View Full Version : Warne Vs Murali
Sorry if this has been posted before, but this is an interesting article:
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/MAR/092763_COL-STATS_12MAR2004.html (http://)
Gopies 2002
17 Mar 2004, 11:08
Originally posted by Exeter
Sorry if this has been posted before, but this is an intersting article:
Thought it was a little short myself
Cooldude
17 Mar 2004, 11:11
Thought the article was a little bit incompleted. Gotta include their stats vs all countrys at home and away, because if you look at it that way, Murali is only superior to Warnie at home, even that home advantage Murali has is starting to be denied by the recent brillant bowling of Warne.
Just look at how Warnie turned it yesterday on day 1, imagine if he played 75% of his test matches in Sri Lanka like Murali does, Warnie probably would have 600 by now
Apologies, I'm web challenged.
Murali's 500 was substantially faster than Warne's and at a better average.
Worth noting that Murali has bowled on average 11 more overs per game than Warne. He's a great bowler but his dominance overshadows the fact that Sri Lanka have relied so heavily on him.
Warne has played in the era of McGrath, Gillespie et al, all of whom have ripped through batting orders before he got the ball in his hand and in some case obviated the need for him to bowl at all.
Not prepared to say who is the better bowler, nor make any comment on Murali's action - but the similarities between them are striking.
I still think Warne is and always will be a better bowler - sure I'm biased as I follow Australian cricket with a passion, but Warne has never had the luxury of bowling on Bunsen Burners week in week out like the chucker has.
Warne is a better bowler.
mighty mick
17 Mar 2004, 12:29
as has already been said if warnie was bowling the majority of his games in sri lanka he would be way in front of muri,
the scg is considered the only real spinners paradise in oz, great to watch how far warnie was spinning them yesterday.
Originally posted by Zeke
Warne is a better bowler.
I guess then Murali is the best non drug cheat and match fixing charge free player then...
Originally posted by Mog
I guess then Murali is the best non drug cheat and match fixing charge free player then...
I'd like you to provide some evidence that Shane Warne was ever involved in match fixing. Such unfounded allegations are foolish.
dan warna
17 Mar 2004, 14:42
murali has only vaas who has consistently competed for wickets with him.
warne has bowled with hughes, mcdermott, mcgrath, dizzy etc who have been effective fast bowlers and taken the opening bats consistently.
warne has bowled about 50% of his time in Aus which has been condusive to fast bowling more so than spin.
in muralis favour, the aussies are the best fielding side in the world, and would have taken maybe 30 or so catches during warne's career that lankans would NOT have taken. whereas the lankans probably dropped 30 or so catches that the aussie would have taken.
who is better?
I would say both are pretty equal, but warne has had a bigger impact on the game.
leggies were considered to be good for 3 years between the ages of 35 and 38, leggies were only good for selection at the SCG, leggies generally played well in the subcontinent, and performed terribly outside in general.
leggies had to be protected, leggies bowled loose balls every over, leggies could never play in the west indies leggies were short gnomish creatures with ancient and wrinkled vissages etc, etc, etc,
Warne broke so many stereotypes, brought the crowds into the stadium and excited the public.
really through the 80s the only test side to excite australians were the windians, no one came to see tame boring games between us and the pommes, the paks, indians etc. Cricket was in danger of becoming an old mans/nerds sport.
up comes warne and excites everyone again, the closest thing to warne is Aus has been Gilchrist since, another once in a generation player.
murali and warne = same in quality of bowling
warne = most influential player in the 90s and naughties.
Cooldude
17 Mar 2004, 14:50
Originally posted by Mog
I guess then Murali is the best non drug cheat and match fixing charge free player then...
I guess then Warnie is the best player without having his action questioned then...
corporal
17 Mar 2004, 14:59
Have a look at the Sri Lankan 1st innings score board and the question is answered,
MacGill is the most one dimensional cricketer in Australia, the sooner he is relegated to grade the better
dr nick
17 Mar 2004, 16:31
would be interesting to know who has most dismissals of batsmen 1-6
TheBloods
17 Mar 2004, 17:23
Originally posted by nicko18
would be interesting to know who has most dismissals of batsmen 1-6
In the article, for top-order batsmen it has Warne 55.49%, Murali 56.85%, so not much in it.
Still, the comparison is apples and oranges as you are not comparing two bowlers.
dr nick
17 Mar 2004, 17:42
Originally posted by NMWBloods
In the article, for top-order batsmen it has Warne 55.49%, Murali 56.85%, so not much in it.
Still, the comparison is apples and oranges as you are not comparing two bowlers. thanks, the link doesnt work for me.
dr nick
17 Mar 2004, 17:44
Originally posted by corporal
Have a look at the Sri Lankan 1st innings score board and the question is answered,
MacGill is the most one dimensional cricketer in Australia, the sooner he is relegated to grade the better pretty narrow minded of you. Take a look at the overs bowled too.
Originally posted by Zeke
I'd like you to provide some evidence that Shane Warne was ever involved in match fixing. Such unfounded allegations are foolish.
Fined for providing information to a bookmaker. Small level stuff, but regarded as part of the great bright world of matchfixing nonetheless, regardless of whther the ACB had testicles at the time or not.
If I was Courtney Walsh I'd be getting on the phone to my lawyers and get both of these pretenders records erased....
