to beleif that the pitches in that series were regular style SL turners, those were not very friendly spinner wickets for most part.
The first test was very pacer-friendly ( Pacers picked up 18 of the 30 wickets to fall) and Murali did pretty good in that one.
The second test was again a pacers affair, where they picked up 27 of 33 wickets and neither side reached 300 in any of their innings. Murali did pretty well in that match as well, practically picking up all the wickets by a spinner.
The third and final test was a true batting pitch that took spin and Murali destroyed IND in that match- in the first innings.
Following that, in the most recent series vs IND, Murali did pretty decently - He has bowled decently overall, with one brilliant spell thrown in between.
I would say that Murali, while having being bested by IND batsmen, hasn't been soundly thrashed like Warney has most of the time.
Overall, i would rate Murali's performance as D, C+, C, F, A, C+
In short, i think Murali has done far better than Warney against India and it had very little to do with 'spinning tracks at home' .
In the first series vs India, he did decently for such a young spinner - averaged 34 while he didnt pick up too many wickets and kept the scoring under control.
Next up, he played India in India in 94 and did rather decently ( no spinner that decade did better in India barring Saqlain Mushtaq i think) while exclusively carrying the bowling attack. Picked up 12 wickets @ 35.00 in 3 tests.
After that, followed the series at home in 97, where he bowled on one of the worst bowling pitches in modern times- his performance was easily the best one amongst all frontline bowlers and it was a series not very kind to frontline bowlers - an average of 150 overs were bowled per innings with one of the highest scoring tests as well.
In the series after, in India, he absolutely bombed out, picking up 3 wickets @ 100 + average ..
Then he played against IND at home where he did excellently - 23 wickets in 3 matches at under 20 runs/wicket. That is better than any other bowler over a series vs IND in the last 15 years or so. And contrary to beleif that the pitches in that series were regular style SL turners, those were not very friendly spinner wickets for most part.
The first test was very pacer-friendly ( Pacers picked up 18 of the 30 wickets to fall) and Murali did pretty good in that one.
The second test was again a pacers affair, where they picked up 27 of 33 wickets and neither side reached 300 in any of their innings. Murali did pretty well in that match as well, practically picking up all the wickets by a spinner.
The third and final test was a true batting pitch that took spin and Murali destroyed IND in that match- in the first innings.
Following that, in the most recent series vs IND, Murali did pretty decently - He has bowled decently overall, with one brilliant spell thrown in between.
I would say that Murali, while having being bested by IND batsmen, hasn't been soundly thrashed like Warney has most of the time.
Overall, i would rate Murali's performance as D, C+, C, F, A, C+
In short, i think Murali has done far better than Warney against India and it had very little to do with 'spinning tracks at home' .
Dissector
International Debutant
Actually Wisden has named Murali the greatest bowler of all time. Their players of the century award obviously doesn't consider performances after the 20th century.
I hardly think that statements by Lillee and Warne himself count as impartial opinions. And Warne's latest thinly veiled attacks on Murali are both inaccurate and in poor taste. Murali's record remains better than Warne's even if you ignore Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. If Sri Lanka played the same number of tests as Australia Warne would probably never have gotten the record.
I hardly think that statements by Lillee and Warne himself count as impartial opinions. And Warne's latest thinly veiled attacks on Murali are both inaccurate and in poor taste. Murali's record remains better than Warne's even if you ignore Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. If Sri Lanka played the same number of tests as Australia Warne would probably never have gotten the record.
C_C
International Captain
No, it was widely perpetrated after the series. Warney had a niggling shoulder before the series, which is no worse than an injury most bowlers play through with at one point or another. He was overbowled and manhandled - his shoulder simply gave way in the ODI series following it.
After Ashes, he missed several series and came back vs the WI, which was his first return series vs the WI. He was dropped after that but played 7 of the 8 matches before IND's series vs OZ at home. He was neither injured, nor lacking matchpractice and whats more, he had IND wide open, being utterly decimated by the OZ pace battery.
Warney has struggled more often than Murali but his struggles should not be justified away by his injury problems, which essentially clouded 2 years of his career. Not pretty much the entire 1997 to 2003 phase ( his worst phase). His struggles are something that can be chalked up as ' did not perform adequately'.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
How do you rate Murali's career given that he's opted not to play against the best team unless conditions suit him?
Given that Murali has taken nearly 20% of his wickets in "club" games, by what factor do you discount his career record?
Given that Murali has never played in a series remotely approaching the pressure of the Ashes, by what what factor do you discount his remaining wickets?
In summary, for every hole in Warne's career, there are an equal no. (or more) in Murali's.
Given that Murali has taken nearly 20% of his wickets in "club" games, by what factor do you discount his career record?
Given that Murali has never played in a series remotely approaching the pressure of the Ashes, by what what factor do you discount his remaining wickets?
In summary, for every hole in Warne's career, there are an equal no. (or more) in Murali's.
C_C
International Captain
Well maybe if the best team's head of the state didnt indulge in erroneous and dastardly insinuations, he would've toured OZ - and then again, its a completely justified perspective from him - if it were me, i wouldnt care to ever step in OZ. Besides, for spinners, the best and thus the toughest team they can face is India, not Australia.social said:
By his performance against best of the best ( IND when it comes to spin bowling), his performance away from home, against top level teams and overall consistency through the years, keeping in perspective the lack of bowling support for Murali.
If the 'Ashes' is high on the pressure list, the Indian and Pakistani cricketers should be given awards for mental toughness for IND-PAK encounters are far far more pressure-intensive than any other rivalry. And that too, by several light years.
Far less holes when viewed objectively, rather than through glasses painted with national colors.
C_C
International Captain
All of which fell in a 2-3 year period and neither of which were immediately preceeding his games vs India.social said:
His first series was his debut series and second series was right before his shoulder breakdown.( and he was playing excellently till he was in IND - and miraculously, he had a 'career threatening injury' all along before IND, added as post script. Interesting exercise in circular logic and misrepresentation of facts here !)
The next one was after he'd come back from injury and played 7 of the last 8-9 tests.
The one after was clear of his 'injury' scare and so was the last series.
In reality, warne's injuries cannot be used to explain away his performance against IND, simply because they bear no correlation or immediate precedence.