Warne Vs Murali

[Tommy Smith]

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?

:? :? :?

Away from home:

Murali - Wickets: 190 Average: 26.92 S/R: 64.34 Econ: 2.51

Warne - Wickets: 363 Average: 24.39 S/R: 55.09 Econ: 2.66

Warney's record is clearly better, and over a much longer and sustained period.

 

[lockyno1]

:? :? :?

Away from home:

Murali - Wickets: 190 Average: 26.92 S/R: 64.34 Econ: 2.51

Warne - Wickets: 363 Average: 24.39 S/R: 55.09 Econ: 2.66

Warney's record is clearly better, and over a much longer and sustained period.

Well put Tommy!

 

[Morenito]

Think i just passed an article somewhere talking about Murali match fixing denials?

No matter what the end records state at the end of their careers i think most people know Warne will be known as the greatest ever spinners way ahead of Murali.

 

[Twizzle]

:? :? :?

Away from home:

Murali - Wickets: 190 Average: 26.92 S/R: 64.34 Econ: 2.51

Warne - Wickets: 363 Average: 24.39 S/R: 55.09 Econ: 2.66

Warney's record is clearly better, and over a much longer and sustained period.

just as I suspected

can you imagine the ground staff at the SCG preparing the wicket with a wire brish

its just not cricket, but acceptable in Sri Lanka

 

[aussies1st]

Warne almost has double the amount of wickets Muarli does away from home.

 

[JJ]

No matter what the end records state at the end of their careers i think most people know Warne will be known as the greatest ever spinners way ahead of Murali.

While I agree that Warne is the better cricketer - you're probably wrong in that most people will view it that way - almost all Australians, New Zealanders, Soth Africans (white ones at least) and English people will agree... but I'd imagine most Asians will see it the other way, and they very definitely outnumber us!

 

[aussies1st]

Its India that out number us! If they like Murali is another question.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Its India that out number us! If they like Murali is another question.

The great Bishan Bedi for one is a huge fan of Murali's!:shock:

 

[Kiwi]

:? :? :?

Away from home:

Murali - 38 Matches ( 94 total ) Wickets: 190 Average: 26.92 S/R: 64.34 Econ: 2.51

Warne - 68 ( 128 Total ) Wickets: 363 Average: 24.39 S/R: 55.09 Econ: 2.66

Warney's record is clearly better, and over a much longer and sustained period.

there thats better, not so bad when you consider the difference in matches played away from home, total matches played ect as well.

I know people say Murali has played against Bangladesh, but that has only been 3 matches. And sure Murali has played 14 tests against Zimbabwe, but like people have said on here, Zimbabwe have only just turned crap after losing all their players in the last 12 months. Before that they were actually an alright side. Warne has played 31 tests against England who were a joke for awhile there.

Australians can argue all they want about it, Murali will finish on more wickets, many will see his as a great bowler, alot as the best spinner when he retires. No amount of whinging and dumby spitting will change that.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

:? :? :?

Away from home:

Murali - Wickets: 190 Average: 26.92 S/R: 64.34 Econ: 2.51

Warne - Wickets: 363 Average: 24.39 S/R: 55.09 Econ: 2.66

Warney's record is clearly better, and over a much longer and sustained period.

:?:?:? yourself

seriously, wtf?

You are using an average of 24.39 over an average of 26.92 as conclusive proof?

Some of the most bizarre reasoning I have ever seen.

363 wickets v 190 hardly matters, as Murali can't take wickets in games that he doesn't play, plus they are both clearly substantial totals representative of their overall ability.

 

[Rammo]

At least Warney is not a cheat.

 

[Tommy Smith]

there thats better, not so bad when you consider the difference in matches played away from home, total matches played ect as well.

I know people say Murali has played against Bangladesh, but that has only been 3 matches. And sure Murali has played 14 tests against Zimbabwe, but like people have said on here, Zimbabwe have only just turned crap after losing all their players in the last 12 months. Before that they were actually an alright side. Warne has played 31 tests against England who were a joke for awhile there.

Australians can argue all they want about it, Murali will finish on more wickets, many will see his as a great bowler, alot as the best spinner when he retires. No amount of whinging and dumby spitting will change that.

You couldn't be more wrong. When Warney toured India last year the respect and adulation he received from the spectators was incredible. They know how good he is. No such appreciation, certainly not on that level, is shown to Murali when he tours India.

