Who was better?

Storer · 5 Jan 2009, 01:54

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.

the_socialite · 5 Jan 2009, 01:58

I'd take Murali, although that could just be my minor Sri Lankan background speaking lol

zimbando · 5 Jan 2009, 02:01

id have to say Murali.

Edge · 5 Jan 2009, 02:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_socialite

I'd take Murali, although that could just be my minor Sri Lankan background speaking lol

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.

**mas cambios** · 5 Jan 2009, 02:23

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.

Jonesy · 5 Jan 2009, 02:45

Quote:

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.

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

I'd have Warne, for sure.

Kram81 · 5 Jan 2009, 02:53

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?".

**breeno** · 5 Jan 2009, 04:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_socialite

I'd take Murali, although that could just be my minor Sri Lankan background speaking lol

Your Sri Lankan dude?

the_socialite · 5 Jan 2009, 04:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by breeno

Your Sri Lankan dude?

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

**breeno** · 5 Jan 2009, 04:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_socialite

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

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.