Interesting you say
Murali and Warne are not far apart as ODI bowlers. As most ranking exercises on CW will show you, Murali is treated as clearly the better bowler/cricketer than Warne. Pick up any exercise on this forum. And there are good reasons for that. Murali had an ER that is 0.3 rpo below Warne's which is significant and then add the fact that Murali played his last ODI in 2011 while Warne retired somewhere in 2003 (came back for one exhibition kind of ODI in 2005). Murali took 10 fivers compared to Warne's just 1. And their records against India, the best players of spin, are even more stark in ODI then in tests. See below the stark difference between average, ER, SR, BBI and even number of maidens:
| | Span | Mat | Overs | Mdns | Wkts | BBI | Ave | Econ | SR | 4 | 5 |
M Muralitharan | v India | 1993-2011 | 63 | 549.3 | 28 | 74 | 7/30 | 31.78 | 4.28 | 44.5 | 0 | 1 |
Shane Warne | v India | 1994-2001 | 18 | 162.2 | 2 | 15 | 3/38 | 56.26 | 5.19 | 64.9 | 0 | 0 |
On
Pollock vs. McGrath, I always rate McGrath the superior bowler. But the to say McGrath is a class above Pollock is laughable. At an ER of 3.67 while playing until 2008, Pollock must be rated as one of the most miserly bowlers in ODI. For comparison, someone like Lillee who played ODI only until 1983 had only slightly better ER at 3.58. He also picked wickets in heap often (had 5 fivers compared to McGrath's 7) but McGrath was clearly more prolific. So effectively Pollock relatively more economic, McGrath more prolific wicket taker. In sum, McGrath slightly better for mine but not by much.
PS. Issue is not that you consider Murali and Warne more or less at par. Issue is you do that while arguing McGrath was a class above Pollock.