Murali > Warne -- says Flintoff (1 Viewer)

[sideshowtim]

Proof that Murali isn't handicapped at all and can infact bowl a decent ball, here we see him trying leg spin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UUXgc1rLMQ

He bowls it well, and this proves he can in fact bowl with a straight arm, making all his previous wickets virtually illegitemate, meaning he can't hide behind the "handicapped thing" anymore. Murali is a joke.

 

[matt#1]

well, said sideshowtim. Murali's action is illegal.

therefore...Warney > Murali

 

[copious]

Vettori > Murali

=P

 

[HotShot]

well, said sideshowtim. Murali's action is illegal.

therefore...Warney > Murali

Yeah and warne takes illegal drugs..

 

[otay]

Did anyone think perhaps the only reason Flintoff said this in the first place was because England couldn't even beat Sri Lanka at home, whereas they beat Australia? As such, Flintoff feels like if he says this then there is some justification for them not beating Sri Lanka. It may sound cynical but it happens all the bloody time in sport.

This argument can go either way and no point even trying, and has been done a billion more times (just check out the BBC TMS message boards for this post). All i'll say is Warne's overall impact on the game (except for the rule changing part) is greater than Murali's.

 

[m.c.moey]

Personally I believe the ICC are too politically correct. Murali's action enables him to get more rip on the ball and enables him to bowl his famous dusera. I think it's absolutely disgraceful that you should change the rules for one player. Murali doesn't deserve all the wickets he's taken when his action has broken the rules. Warne is a superstar and Murali is a little sook.

You my friend are the only sook here. What are they supposed to do, kick him out of the game after so many years of playing and tell him
"you're not allowed to play because your a retart"?
Oh yeah, that would give cricket a great image wouldn't it.

 

[HotShot]

Did anyone think perhaps the only reason Flintoff said this in the first place was because England couldn't even beat Sri Lanka at home, whereas they beat Australia? As such, Flintoff feels like if he says this then there is some justification for them not beating Sri Lanka. It may sound cynical but it happens all the bloody time in sport.

This argument can go either way and no point even trying, and has been done a billion more times (just check out the BBC TMS message boards for this post). All i'll say is Warne's overall impact on the game (except for the rule changing part) is greater than Murali's.

Warne has only really had sucess against teams like: (test matches only)
In red is Murali's stats:
Pakistan - 90 wickets @ 20.17
79 wickets @ 23.31
England - 172 wickets @ 22.3
93 wickets @ 19.74
South Africa - 130 wickets @ 24.16
104 wickets @ 22.22
New Zealand - 103 wickets @ 24.37
52 wickets @ 23.69
Sri Lanka - 59 wickets @ 25.54
Australia - 55 wickets @ 31.41
West Indies - 65 wickets @ 29.95
70 wickets @ 17.34
India - 43 wickets @ 47.18
67 wickets @ 32.47
Career - 685 wickets @ 25.25
Career - 657 wickets @ 21.96

Interpretation:
England are terrible against spinner, whilst India is simply outstanding. Pakistan are also very poor, worse than South Africa at playing spin. (when i mention spin, i think we all agree that mutiah and shane are the two best spinners in the world, so spin = warne +mutiah).
Warne also started playing at international level a season earlier than murali. but i dont a season will make much difference in the international lineups of teams. they dont change that much.

Warne has played outstandily well against all major nations except for India. He absolutely wasted the England. In Odis warne isnt as good.. as murali. One argument used for Muralis outstand low average is that he plays more matches against the weaker minor nations (bangladesh, zimbabwe)- this is true he plays more against them than warne, but really makes little difference. Why? Because Warne has played more matches against England (who are the worst players of spin) than murali. Also Murali has to had to bowl to the best team for long span - Australia , this is reflected in the averages.

India are the best team at playing spin. and comparing warne and mutiah averages you can see there is clear gap. about an average of 15 runs. he aslo taken more wickets against the west indies at a ridiculous average and he hasnt played quite as many matches as warne. And finally Warne is a lot older than Murali.

