• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

All time XI's

James90

Cricketer Of The Year
I think Greenwich or Haynes would be the second best opener of all-time at the moment. Langer however is extremely dedicated and commited to his country. For that reason I think Langer will continue to score hundreds at regular intervals over the next few years and earn a place with Gavaskar at the top of the order
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
You have not taken every consideration so in my view your conclusion is flawed. The doctored pitches for one. For another, even though it is his birth defect Murali is bowling at an advantage to every other bowler. Now I think accepting such a thing to stand and not keeping the cricket laws sovereign makes him the most trivial bowler of crickets history. Warne on the other hand is all class, and has no such advantage, yet his is of natural skill. There is really no disputing his style, it is elegant and legal.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
a massive zebra said:
This is my take on it.

Points in Favour of Murali

1) Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (43 wickets at 47.18). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94).

2) Murali has a better average, strike rate, economy rate, and takes more wickets per match than Warne; despite the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team.

3) Murali has a better record against all countries, except South Africa and Pakistan.

4) Murali is far more consistent. Warne has been known to be hammered occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he is very rarely hit around the park.

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur

Murali
36 6 123 1 3.42 1 L 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
54 3 224 2 4.15 2 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1 L 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin

5) Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee - Marshall having a better average because the high class West Indian bowlers put greater pressure on the batsmen, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. Same with Lindwall vs Bedser, Ambrose vs Akram, Laker vs Tayfield, and many, many others. Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.

6) A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway). What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?

7) Although Warne has been less effective since his shoulder injury, even at his peak (1993-97) he was not as good as Murali has been this century.

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 2000-2003 37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97 57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24

8) Murali on top form is more devastating than Warne on top form.

Best innings:

9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02 [1583]
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998 [1423]
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001 [1559]

Best Series:

Murali
Sri Lanka in Pakistan, 1999/00 [Series]
3 213.1 516 26 6/71 19.84 2.42 49.1 1 1
South Africa in Sri Lanka, 2000 [Series]
3 227.4 480 26 7/84 18.46 2.10 52.5 3 1
Zimbabwe in Sri Lanka, 2001/02 [Series]
3 203.1 294 30 9/51 9.80 1.44 40.6 2 1
England in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 231.4 320 26 7/46 12.30 1.38 53.4 1 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 209.1 649 28 6/59 23.17 3.10 44.8 4 1

Warne
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1993 [Series]
6 439.5 877 34 5/82 25.79 1.99 77.6 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1994/95 [Series]
5 256.1 549 27 8/71 20.33 2.14 56.9 2 1
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2001 [Series]
5 195.2 580 31 7/165 18.70 2.96 37.8 3 1
Australia v Pakistan Test Series in Sri Lanka/U.A.E., 2002/03 [Series]
3 124 342 27 7/94 12.66 2.75 27.5 2 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 168 521 26 5/43 20.03 3.10 38.7 4 2
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2005 [Series]
5 252.5 797 40 6/46 12/246 19.92 3.15 37.9 3 2


9) You could take a look at their respective records in the English county championship (note Murali was by far the star bowler in every season he played, while several Hampshire bowlers took wickets more cheaply than Warne in all his seasons):

Mat B M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 25 7695 391 2735 185 14.78 7-39 21 6 41.5 2.13
Warne 36 8423 323 3858 162 23.81 6-34 9 0 51.9 2.74

10) One reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.

Warne constantly gets so many accolades/awards that he doesn't deserve, purely through a God like reputation galvanised by ill educated media hype. In truth, his career has been highly inconsistent, he has constantly failed against the best, benefited from the opportunity to nail tails after McGrath and co have dismissed the better batsmen, and his overall career figures fall short of the truely great category.

Points in Favour of Warne

1) Has much greater competition for wickets, and yet still has more victims than any other Test bowler in history.

2) Has not had the opportunity to destroy Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Murali has taken over a fifth of his wickets against these teams while Warne has played a combined total of 2 matches against them.

3) Has a better average and strike rate outside Sri Lanka than Murali.

4) Recognised by the (biased) Anglo-Australian media as the best spinner of all times.

5) At his peak he had more variation than Murali.

6) He has a better record away from home than Murali.

7) Does not get the opportunity to play half his matches on dustbowls.

Conclusion: Murali > Warne
8-)

Still got all that on file eh? Well, do us a favour and keep it to yourself for once so we can avoid having the thread closed. Everybody knows you think Murali is better than Warne - it's in your sig file. Dragging out the same rubbish that people have already responded to extensively in every thread in which the words "Murali" and "Warne" are mentioned is just annoying.
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
8-)

Still got all that on file eh? Well, do us a favour and keep it to yourself for once so we can avoid having the thread closed. Everybody knows you think Murali is better than Warne - it's in your sig file. Dragging out the same rubbish that people have already responded to extensively in every thread in which the words "Murali" and "Warne" are mentioned is just annoying.
Your post is unnecessary and I am not getting into an argument about it with you. We both know our respective views on the matter so why get into the same debate again? My post was in response to a question posed by a new member who had not previously discussed the matter on this board. Why not stop wasting my time, and yours for that matter, by getting into things we have already gone over with eachother at length.
 

arvloshan

Cricket Spectator
i can surely state only one thing ; who ever selects any world xi there will be two world class spinners. warne and murali...

when selecting batsmen there will be 3 automatic solid slots.. lara, sachin and bradman...
 

greg

International Debutant
arvloshan said:
i can surely state only one thing ; who ever selects any world xi there will be two world class spinners. warne and murali...

when selecting batsmen there will be 3 automatic solid slots.. lara, sachin and bradman...
Probably not at Lords in May
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
a massive zebra said:
This is my take on it.

Points in Favour of Murali

1) Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (43 wickets at 47.18). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94).

2) Murali has a better average, strike rate, economy rate, and takes more wickets per match than Warne; despite the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team.

3) Murali has a better record against all countries, except South Africa and Pakistan.

4) Murali is far more consistent. Warne has been known to be hammered occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he is very rarely hit around the park.

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur

Murali
36 6 123 1 3.42 1 L 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
54 3 224 2 4.15 2 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1 L 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin

5) Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee - Marshall having a better average because the high class West Indian bowlers put greater pressure on the batsmen, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. Same with Lindwall vs Bedser, Ambrose vs Akram, Laker vs Tayfield, and many, many others. Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.

6) A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway). What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?

7) Although Warne has been less effective since his shoulder injury, even at his peak (1993-97) he was not as good as Murali has been this century.

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 2000-2003 37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97 57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24

8) Murali on top form is more devastating than Warne on top form.

Best innings:

9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02 [1583]
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998 [1423]
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001 [1559]

Best Series:

Murali
Sri Lanka in Pakistan, 1999/00 [Series]
3 213.1 516 26 6/71 19.84 2.42 49.1 1 1
South Africa in Sri Lanka, 2000 [Series]
3 227.4 480 26 7/84 18.46 2.10 52.5 3 1
Zimbabwe in Sri Lanka, 2001/02 [Series]
3 203.1 294 30 9/51 9.80 1.44 40.6 2 1
England in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 231.4 320 26 7/46 12.30 1.38 53.4 1 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 209.1 649 28 6/59 23.17 3.10 44.8 4 1

Warne
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1993 [Series]
6 439.5 877 34 5/82 25.79 1.99 77.6 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1994/95 [Series]
5 256.1 549 27 8/71 20.33 2.14 56.9 2 1
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2001 [Series]
5 195.2 580 31 7/165 18.70 2.96 37.8 3 1
Australia v Pakistan Test Series in Sri Lanka/U.A.E., 2002/03 [Series]
3 124 342 27 7/94 12.66 2.75 27.5 2 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 168 521 26 5/43 20.03 3.10 38.7 4 2
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2005 [Series]
5 252.5 797 40 6/46 12/246 19.92 3.15 37.9 3 2


9) You could take a look at their respective records in the English county championship (note Murali was by far the star bowler in every season he played, while several Hampshire bowlers took wickets more cheaply than Warne in all his seasons):

Mat B M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 25 7695 391 2735 185 14.78 7-39 21 6 41.5 2.13
Warne 36 8423 323 3858 162 23.81 6-34 9 0 51.9 2.74

10) One reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.

Warne constantly gets so many accolades/awards that he doesn't deserve, purely through a God like reputation galvanised by ill educated media hype. In truth, his career has been highly inconsistent, he has constantly failed against the best, benefited from the opportunity to nail tails after McGrath and co have dismissed the better batsmen, and his overall career figures fall short of the truely great category.

Points in Favour of Warne

1) Has much greater competition for wickets, and yet still has more victims than any other Test bowler in history.

2) Has not had the opportunity to destroy Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Murali has taken over a fifth of his wickets against these teams while Warne has played a combined total of 2 matches against them.

3) Has a better average and strike rate outside Sri Lanka than Murali.

4) Recognised by the (biased) Anglo-Australian media as the best spinner of all times.

5) At his peak he had more variation than Murali.

6) He has a better record away from home than Murali.

7) Does not get the opportunity to play half his matches on dustbowls.

Conclusion: Murali > Warne
their is a fair amount of things i can argue Warne about but i've learned from my Lara/Tendulakar thread argument that its mentally draining, so i wont waste time arguing......
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
aussie said:
their is a fair amount of things i can argue Warne about but i've learned from my Lara/Tendulakar thread argument that its mentally draining, so i wont waste time arguing......
I think we ought to settle this once and for all by playing a single game, and the winner takes all.

The game is... polo.

Chukka, anyone?
 

archie mac

International Coach
Yet another thread infected with the Murali V Warne crap, or 'does he or does he not' rubbish. Maybe we could have all the threads contaimanted with these vapid, insipid and long diatribes, flaged with a skull and bones icon, so I can avoid them like the plague :@
 

C_C

International Captain
Alltime WI XI :

D.Haynes
C.Hunte
IVA.Richards
B.Lara
C.Lloyd *
G.Sobers
J.Dujon +
M.Marshall
C.Ambrose
M.Holding
J.Garner

Alltime WI-A :

G.Greenidge
R.Fredericks
R.Kanhai
F.Worrell *
E.Weekes
C.Walcott
D.Murray +
A.Roberts
W.Hall
L.Gibbs
C.Walsh
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Why Haynes ahead of Greenidge? I don't get why you rate him so highly at all. Greenidge was a brilliant opener and Haynes was excellent with him over many years, but he was always the less dangerous of the two. I'd certainly go with Greenidge and Hunte for the Windies all time team. Not sure either why Lloyd gets in at 5 when you could make Sobers captain and pick Headley, or if you prefer someone post-war, Everton Weekes. And, picking a part-time keeper for tests has never been a particularly good idea, however good Walcott is with the bat. Dujon would seem the better bet.
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Zimbabwe

1. Grant FLOWER
2. Alistair CAMPBELL
3. