View Full Version : Should Warne now acknowledge that Murali
does not only take 'cheap' wickets bearing in mind that he's routed a highly rated team in England and had a successful series against them and that Shane himself has found that bowling out Bangladesh is not quite the picnic he had hinted at?
You mean,
"I've never played a Test against Bangladesh and only one against Zimbabwe, but there are some teams out there that play them a lot. And some blokes bowl at one end all day against those sort of countries and take lots of wickets. I'm sure that whoever those people are, they might get it [the record] next year," Warne said, leaving little to the imagination about the identity of the principal contender for his record.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/230104.html
I'm sure it was only a joke Romeo. Warne recognized what a class bowler Murali was when Murali played for the World XI down in Melbourne. Both will be remembered for the fantastic bowlers they were when they retire. :thumbsu:
grievous
6 Jun 2006, 21:25
warney deserves the record. has suceeded against the top teams in the world of any era. some of muralis wickets are arguable because of the doosra.
Cooldude
6 Jun 2006, 23:58
Warnie's a good liar
Everyone knows what he really thinks
Warnie's a good liar
ooooh, would that stand up in court? methinks not
raikkonen
8 Jun 2006, 14:05
Murali just gets bowled non stop, and has no competition from anyone else to get wickets apart from Vaas. Warnie has the likes of mcgrath, lee, gillespie generally all playing alongside him, ripping through the top order.
Warne>>>Murali
Murali just gets bowled non stop, and has no competition from anyone else to get wickets apart from Vaas. Warnie has the likes of mcgrath, lee, gillespie generally all playing alongside him, ripping through the top order.
Warne>>>Murali
So explain why none of them could beat the poms, yet Murali by himself could? ...
crazy_big_al
8 Jun 2006, 16:26
Warnie's a good liar
Everyone knows what he really thinks
exactly my thoughts
Murali just gets bowled non stop, and has no competition from anyone else to get wickets apart from Vaas. Warnie has the likes of mcgrath, lee, gillespie generally all playing alongside him, ripping through the top order.
Warne>>>Murali
Warne averages 24 when Mcgragh plays and 26 when he doesn't. so your theory is rubbish since you are always bowling to potential wickets and having good bowlers around you lowers your average. Murali >>>>>>>> Warne
raikkonen
8 Jun 2006, 19:02
Warne averages 24 when Mcgragh plays and 26 when he doesn't. so your theory is rubbish since you are always bowling to potential wickets and having good bowlers around you lowers your average. Murali >>>>>>>> Warne
The average doesnt have anything to do with how many wickets you take. McGrath could take 4-60 and warne 2-30 and they would still have the same average... Maybe your theory works for the Aussies, but how does the same situation occur when sri lanka play with/without vaas.
My theory can be deemed correct, look at the bowling figures when Murali took his 8 for. he bowled 30 overs, and the two quickies bowled 16 between them, with jayasuriya rolling his arm over a bit. If warne played in that same team he would take just as many wickets, especially on the sub continent...
As for Sri Lanka beating England, well we too beat England in one test, remember? The fact is one offs happen. We lost to Bangladesh. South Africa chased 435 or something inside 50 overs. Sri Lanka beat England, and England (missing from last years ashes series): Vaughn, Harmison,(now) Flintoff, Jones, and throw in Giles if you want to.
Sidey_87
8 Jun 2006, 21:00
You can make excuses about why Warne has more or less wickets, why he has a greater or worse average and so on...
But when you look back over their career's things even out.
They are both champions and instead of looking at most wickets you should be looking at averages.
Theseventhhamster
8 Jun 2006, 21:37
You can make excuses about why Warne has more or less wickets, why he has a greater or worse average and so on...
But when you look back over their career's things even out.
They are both champions and instead of looking at most wickets you should be looking at averages.
Unless one guy is a hometown hero who gets most of his wickets on home tracks that are made just for his bowling.
spell_check
8 Jun 2006, 21:54
And also the other subcontinent pitches on which he bowls a fair bit on too.
Ice goddess
8 Jun 2006, 21:59
Unless one guy is a hometown hero who gets most of his wickets on home tracks that are made just for his bowling.