I think it is quite clear that Murali > Warne.

 

[otay]

Ummm. I would believe that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are worse at playing spin than England. Granted, England may score fewer of their runs against spinners percentage whise then say Bangladesh or Zimbabwe, but when these 2 teams barely manage to score 200, then it doesn't mean shit.

You can't say that the wickets Murali (or Shane) has taken against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh are more valuable than those against England. You can however quite legitmately claim that an England wicket is worth more than a Zimbabwe wicket. I mean when was the last time either of these teams won a test?? Bangladesh had their only ever victory against Zimbabwe. Murali has taken more than 100 wickets against these 2 teams. Shane has not taken nearly that many. In all, England play spin better than Zimbabwe or Bangladesh, which I think most cricket fans can agree on. (these 2 teams shouldnt even be playing tests but thats another matter)

Add to the fact that Murali's home ground caters extremely well for spinners, whereas Aussie wickets (as well as English, South African, West Indian) wickets suit fast bowling.

Also add that Shane has always had a McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Macgill at the other end leaving Warne without the opportunity of taking more wickets. Sri lanka only have Vaas (who i think is great) but no McGrath, and when it comes to the end of an innings, Murali may take the final few wickets whereas Warne wont even get a chance, because McGrath or Gillespie will steal a few.

Comparing averages in India is slightly biased, since Warne must travel, get acclimatised and all that. Murali does not need to worry about jet lag, gettin weather acclimatised, Bombay belly. It's not really fair to compare.

So see, you had Some legitimate arguments, but I can bring up just as many legitimate counter arguments. Moral of story is.....We may never know who is better.

 

[HotShot]

Ummm. I would believe that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are worse at playing spin than England. Granted, England may score fewer of their runs against spinners percentage whise then say Bangladesh or Zimbabwe, but when these 2 teams barely manage to score 200, then it doesn't mean shit.

Wells that like saying Australia has better facilities - better bowling coaches, a better domestic competition thereby givin a distinct advantage to warne. Where as Sri lanka were sort of like zimbabwe until really the 96 world cup when they really started to perform. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are pathetic all round anyway and thats why i excluded from the above stats.

You can't say that the wickets Murali (or Shane) has taken against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh are more valuable than those against England. You can however quite legitmately claim that an England wicket is worth more than a Zimbabwe wicket. I mean when was the last time either of these teams won a test??

That is true, but wat about the value of an Australian wicket, murali has had to bowl to them at the peak. Where as warne can play against teams that were not nearly as good as Australia. But any wicket technically has the same value.. i mean look gillespie he score 200 his value would have been quite valuable.

Bangladesh had their only ever victory against Zimbabwe. Murali has taken more than 100 wickets against these 2 teams. Shane has not taken nearly that many. In all, England play spin better than Zimbabwe or Bangladesh, which I think most cricket fans can agree on. (these 2 teams shouldnt even be playing tests but thats another matter)

Thats true, but murali has played only 20 test matches against them and its his fault that he has to play these teams. Now if we remove the stats against these two teams:
87 wickets 16.86 avg - zim (1466.82)
50 wickets 12.52 avg - ban (626)
His Career Average is at 23.72 still lower than Warne's.

Add to the fact that Murali's home ground caters extremely well for spinners, whereas Aussie wickets (as well as English, South African, West Indian) wickets suit fast bowling.

Well Murali has only played 3 test in Australia since the incident. I dont think the pitch conditions will make much, as you saw with the average england did pretty poorly and did so both at home and away. But Murali has taken 406 wickets @ 19.65. While Warne has only taken 296 wickets @ 26.08 - which makes sense to your theory, but he has played only 64 of his 140 matches at home. Murali on the other hand has played 61 of his 108 matches at home.

