Who was better? - Page 2

the_socialite · 5 Jan 2009, 05:02

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.

**breeno** · 5 Jan 2009, 05:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_socialite

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.

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.

the_socialite · 5 Jan 2009, 05:16

You're right with Mendis, absolutely bamboozled the indians, was amazing to watch

grapedo · 5 Jan 2009, 08:30

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.

Neville Bartos · 8 Jan 2009, 16:23

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...

**D.K** · 8 Jan 2009, 17:14

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.

**Biggie** · 8 Jan 2009, 19:11

Warne.

**southern sledge** · 9 Jan 2009, 17:46

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.

BabyBlues · 9 Jan 2009, 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by southern sledge

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.

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.

**Mousey** · 10 Jan 2009, 00:24

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.