I agree, but Warney did something of note in the 2004 series right? Not spectacular by his Ashes standards, but ok still.
Sorry I haven't really been keeping up to date with this thread. This comment got my attention though.
Yes Warne played very well India in 2004 which was part (perhaps not a big part) of the reason why Australia finally triumphed in India.
That said, Warne averaged a solid 30 in that series and got a fiver in one game. I hate stats and seldom use them, but considering Kumble's been the must successful spinner in India for the past 20/30 years (in fact arguably ever!) and he averages around 28/29, I thought Warne did a good, if unspectacular job.
In fact I rated Warne the best bowler in the world in 2004. In terms of quality of bowling I rate his efforts against Sri Lanka as good as his efforts in the 2005 Ashes. He was remarkable there.
But that's besides my point. There's a lot of myths about why Warne never did well in India, and many of them are false. Warne was coming off an injury in 1998 and was struggling for form when he came against Tendulkar (at the height of his powers) who'd been practicing leg spin for months in the nets. It was a similar sotry in 2001 and in fact I recall thinking Warne would retire after the series because his form was horrendous.
For me, I can tell good bowling when I see it and Warne, quite simply, bowled terrible in 1998 and 2001. If we'd seen Warne at his best in India, then he'd have a different record. Indians are great players of spin, but for me Warne hit India at the wrong time. In 2004 he was back to his best and he did a very solid job.
I'd also like to make a point about Murali...
There's a myth going around that Murali can't bowl on Australian pitches or that he can't do it against the very best - that being Australia. But for me his 4-400 (I think that's right) from three tests was more impressive than anything the other Sri Lanken bowlers, who took more wickets, did.
What to me was a telling factor was the caution the Aussies played Murali with. It's not like they were scoring over three an over off him. They were very cautious - Mike Hussey especially. In my opinion the other Sri Lanken bowlers got more wickets because the Aussies seemed more comfortable playing their shots and playing more freely.
It was also clear to me that only the very highest quality batting was enough to see Murali off. To me Murali can do it against Australia because any less than what Hussey and Clarke did and Murali would have taken more wickets.
To me, the respect the Aussies showed Murali says more about who the best bowler is than who took more wickets because I swear the Aussies were far less cautious against other players.