Yes, some will see Murali as the greatest spin bowler ever. But a hell of a lot more will see Warney as the greatest ever.

One great comparison of the two i like is from the recent tour to Sri lanka in 2004. The pitches were prepared for Murali who proceeded to get cained by the Aussie batsmen (he only got wickets in the chase for quick runs when the damage was done), whereas Warney got 4, 5 wicket hauls on the trot, bamboozled the Sri Lankan batsmen and was named MotSeries. Didnt that plan backfire:lol:

Bottom line is that if Murali wants to even be considered close to Warney he has to show some guts and come to Australia and priove himself. A place where he certainly hasnt in the past.

Murali is a great bowler, Warney is THE greatest bowler.

 

[Tommy Smith]

:?:?:? yourself

seriously, wtf?

You are using an average of 24.39 over an average of 26.92 as conclusive proof?

Some of the most bizarre reasoning I have ever seen.

363 wickets v 190 hardly matters, as Murali can't take wickets in games that he doesn't play, plus they are both clearly substantial totals representative of their overall ability.

Funny you should say that as you base your arguments on stats more than anyone ive ever known. But when the stats dont suit your argument...

And dont you count S/R? Warne's is better by 10 deliveries. A significant amount. Besides, my initial point is that their away stats are hardly extremely close as you wrongly suggested.

And 363 wickets vs 190 does count. It counts towards longevity and more so to the fact that Murali has on occasions refused to tour for fear of 'taunting'. The equivalent would be your namesake not playing football anymore because of all the racial abuse he receives. Weak, very weak.

 

[JJ]

:?:?:? yourself

seriously, wtf?

You are using an average of 24.39 over an average of 26.92 as conclusive proof?

Some of the most bizarre reasoning I have ever seen.

363 wickets v 190 hardly matters, as Murali can't take wickets in games that he doesn't play, plus they are both clearly substantial totals representative of their overall ability.

Thierry - the most telling stat is probably strike rate - and there's a big edge to Warne there...

At least Warney is not a cheat.

Well rammo, there was the small matter of being banned for using an illegal substance...

 

[knights04]

At least Warney is not a cheat.

Banned for 12 months for using diuretics? Cheating on his wife?

 

[Alan Shore]

Diuretics don't help him spin the ball better.

 

[JJ]

Diuretics don't help him spin the ball better.

illegal though - therefore cheating

 

[El Diablo]

so Fleming is a cheat for smoking dope

 

[Iafeta]

He's a cheat for the supposed go-slow isn't he

Are recreational drugs such as marijuana under the same illegal sports supplement banner? If it is, then yes, Fleming, Dion Nash and Mathew Hart are cheats as well (and I'd suspect a couple of others from all the stories, those three though had the nuts and integrity in the end to be honest about it, something some of the others could learn a thing or two about).

IRC wasn't it a 2 year minimum suspension under the Sports Drugs Committee regulation for directics?

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Funny you should say that as you base your arguments on stats more than anyone ive ever known. But when the stats dont suit your argument...

?

I think the stats do suit my argument. That's my whole point

And dont you count S/R? Warne's is better by 10 deliveries. A significant amount. Besides, my initial point is that their away stats are hardly extremely close as you wrongly suggested.

No, I don't really count S/R. I'm only really concerned by average. If Warne has a better strike rate then I'm assuming Murali has a better E/R. Sometimes you want a bowler who can bowl tightly, (isn't this what I've heard 1000s of times to justify Vettori's poor S/R? That he is economical in a poor attack?) sometimes you want one who can take wickets quickly even if he is a little expensive.

Overall I think things get very confused when you bring in S/R as you are effectively talking about the TYPE of bowler, not the EFFECTIVENESS of the bowler. So I prefer to stick with average. And I believe that 27 and 24.5 are fairly similar, hence they have similar stats.

You could argue by the same token that Murali's career average is substantially better than Warne's. There's about a 1.5 difference isn't there?

And 363 wickets vs 190 does count. It counts towards longevity and more so to the fact that Murali has on occasions refused to tour for fear of 'taunting'. The equivalent would be your namesake not playing football anymore because of all the racial abuse he receives. Weak, very weak.

Agree to disagree. 190 wickets and 363 wickets are both perfectly valid samples for assessing a player's overall ability imo.