Well how come Murali has just cleaned up England in England if he reputedly only gets wickets in Sri Lanka? As for Murali bowling excessive overs, Warne bowled 200 more overs than anyone in test cricket in 2005. You can argue all you like about him being the only gun bowler in his side hence he gets more wickets but surely it remains a moot point. He regularly has to try to prise the openers out, Warne often comes on after McGrath and Lee have softened up the batsmen. Last year in England when Australia's other bowlers were uncharacteristically impotent Warne did take a lot of wickets but at a much greater cost. Murali effectively bowled Sri Lanka to victory in the last test and probably would have in the second had he had more runs to play with. You could also argue that with Murali their so-called only dangerous bowler batsmen could endeavour to see him off and so don't take risks against him. But he has consistently taken wickets basically against all teams and not just at home. The first time he played in England he was on course for all 20 in 1998. Let's celebrate the fact that both are great bowlers and while the ICC deems Murali's action to be legal we have to accept him for a legitimate bowler and a darn good one at that.
Theseventhhamster
8 Jun 2006, 22:50
Well how come Murali has just cleaned up England in England if he reputedly only gets wickets in Sri Lanka? As for Murali bowling excessive overs, Warne bowled 200 more overs than anyone in test cricket in 2005. You can argue all you like about him being the only gun bowler in his side hence he gets more wickets but surely it remains a moot point. He regularly has to try to prise the openers out, Warne often comes on after McGrath and Lee have softened up the batsmen. Last year in England when Australia's other bowlers were uncharacteristically impotent Warne did take a lot of wickets but at a much greater cost. Murali effectively bowled Sri Lanka to victory in the last test and probably would have in the second had he had more runs to play with. You could also argue that with Murali their so-called only dangerous bowler batsmen could endeavour to see him off and so don't take risks against him. But he has consistently taken wickets basically against all teams and not just at home. The first time he played in England he was on course for all 20 in 1998. Let's celebrate the fact that both are great bowlers and while the ICC deems Murali's action to be legal we have to accept him for a legitimate bowler and a darn good one at that.
Nice spiel, sure it doesn't address my post at all but as long as you feel better thats the main thing.
Warne will always remain Murali's master even if he really believes that he gets an easier ride for he is the better bowler and doesn't chuck.
raikkonen
9 Jun 2006, 19:16
Well how come Murali has just cleaned up England in England if he reputedly only gets wickets in Sri Lanka? As for Murali bowling excessive overs, Warne bowled 200 more overs than anyone in test cricket in 2005. You can argue all you like about him being the only gun bowler in his side hence he gets more wickets but surely it remains a moot point. He regularly has to try to prise the openers out, Warne often comes on after McGrath and Lee have softened up the batsmen. Last year in England when Australia's other bowlers were uncharacteristically impotent Warne did take a lot of wickets but at a much greater cost. Murali effectively bowled Sri Lanka to victory in the last test and probably would have in the second had he had more runs to play with. You could also argue that with Murali their so-called only dangerous bowler batsmen could endeavour to see him off and so don't take risks against him. But he has consistently taken wickets basically against all teams and not just at home. The first time he played in England he was on course for all 20 in 1998. Let's celebrate the fact that both are great bowlers and while the ICC deems Murali's action to be legal we have to accept him for a legitimate bowler and a darn good one at that.
But how many test matches did everyone else play? No other Aussie bowler played in all the test matches we had. Warne did from memory. In 2005 we had one test v Pakistan, 3 v NZ, 5 v England, 1 v World XI, 3 v Windies, 2 v South Africa. That is 15 test matches...the next closest is England with 13, and Windies and S. Africa with 11.
Warne averages 24 when Mcgragh plays and 26 when he doesn't. so your theory is rubbish since you are always bowling to potential wickets and having good bowlers around you lowers your average. Murali >>>>>>>> Warne
d1ckhead goose
Grimreepah
10 Jun 2006, 09:52
does not only take 'cheap' wickets bearing in mind that he's routed a highly rated team in England and had a successful series against them and that Shane himself has found that bowling out Bangladesh is not quite the picnic he had hinted at?
No.
Is Murali the 2nd worst bowler in one day history because he has the 2nd worst figures? No. You don't judge long careers based on one match (both of them carved up England).
Anyway, Warne got 11 wickets in 2 Tests against the bangers, which suggests he finds it easier against them than other nations.