Also add that Shane has always had a McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Macgill at the other end leaving Warne without the opportunity of taking more wickets. Sri lanka only have Vaas (who i think is great) but no McGrath, and when it comes to the end of an innings, Murali may take the final few wickets whereas Warne wont even get a chance, because McGrath or Gillespie will steal a few.

But that also means that Mcgrath and Gillespie tend to take the first few wickets and they tend to be the better players like dravid, lara, trescothick etc. So warne gets to bowl to the middle - late order, whilst Murali (to ur theory) must tackle the top order like sehwag, langer, hayden because lanka's fast bowlers arent gud enough - its balanced.

Comparing averages in India is slightly biased, since Warne must travel, get acclimatised and all that. Murali does not need to worry about jet lag, gettin weather acclimatised, Bombay belly. It's not really fair to compare.

All players must travel, murali has to go south africa or wherever and aslo recoer from jetlag - thats part of the cricket all players go through it. I could claim Australia are facilitated to counter these incidents. where as sri lanka doesnt have the type of technology.

So see, you had Some legitimate arguments, but I can bring up just as many legitimate counter arguments. Moral of story is.....We may never know who is better.

Well the moral of the story is "We may never know who is better" cant argue with that we are comparing an off-spinner and leg-spinner and so many other factors come into it. But i have countered your arguements. Remember we havent touched the ODIs yet.

 

[ledzeppelin]

Who gives a flying fuck about ODIs?
Fact is, Murali often bowls on doctored wickets against shit teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. He was ajudged to extend his arm 14 degrees. Coincidently, the law was changed to allow 15 degrees of flexibility.
The ICC has created a monster here. In allowing Murali to keep bowling, it means that there'll be a whole generation of spinners coming through with questionable actions.
Warne will down as one of cricket's all time greats. Murali will always have a question mark next to his name.
Also, Gatting ball > Murali

 

[mednerd]

yeh and warney get all his wickets on aussie pitches with AUSSIE UMPIRES like DARL .LOLS
everyone gets wickets agianst these poorer cricketiing nations...if they didnt the bowler would suck wouldnt they? duurrr...
i would not have expected anything logical from this guy

 

[otay]

No dickhead, not every1 takes wickets agains the shitter teams, because not every1 plays 20 tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh like Murali. Take out these 2 sides..

Murali has 520 wickets at 23.72
Warne has 668 wickets at 25.24

So Murali's average is still better, but he has now taken 148 wickets less. Thats quite a significant amount. 20% of murali's wickets have come against the 2 poor cricketing nations, opposed to 2.5% for Warne. This will always, always, always have an affect on how the cricketing public will view Murali. Still great yes no doubt, but still that question mark.

 

[HotShot]

No dickhead, not every1 takes wickets agains the shitter teams, because not every1 plays 20 tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh like Murali. Take out these 2 sides..

Murali has 520 wickets at 23.72
Warne has 668 wickets at 25.24

So Murali's average is still better, but he has now taken 148 wickets less. Thats quite a significant amount. 20% of murali's wickets have come against the 2 poor cricketing nations, opposed to 2.5% for Warne. This will always, always, always have an affect on how the cricketing public will view Murali. Still great yes no doubt, but still that question mark.

but thats not murali's fault thats the iccs fault. No pitches are 'doctored' the icc inspect them and teams have the right not to play on them if they feel it does of standard.

But remember warne per year plays more tests than murali - because australia plays more tests.

as for the gatting ball - its not too hard to bowl one of those - Gatting was just shit batsman -lol, ever seen happen to an indian batsman? .. warne in india = sixes all over the park.

ODIs are important - because a gud bowler has to be economical and take wickets in test - the strike rate is only important and the economy is worthless.

 

[otay]

Murali in Sydney = Sixes all over the park

0 for 98 right? in 10 overs. Pretty economical if you ask me. And then i'll take you back to 96 world cup semi against the Windies, and again in Semis and the final against the saffers.
Warne = gun in ODI's. What has Murali done all that significantly in ODI's? He hasn't them a World CUp (De Silva did!). Warne pretty much was awesome in 99 world cup.

And Im not saying its Murali's fault, im just saying that it makes his stats seem a little less relevant than Warne's seeing as though more than 130 of his wickets came against players not much better (if at all) than your average Sydney first grade side.

Get fucked about Gatting ball. Every1 whos not a Murali dick rider thinks it was an awesome, awesome, brilliantly magnificent delivery!

 

[mednerd]

. Pretty economical if you ask me. And then i'll take you back to 96 world cup semi against the Windies, and again in Semis and the final against the saffers.

YEP...U HAVE to like take 2 separate incidents 4YEARS APART to sledge murali....
theres lots of things that affect a player's performance...e.g field, umpires etc.
lol u dont compare how many wickets someone has...u compare their average :S...obviously if someone had played a thousand tests (note hypebole so dont take me literally here) then they would have more statstics
it comes down to this..murali has a way LOWER average..thus murali will always be better than warne
ps getting upper order batsmen out from poorer countries are a *bit* harder to get out than tail enders ...which concidently warney is great at
and also even flintoff, brian lara, tendulkar (note all excellent batsmen) told that murali's hardest bowler to bat to and i think they noe a bit more about cricket than you

 

[otay]

I was talking about warne in those 2 world cup games to prove he is good at ODI's. If you knew cricket, you woulda known I was talking about warne for that, and murali about being "economical" in his 0-98, in response to the dude sayin warne gets smashed in india.

Hmmm I think number of wickets and average have equal weighting. It's abot longevity. Lets for arguments sake take out all the wickets both have gotten against those 2 nations (Zim and Bangla). Murali is still 148 wickets behind warne. if by the end of both of their careers, murali has taken more wickets AND his average is still better, then you're argument will be strengethened. But who's to say murali may get another 148 wickets but at 42 runs each, making his average after 668 wickets greater than warnes (remember Murali's average without zim and bangla makes there averages much closer) . i mean he may get an injury, batsmen may figure out the doosra, a new spinner may come in and take of the wickets away from him. He's still 148 wickets away. If it were all averages then Bobby Peel or Jim Laker (a legit choice) would be considered best spinners of all time and Graeme Smith would be considered a better bat than Greenidge.

Add to that, Murali is a chucker and yeah Warne>Murali

 

[haque]

if ur saying that murali gets more wickets coz he faces bangladesh more than warne well warne got tonked in bangladesh-only in the last tests did he manage to get 1 top order batsman and like 4 tailenders(bangladesh have the worst tail enders) so warney's obviously hopeless.

 

[otay]

i think they noe a bit more about cricket than you

I don't get why people say things like this. They probably know more about this specific topic (as they should) but just because they are a better cricketer than me or whoever doesn't mean they know more about CRICKET (in general) than me or any other cricket buff. Not saying I do know more, but how can you (or any1) claim things like this.

 

[otay]

so warney's obviously hopeless.

OI You don't wanna sound like an idiot or anything would you? Jeez i was used to warney haters in England (although most of the non asians believe he is better than Murali) but in Australia. Wrong forum I guess

 

[funnybunny]

You don't wanna sound like an idiot or anything would you?

i think it's you who's sounding like the idiot when you dismiss murali as a chucker rather than argue properly.
Why is it that you choose to remove bangladesh and zimbabawe as proper teams (only to prove your point)?

Warne's avg against bangladesh = 27.27, murali's = 12.52 (test)
Warne's avg against bangladesh = 25.50, murali's = 16.39 (ODI)
Warne's avg against Zimbabwe = 22.83, murali's = 16.86 (test)
Warne's avg against Zimbabwe = 21.14, murali's = 18.15 (ODI)

As you can see, against these teams, murali has a MUCH better average than warne.
Warne's averaages agiainst these countries are worse than against some other countries, so why do you claim that these countries should not be included? What really matters when comparing 2 spinners is the team's ability to play spinners, not their overall strength. Clearly, in this respect your argument is flawed.