Who was better?

Top Contributors
S

Storer

Member
Who was better?

Warne or Murali.

There was discussion in the Herald Sun earlier this week about who was the better player, and who deserved to have more wickets. Warne said he should have more, because Murali have versed the "worse" teams more, like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, etc.


Discuss.
 
Re: Who was better?

the_socialite;304509 said:
I'd take Murali, although that could just be my minor Sri Lankan background speaking lol
Click to expand...

Yes,yes it is.

Warne by far is better personally.

Firstly Mutali cause A LOT of controversey because of his action and I thought i read somewhere the rule was changed slightly so he was accpetable or something though not sure about that.

Secondly it is true Murali vses a lot of the lesser teams.

Thirdly leg-spin is a much harder art to master.
 
Re: Who was better?

Who was the better player? Hard to say and depends on what criteria you set.

Murali is the more proficient spinner of the ball, Warne the more complete cricketer. Which would you rather have in your team? Someone who can turn the ball regardless of the surface or a player who has a phenomenal cricket brain and can out think batsman? One relies on turn, the other on mental (certainly towards the end of his career).

The whole 'more wickets because of playing against Bangladesh' is pointless argument, simply because you can only bowl to who is put in front of you. Australia's attitude (as well as the likes of England) towards teams such as Bangladesh was the main reason that Warne never played that much against them.

Instead of looking at the so called cheap wickets, it's more prudent to compare records against the main test playing sides, especially India (as they are thought to be the best players of spin).

As for the rule change, again, not really changed for one player. The rule was change for most players, as most players would have fallen foul or been borderline with the old rules.
 
Re: Who was better?

SHANE Warne would have groaned in despair after learning Sri Lanka's Muthiah Muralidaran snared a 10-wicket haul against Bangladesh.

Murali's match figures of 10-190 in the first Test at Dhaka remarkably were his 22nd 10-wicket haul in Tests, taking his 124-match return to 766 wickets at an average of 21.92.

But how Warne would have enjoyed playing as much against minnows Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as Test cricket's leading wicket-taker.

Warne played two Tests against Bangladesh and only one against Zimbabwe for a return of 17 wickets.

In contrast, Murali has played 27 Tests against the two nations, picking up 173 wickets.

The Sri Lankan off-spinner's Test tally is now 58 more than the 708 Warne had at the end of his career.

But take Bangladesh and Zimbabwe out of the equation, and Warne has 691 wickets, 98 ahead of Muralidaran on 593.
Click to expand...

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...2-2882,00.html

I'd have Warne, for sure.
 
Re: Who was better?

Warne by a long way, it's a real shame that he never was given the chance to captain Australia which he deserved.

Does anyone remember a few years ago when Warne was in the com box and said "It's great the way Murali throws.. um bowls the ball down the pitch?".

:D
 
Re: Who was better?

breeno;304622 said:
Your Sri Lankan dude?
Click to expand...

Yeah breeno, I am. I'm a burgher, so im a mix of dutch, pom, irish and native sinhalese, its kind of a hard thing to explain. I always get weird reactions seeing as i don't look sri lankan, but thats why, lol
 
Re: Who was better?

the_socialite;304630 said:
Yeah breeno, I am. I'm a burgher, so im a mix of dutch, pom, irish and native sinhalese, its kind of a hard thing to explain. I always get weird reactions seeing as i don't look sri lankan, but thats why, lol
Click to expand...

Yeah I get it. I'm guessing Sri Lanka was occupied by all three nations at one stage? (Dutch, English, Irish) Well at least Im guessing the Dutch and English.

Anyway sorry for the off topic.

Id take Warne, just because of his cricketing brain, he is a VERY smart man.
 
Re: Who was better?

Yeah, dunno how the irish snuck in there, lol. anyway...back to the point.
I believe Murali was more naturally skilled, but Warnie was a much smarter bowler.
 
Re: Who was better?

the_socialite;304655 said:
Yeah, dunno how the irish snuck in there, lol. anyway...back to the point.
I believe Murali was more naturally skilled, but Warnie was a much smarter bowler.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if anyone has seen him on channel 9, he's a great commentator with the minimal experience he has.

He also really provides and insight to what it's like out there, incredibly smart man who could work out an opponent better than anyone in the world IMO.

Watch for Mendis, he has the skill, all he needs is a brain like Warne's and he will be better than both.
 
Re: Who was better?

I think definitley Warnie.

I have no problems with Murali's action but I just think in a pressure situation when wickets were needed I would throw the ball to Warne over Murali.
 
Re: Who was better?

Besides the man-love I have for Shane Warne, I'd take him in a heart-beat in my cricket team. In terms of actual bowling ability I'd peg them as practically even with maybe Murali slightly ahead. But in terms of a cricketer, and a player you'd have in your team, I'd take Warne EVERY time. He may not have dominated the Indians, but his ability to bowl well on pace friendly pitches in Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa was amazing. Like Kumble, he could outsmart the batsmen with flight and length, but he was also able to turn the ball unlike any leg spinner in history. If Kumble was able to get the ball to turn like Warne, he'd certainly be up there with these two, as he also possessed a brilliant cricketing brain.

All of warnie's social flaws aside, he was a brilliant cricketer who was a great batsmen, a great slips fieldsman (except when Fleming is on a hat-rick), and a magnificent tactician. There's a reason why we bow to him in Victoria...
 
Re: Who was better?

What seperates Warnie and Murali is the brain that S.K has. If it wasn't for his off field antics he would of almost certainly captained Australia and dominated. He thought batsman out, not relied on the extreme turn like Murali does. He was a pleasure to watch and I am glad he was here in my life time.
 
Re: Who was better?

Has to be Warne as he is a true bowler. I hate to go back on Murali being a chucker but if you look at the Herald Sun on the 13/12/08 it has a picture of John Daly throwing a camera along side a picture of Murali, the action is the same.
 
Re: Who was better?

southern sledge;307308 said:
Has to be Warne as he is a true bowler. I hate to go back on Murali being a chucker but if you look at the Herald Sun on the 13/12/08 it has a picture of John Daly throwing a camera along side a picture of Murali, the action is the same.
Click to expand...

You seriously think a still photo can capture something like that? How about video of Murali bowling with an arm brace that didn't allow his arm to change its angle? Murali isn't a chucker, it's an optical illusion, and it's been proven as such.

I'd still choose Warne though. You can only take 20 wickets a match, and Warne was bowling alongside Glen McGrath, who would have taken a lot of wickets than Warne otherwise would have. Murali didn't have the same quality of players opposite him "stealing" his wickets. Also, Warne DID play against better sides, though that is an argument that is given far too much value. Murali has taken enough wickets to cancel that out, I reckon. However, Murali also played the majority of his cricket on subcontinental pitches which are much more suited to spin bowling, whereas Warne played the majority of his cricket on Aussie pitches which tend to encourage seam bowling more. Warne was also a considerably better batsman, and contributed much more in the field.
 
Re: Who was better?

Warne was a much more valuable cricketer to have in a side. Spin wise though? Very tough question... maybe Murali just, and only because he bamboozles so many. But if I had to choose a spinner to put in a team I'd be Warney bacuse he was no mug with the bat, has a great cricket brain and he had to ability to bowl out sides when needed and under pressure, that's a once in a lifetime quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top