*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Francis]

So ?? There is something called 'UMPIRE'. How would Ponting react to an LBW, if the umpires said not out but the bowler said, he was plumb, would he walk ? to me this idea is just ridiculous and shows how stupid Ponting is. He should just bat and not offer any suggestion in the future on how cricket should be played.

I'm not advocating Ponting's suggestion. I'm just saying he's not a hypocrit. And I read below... you don't understand my point.

What other teams ? Other teams dont define rules, ICC does. Yeah we wont know Ponting would still hold ground, but we wont know he would walk after the opposition team ?

The ICC makes the rules, the captains have a small say on what spirit the game should be played in.

If you want to be a messiah and start a crusade, better be ready for some sacrifices.

Lol, or just bring it up in a metting. Seriously, it comprimises the team. Like I concluded in my last post, this suggestion is just as ridiculous as Ponting's. It's obsurd to say "a captain should comprimise his team by giving the other team an advantage just to make a point." Whose gonna follow him? If I were captain no way and I wouldn't give the Aussie an inch. It's silly, what captain is going to release such an advanatage? It's laughable to assume a captain would care about such a stance, especially when its helping the team. That's why its important both teams know before the game how the game is to be played by their captain.

Spirit of Game and Ponting. Puhlese....

I dislike quotes like these. They add nothing, expand on nothing and sarcasim as a manner of persuasion has no influcence.

If there is no report then why didn't captains accept his suggestion ? Clearly they were not impressed enough by his suggestion or his approach. Either way If Ponting was so honest why didn't he accept the technology help ?

Yep. Captains have every right kick back Ponting's suggestions and I agree with them. The captains haven't done anything wrong to Ponting at all. Any reporters etc saying Ponting is a hypocrit are wrong. Ponting likes cricket the way it used to be, when you can accept an umpires decision and you take the fieldsman's word. He feels technology slows down the game and says umpires are doing a fine job getting 90% of their decisions right.
He has an idea for how the game should be played an he's entitled to his opinion in the same way captains are entitled to disagree with him.

How many times are you going to repeat it ? Spirit is something Ponting and his supporters should not talk about. oh and it is ICC rules not the other teams, as you have been trying to portra.

Clearly you do not understand the difference between spirit of the game and rules. You can do A LOT of things with the rules that can be seen as unsportsman-like. Inzi getting called for obstruction of field was in accordance witht he rules. Yet all he was doing was trying to protect himself. Yet the Indians appealed. He felt it was against the spirit of the game, and in the next game the Indians didn't appeal in certain times where they could have. Cricket laws, just like societies laws, are intented to maintain order. You can, in both cases, do things that don't infringe on them that are unlawful. Some people, including myself, feel the Aussies put pressure on the umpires by over-appealing. Appealing isn't against the law of the ICC, you can appeal all you like, but you might get away with a wicket that you didn't deserve. That is against the spirit of the game in my opinion. Others are entitled to disgaree.

I hope you can distinguish between the two now.

Now Ponting is going to teach us how the game of cricket should be played ? If Ponting was so sincere about it why didn't he accept to take help of the technology in stead of only relying on the Fielder's word ? And for the last time, Ponting isn't the best example of playing games with spirit.

I never ever once said Ponting is an example of how cricket is to be played. I never once advocated his stance of fielders catches. Try and find one quote from my writings that prove that. Your gotten it wrong. All I ever said was that he isn't a hypocrit for standing his ground when captains refuse an EQUAL accord. Ponting feels technology will slow cricket down and feels that since over 90% of umpires decisions are correct that that's good enough for him.

Exactly, so what is the point, I dont think its going to improve the game because when players know that the other team is going to take their word for it, they would lie more ofte and that's very discouraging. I would rather trust the trchnology than fielder.

So you accept that I don't agree with Ponting? I'm not advocating his policies, just defending his right to stand his ground if an accord hasn't been settled.

what on the earth you are talking ?? This thread was about Ponting's and Warne's statements about Bangladesh, and you have started a different RAGA.

I was using Ponting's stance as an example of people jumping on top of him when he's done absolutely nothing wrong. In Bangladesh Ponting said at the start of the tour he was wrong and he took back what he said. When Bangladesh have a great day people are happy to ignore the fact that Ponting took back what he said and admitted that Bangladesh deserved their spot of test status.

Yet you want others to accept Ponting's impractical suggestion.

You've gotten completely lost. Find one quote where I said people should accept what he did? All I said was that if captains, teams, reporters etc want to criticise him, it has to be on the terms that he broke. But what terms has Ponting broken is both teams agree before a game that fielders words aren't always to be trusted.

Ponting hasn't broken any rules because no team has an accord with him. I can just imagine it, Ponting walking up to Vaughn, "do we accept fielders words?"
"Nope"
"Okay then, thanks for clearing that up."

So this relates to this thread in that, just in my example, people jumped all over Ponting's "Bangladesh shouldn't play test cricket" when he took the comments back and said "I was wrong, I take it back". Yet when Australia have a bad day and Bangladesh are all over Australia, people are saying he should eat his words. Why? He admitted he was wrong before the game.

 

[Sanz]

Murali has a bit under 150 I believe. I was rounding off assuming he'd have 200 for his career against them.

Warne getting wickets off England as opposed to Murali getting them off Bangladesh. Which do you suppose is the more difficult task? I've seen him play all summer, he's not bowling well, could be due to form/fatigue/injury, whatever. It is bad. He went wicketless for 1 innings. What is a more likely assumption: Warne won't get wickets against Bangladesh, or Murali wouldn't have gotten as many wickets against England?

Common, you cant use that as an excuse, Oh Warnie is not bowling well because of injury or some other reason, that's why he was not able to pick up Bangla wickets. That's the excuse I hear for Warnie's performance against India. Every time he has played us, he has done poorly and that has been attributed to his injury. As for the assumption "Warne won't get wickets against Bangladesh, or Murali wouldn't have gotten as many wickets against England" - Well Murali has played 10 tests against England and taken 69 wickets, 6.9 wickets/test. On the other hand he has played 20 tests against Zim and BD and taken 137 wickets i.e. 6.85 wickets/test. Warne has played 2 tests against Zim and BD and has taken 9 wickets. Now you decide if Murali would have taken any less wickets against England in same no. of tests than he has done against ZIM+BD.

I know my answer, do you ?

See this is what I'm trying to suggest. Is he jealous because you think that's the kind of guy he is...or because of what he is saying. If he's meaning to show Murali out, why would he clarify his statements? It's indeed the meaning behind what he's saying that irks people. However you wish to see it, it's the truth. Personally, I'd consider him jealous if he's clutching at straws or making pathetic arguments. That one is a very valid fact.

Yes, I think he is the kind of guy, he is insecure about his world record being broken by Murali and that's why all these statements coming out now when they both are competing for the World Record. He needed to clarify his statement because he was doing the same thing he accused Murali off. And no these are not facts, these are, as you said, 'pathetic arguments' and clutching @ straws. First he questioned his action (I think), then talked about cheap wickets in April 2005 and in december again his fear that it would be taken over by 'Some guy who bowls all day from one end against Minnows'.

If I say or do something you don't like, you're going to depict a subconscious feeling towards me. Now if someone states something to further degrade your view of me, however incorrect, you may think it consistant and believe it. It's this process of thought I object to.

What's worse is when a player is honest and comes out and admits a fault in one instance and you vilify him, yet if he's also honest and dismisses something someone has reported, they're still vilified. It's like picking what you want to believe just because it fits in with your image of the person? I don't know, hope I've been clear.

I object to the timing, If he was misquoted misquoted or something, he should have said so next day, next week, not after 5 months before his adventures against the same minnow. In any case, I read the quoted statement, I dont see how and where it was quoted out of context. He meant every word of what he said and it is crystal clear what he was trying to say there. If he thinks it was true, then why is he backtracking from that now. Which version should we trust, the one he is saying now or the one he said 6 months ago.

 

[Sanz]

So this relates to this thread in that, just in my example, people jumped all over Ponting's "Bangladesh shouldn't play test cricket" when he took the comments back and said "I was wrong, I take it back". Yet when Australia have a bad day and Bangladesh are all over Australia, people are saying he should eat his words. Why? He admitted he was wrong before the game.

For whatever reasons, he did eat his words (obviously not because Bangladesh did well). People are not saying 'He should eat his words' but that 'He ate his words' before the series started. I dont know what changed his mind, but It was nice to see him eating the humble pie both before the test and during the test(due to BD performance).

 

[Sanz]

All I ever said was that he isn't a hypocrit for standing his ground when captains refuse an EQUAL accord.

Who said he is for that reason alone ? However I felt his outburst @ Duncan Fletcher and then going on and on about spirit of game (after the ashes was over) was pretty hypocritical.

 

[Dasa]

Who said he is for that reason alone ? However I felt his outburst @ Duncan Fletcher and then going on and on about spirit of game (after the ashes was over) was pretty hypocritical.

Not only that...the way he appeals on the field (again, it's he and Warne) and questions the umpire suggests to me that he doesn't respect the spirit of the game at all. So it is hypocritical for him to be talking of returning to taking the fielders word and respecting the spirit of the game when he can't even respect it himself (or make his team do it either).

 

[C_C]

What's worse is when a player is honest

Are we attributing 'honesty' to a player who is a drug-cheat ?
Well wow. I suppose we should start calling Ben Johnson a honest man too!

 

[C_C]

All I said was that if captains, teams, reporters etc want to criticise him, it has to be on the terms that he broke. But what terms has Ponting broken is both teams agree before a game that fielders words aren't always to be trusted.

The fact that Ponting had the gall to suggest something like that is whats hypocritical.
Its about as credible as a fraudster asking you to trust him with your money if he trusts you with his. Players should accept the word of a fielder. Yeah- thats when the OZ team themselves dont accept the word of fielders ( whatever happened to practice what you preach?), flick off bails with bare hands when nobody is looking and then appeal for a dismissal, claim catches on the bounce, etc etc. Right-O !
And i shall be taking the words of the American government that there are WMDs in Iraq.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah- thats when the OZ team themselves dont accept the word of fielders ( whatever happened to practice what you preach?),

This is the point that Francis is trying to make. It's going to end up being a vicious cycle - Ponting (and Steve Waugh before him) wanting to make an accord between sides at the start of the series about taking the fielders' word on catches, the opposition refusing, and thus the Aussies not wanting to give away a competitive advantage. Therefore, they'll stand their ground when an accord is not reached, and opposition will still be suspicious.

 

[C_C]

This is the point that Francis is trying to make. It's going to end up being a vicious cycle - Ponting (and Steve Waugh before him) wanting to make an accord between sides at the start of the series about taking the fielders' word on catches, the opposition refusing, and thus the Aussies not wanting to give away a competitive advantage. Therefore, they'll stand their ground when an accord is not reached, and opposition will still be suspicious.

How can a team, that's hallmark is trying to get any edge it can get- legal or illegal- propose the idea of takin each other's word for it, before demonstrating a standard level of fairplay and sportsmanship on the field ?

 

[Son Of Coco]

The fact that Ponting had the gall to suggest something like that is whats hypocritical.
Its about as credible as a fraudster asking you to trust him with your money if he trusts you with his. Players should accept the word of a fielder. Yeah- thats when the OZ team themselves dont accept the word of fielders ( whatever happened to practice what you preach?), flick off bails with bare hands when nobody is looking and then appeal for a dismissal, claim catches on the bounce, etc etc. Right-O !
And i shall be taking the words of the American government that there are WMDs in Iraq.

I think 'fanatical' is an appropriate term here.

 

[Sanz]

Therefore, they'll stand their ground when an accord is not reached, and opposition will still be suspicious.

And also claims catches that were never there a la Michael Slater and Steve Waugh (remember Lara catch that was never there). This is what people are wary of...that Ricky(and before him Waugh) would claims catches that are never there...

 

[vic_orthdox]

And also claims catches that were never there a la Michael Slater and Steve Waugh (remember Lara catch that was never there). This is what people are wary of...that Ricky(and before him Waugh) would claims catches that are never there...

To be honest, I don't remember the Lara one. And I don't have Pay TV, so I haven't seen the Slater one in full, but what I have seen of it made for ugly watching.

The biggest problem I have with the "honesty policy" is that often fielders will think they've taken it when they really haven't. Then the opposition thinks they must have been cheating, which in turn causes greater tensions between the two teams.

 

[Sanz]

This is the point that Francis is trying to make. It's going to end up being a vicious cycle - Ponting (and Steve Waugh before him) wanting to make an accord between sides at the start of the series about taking the fielders' word on catches, the opposition refusing, and thus the Aussies not wanting to give away a competitive advantage.

Why raise it at all, why not let the umpires do their job. IMO it's another one of their dirty games that Steve Waugh played all along as a captain and now Ponting is trying that. But other captains aren't as dumb as Ponting to fall for it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Why raise it at all, why not let the umpires do their job. IMO it's another one of their dirty games that Steve Waugh played all along as a captain and now Ponting is trying that. But other captains aren't as dumb as Ponting to fall for it.

I have no doubt myself that Steve Waugh had the game's best interests at heart when he started his "crusade" as such. Whether it was the correct view point to take or not, whether it actually would have improved the game, is debateable.

And to cast either Ponting or Waugh as captains who used dirty tactics to win games of cricket is, IMO, false.

 

[Sanz]

To be honest, I don't remember the Lara one. And I don't have Pay TV, so I haven't seen the Slater one in full, but what I have seen of it made for ugly watching.

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1994-95/AUS_IN_WI/ARTICLES/S-WAUGH_CHEATED_VIV_07APR95

"..Lara, on 65 and very much in charge, went to a diving Steve Waugh catch in the gully although television replays seemed to show that the ball hit the ground as Waugh rolled over. Neither umpire gave the batsman out, Lara going, presumably, on the say-so of the fielder...."

The biggest problem I have with the "honesty policy" is that often fielders will think they've taken it when they really haven't. Then the opposition thinks they must have been cheating, which in turn causes greater tensions between the two teams.

Exactly and that's why it makes it impractical. Not to forget the LBW, would you take a Bowler's word for it ?

 

[Sanz]

I have no doubt myself that Steve Waugh had the game's best interests at heart when he started his "crusade" as such. Whether it was the correct view point to take or not, whether it actually would have improved the game, is debateable.

And to cast either Ponting or Waugh as captains who used dirty tactics to win games of cricket is, IMO, false.

I think we can agree to disagree here.

 

[honestbharani]

Pretty much everybody assumed it must have been a misquote, which indeed it was. That is in fact the point.

I used the word "disgrace" with regards to that issue, I think. And BTW, anyone here who believes Warne didn't insinuate that Murali took cheap wickets must be people who don't want to see the truth. It is obvious because he said it TWICE in six months. And trust me, he NEVER made it seem as though he was talking about not having played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. The context was the world record and it is obvious what he meant. Please..... I thought Kazo and Sean were better than this. No one says that Warnie shouldn't do anything wrong. We are all human after all, but to say he NEVER suggested what he so clearly did is just going overboard with the SK Warne Fan Club thing.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh come off it. Read it again.

"It wasn't just the skipper eating his words. Shane Warne found himself tucking into more than just his usual cheese toasties when he was force-fed a large slice of humble pie after a first-innings mauling. "I did say that players like Murali had taken a lot of wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe whereas I have only played one Test against Zimbabwe," Warne said, no doubt also feeling the pinch. "But I did not mean to say that others were going after cheap wickets as had been made out to be." Leaving aside the fact that there is little other interpretation of this statement - what else did he mean? - Warne failed to pick up a single wicket in the first innings, returning bloated figures of 0 for 112 from 20 overs, his second-worst in Tests. He may have bounced back with 3 for 28 in the second innings, but by then he was already stuffed".

In each of the bolded sections, the writer CLEARLY implies that Warne made the comments after he got belted.

First it is claimed that Warne is eating his humble pie after his mauling - meaning presumably that he made a silly comment and now he is suffering for it because he got belted, and is therefore backtracking. Notice how it says he eats the humble pie after a first innings mauling, and THEN displays the quote. The clear implication there is that the quote is him eating the humble pie, when in fact it comes from before the test.

In the second bit it re-enforces the original point, suggesting that Warne is concerned about his own reputation, therefore he is "feeling the pinch" and changing his stance.

In the third bit, it again implies that Warne is attempting to take back his comments because of his figures.

The fact of the matter is that Warne retracted his comments BEFORE the test against Bangladesh began. For those who criticised his comments, this should be worthy of praise. Think about it, Warne made a comment which was viewed as Murali-bashing... then he comes out at first opportunity and retracts the statement in his own cryptic and bizarre way. This means that he was either misquoted or misrepresented, or that he simply realised he was wrong and wanted to make amends. Either way, it seems like the right thing to come out and retract his comments. The suggestion from cricinfo that he was doing it to cover his tracks is a clear example of the absurd lengths that people will go to in an effort to ridicule Warne, when he gives them plenty of ammo as it is.

Incidentally, the same article has a similarly unfounded suggestion made about Ponting, where it claims that Ponting made his media statement before the test saying he was wrong about Bangladesh because he was forced to by Cricket Australia.

maybe you should read the actual comments by Warne during both those instances when he took those shots at Murali.

 

[honestbharani]

That's not misrepresenting him though. He's saying it will be broken due to those factors. Is he wrong? No. Does this comment irk people? Yes, it does, because it's true. But in that, he isn't implying that this is how Murali intends to break the record. Or indeed, it's his approach. If you wish to vilify him for this, then he should also be praised for the comments he made a week back. But is he? No, he's vilified further. Of course, if Warne really wanted to he could come out and say exactly what he thinks, knowing warne, what makes you think he wouldn't?

HE rubbished wickets taken against Bangladesh and then got mauled by the same team. In fact, Murali JUST won matches against almost the same batting line up a few months ago. End of story. If you take Bangla and Zim out of the test world, Murali will STILL break the world record, because he is younger and with those teams out he will have more rest periods. Him bringing up Zim and the Tigers into the interview when the question was about the world record says it all, really. I never thought he suggested that Murali could only break the record by playing against Zim and BD. Even he cannot be that dumb. But he certainly rubbished wickets taken against Zim and BD by Murali.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I used the word "disgrace" with regards to that issue, I think. And BTW, anyone here who believes Warne didn't insinuate that Murali took cheap wickets must be people who don't want to see the truth. It is obvious because he said it TWICE in six months. And trust me, he NEVER made it seem as though he was talking about not having played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. The context was the world record and it is obvious what he meant. Please..... I thought Kazo and Sean were better than this. No one says that Warnie shouldn't do anything wrong. We are all human after all, but to say he NEVER suggested what he so clearly did is just going overboard with the SK Warne Fan Club thing.

I never suggested any such thing. In fact, I said the exact opposite - Warne DID imply that Murali takes a lot of cheap wickets against the weaker sides. What he didn't do is retract the statement after Bangaldesh belted him to cover his tracks - he retracted it beforehand, presumably because he felt he had been misrepresented.

The distinction that Warne made was between saying that Murali takes a lot of cheap wickets, and saying that taking the cheap wickets reduces Murali's quality as a bowler. His statement was about who would break his record, not about who was the better bowler. Whether or not you think that's a reasonable distinction to make, that's what he said.

As I have said plenty of times on this subject, Warne was out of line to come out and criticise another player's achievements in that way, but it's not as if he's the only person to do it.