Originally posted by Mog
Fined for providing information to a bookmaker. Small level stuff, but regarded as part of the great bright world of matchfixing nonetheless, regardless of whther the ACB had testicles at the time or not.
So what you are now saying is that Shane Warne has not been 'charged with match fixing' as you previously claimed?
Originally posted by Zeke
So what you are now saying is that Shane Warne has not been 'charged with match fixing' as you previously claimed?
Damn, you've jumped on my argument and done torn it in two.
Point is: Warne is just as lucky to be allowed to continue playing as some consider Murali to be. A fine example of Australian hypocrisy, just as many of hte posters in these sorts threads display.
Cooldude
17 Mar 2004, 18:49
Originally posted by Mog
Fined for providing information to a bookmaker. Small level stuff, but regarded as part of the great bright world of matchfixing nonetheless, regardless of whther the ACB had testicles at the time or not.
Providing pitch and weather information to a bookmaker (Warne himself does not know that man is a bookmaker) is hardly match fixing. Match fixing means deliberately underperforming to change the result of a match. Providing info is merely providing info, I can't see how it's matchfixing just by telling a bloke that the pitch is turning or it's gonna rain.
You seem to have a prejudice against Warne
Originally posted by Cooldude
You seem to have a prejudice against Warne
I sure do. Just the same way a lot of people seem to have a dislike of Murali. I'm sure both sides of the argument feel as justified as the other in that.
TheBloods
17 Mar 2004, 20:03
I don't particularly like Warne, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to say he was guilty of match fixing or that he should be lucky to be allowed to continue playing.
As for Murali, I neither nor dislike him, but his action should be illegal. It's worse than Ian Meckiff's. By bending his army, Murali gets extra leverage, giving him better pace and spin. English spin bowler Tony Lock used to be no-balled when he tried quicker ones for similar reasons, hence he ended up sticking to slower deliveries.
Whether he has a deformity or not, the rules should not be altered to benefit one person. His action is illegal, pure and simple.
Cooldude
17 Mar 2004, 20:09
Originally posted by Mog
I sure do. Just the same way a lot of people seem to have a dislike of Murali. I'm sure both sides of the argument feel as justified as the other in that.
I don't have a dislike for Murali, I certainly don't usually jump up and down and say he's a chucker when he takes 7 fer. He is a great bloke and good at what he does, regardless of the legality of his action.
You are putting down Warnie's ability as a bowler with off field blunders that Warne does make, like providing info for bookies, or drug taking (by no means that they were performance enhancing drugs, nor did he try to mask any), or sex scandals, it has nothing to do with his ability as a bowler.
Coach Required
18 Mar 2004, 12:48
If Warne could get away with chucking it he would have over 600 wickets by now.
dan warna
18 Mar 2004, 13:10
gawd
another thread of murali is a chucker.
we should do a poll
on which is the most flogged to death topic.
deano was better/worse than mark waugh
lee is a great/lee is a hack
murali is/isn't a chucker
BNG is/isn't deserving his place
martyn is/isn't deserving his place.
Elliot should/shouldn't be in the test side.
these topics (and I'm guilty as well) have to be the most recycled going around.
Coach Required
18 Mar 2004, 13:21
yeah but they are fun
The Spornstar
18 Mar 2004, 13:26
Originally posted by dan warna
deano was better/worse than mark waugh
You must admit that that issue is one of your favourites...
Ice goddess
18 Mar 2004, 13:31
Murali does play more in SL. etc., but ends up playing against many of the players who are more adept at spin more often. Check out Warne's record against India, Sachin, Lara, Malik, or anyone accomplished against leg spin. Suffice to say, he struggles big time.
TigerCraig
18 Mar 2004, 13:38
Has anyone got their "Tests Played/Wickets Taken" figures v the Bangers & Zimbos?
(too lazy to look it up)
MURALI VS BANGLADESH
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
2 0 0 0.00 0 0 20 5/13 10.45 4 1 0
MURALI VS ZIMBABWE
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
12 66 17 8.25 0 0 73 9/51 17.09 5 3 0
WARNE VS BANGLADESH
~Yet to play Bangladesh~
WARNE VS ZIMBABWE
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
1 6 6 6.00 0 0 6 3/68 22.83 0 0 0
Pretty clear cut where Murali got is extra 100 wickets.
TigerCraig
18 Mar 2004, 13:53
Now why did I think the figures might look like that ?
That's as much the fault of the ACB not wanting to play "lesser" countries as it it is anything else. I guess we should also downgrade Hayden's 380 too.
Originally posted by Mog
I guess we should also downgrade Hayden's 380 too.
It stands to reason. No one has suggested that Hayden's 380 is the best innings ever. It was a bloody good innings, and a score no one else has ever achieved on that stage regardless of the opposition. Far from the best, though.
In recent times, doesn't Lara from the Australian West Indies tour of 99 generally get that honour?
This is the 40th time that Murali has conceded 100 runs in an innings.
He's bowled almost half of the total overs in this innings.
You would have thought he'd have been prone to overuse injuries.
Cooldude
18 Mar 2004, 17:54
Originally posted by Exeter
This is the 40th time that Murali has conceded 100 runs in an innings.
He's bowled almost half of the total overs in this innings.
You would have thought he'd have been prone to overuse injuries.
You'd think so, but when you're throwing the ball, it takes less effort when you actually bowl a ball.