Warne Vs Murali

[Red Bear]

I think Vaas is a good bowler, Zaheer Kahn is over rated and Akhtar is a showpony. Akhtar can bowl well but has no heart.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Yes, because as we saw during the Ashes, Warney needed quality bowlers at the other end to take wickets. He averaged 20 during the Ashes, shall we put that down to the sustained pressure created by the accuracy of Lee, Tait, Kaspa and Dizzy?

No

What exactly is your point?

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I think Vaas is a good bowler, Zaheer Kahn is over rated and Akhtar is a showpony. Akhtar can bowl well but has no heart.

Overall, Akhtar is an awesome test bowler. The only thing counting against him is all the time he spends off the field for dubious reasons.

 

[Red Bear]

exactly what i mean, he's good but has no heart compared to other fast bowlers.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

No

What exactly is your point?

Have you got half a brain??

 

[JJ]

Overall, Akhtar is an awesome test bowler. The only thing counting against him is all the time he spends off the field for dubious reasons.

it's his teeeny weeeeny heart that causes the problems...

 

[lockyno1]

it's his teeeny weeeeny heart that causes the problems...

Exactly!

 

[wildmooka]

Bangladesh were and are better players of spin than England. so, your point is...?

:roll: Jesus christ, thats just plain ridiculous...

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Have you got half a brain??

Nope, just one very large one.

What's your point? And could you explain Tommy's while you're at it?

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

it's his teeeny weeeeny heart that causes the problems...

Well when he is actually on the field, overall he is brilliant.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Nope, just one very large one.

What's your point? And could you explain Tommy's while you're at it?

He was saying that Warne had no support from any other bowler this series as they all were down on form but he still took 40 wickets and averadged 20. Proving wrong your point that He needs sustained pressure from the other end to take wickets.

 

[Tommy Smith]

He was saying that Warne had no support from any other bowler this series as they all were down on form but he still took 40 wickets and averadged 20. Proving wrong your point that He needs sustained pressure from the other end to take wickets.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Oh and lol at Sanjanes claim that Bangladesh are better players of spin than England. How many wickets has Vettori taken against them? Plenty at a low average. And if Vettori can bowl them out imagine what Warney would do to them.

 

[El Diablo]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Oh and lol at Sanjanes claim that Bangladesh are better players of spin than England. How many wickets has Vettori taken against them? Plenty at a low average. And if Vettori can bowl them out imagine what Warney would do to them.

he's just trying to legitamise Chucky's plethora of wickets v the Bangers.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I would never say that Warne needs good bowlers at the other end to take wickets. That would be ridiculous. Why try to argue against something I never said and most certainly never would say?

I was pointing out the differences in the careers of Murali and Warne, trying to show how evenly matched they are. Surely you can't deny that having good bowlers at the other end helps, or might help?

 

[JJ]

I would never say that Warne needs good bowlers at the other end to take wickets. That would be ridiculous. Why try to argue against something I never said and most certainly never would say?

I was pointing out the differences in the careers of Murali and Warne, trying to show how evenly matched they are. Surely you can't deny that having good bowlers at the other end helps, or might help?

can go either way - a good bowler at the other end can also take wickets that you'd otherwise get, or bowl overs that you'd otherwise bowl...

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I don't see how it can go either way. A bowler taking wickets at the other end would reduce your wickets per match, but it wouldn't make your average worse surely.....

 

[waltzing Meninga]

I don't see how it can go either way. A bowler taking wickets at the other end would reduce your wickets per match, but it wouldn't make your average worse surely.....

Could do. If you have someone like Mcgrath up one end, the batsmen may favour going after the spinner and could get some runs off him by having a slog.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Yes, I'm sure tail-end slogging has ruined Warne's career.

 

[Lego_Man]

I don't know how anyone can argue for Murali over Warne given the statistics that have been exposed in this thread. After watching Warne's performance in the Ashes series, where he singlehandedly took on a team on fire and very nearly saved the day for them....you cannot compare any of Murali's efforts to that. He's an excellent spin bowler, nothing more - nothing less. A happy-go-lucky spin bowler who uses his innate phyiscal advantages. Warne though is a cricketing genius. His off-field bullsh*t should not count against his cricketing achievements - he showed in that Ashes series a drive and determination that you rarely see in any sportsman, and one that has been present in even fewer cricketers. Murali is probably fit to lace his boots, but not much more.

And as for Akhtar, he's got some good talent, but a pea-sized heart. That's why he'll never be counted among the greats.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I don't know how anyone can argue for Murali over Warne given the statistics that have been exposed in this thread. After watching Warne's performance in the Ashes series, where he singlehandedly took on a team on fire and very nearly saved the day for them....you cannot compare any of Murali's efforts to that. He's an excellent spin bowler, nothing more - nothing less. A happy-go-lucky spin bowler who uses his innate phyiscal advantages. Warne though is a cricketing genius. His off-field bullsh*t should not count against his cricketing achievements - he showed in that Ashes series a drive and determination that you rarely see in any sportsman, and one that has been present in even fewer cricketers. Murali is probably fit to lace his boots, but not much more.

And as for Akhtar, he's got some good talent, but a pea-sized heart. That's why he'll never be counted among the greats.

What statistics? The ones that show that (DISCOUNTING ZIMBABWE AND BANGLADESH) Murali has a slightly better career average, and extremely similar stats home and away?

Murali has turned in huge performances in numerous series, are you suggesting that the fact that he is not Australian or English (and hence couldn't play in the recent series) discounts him from consideration?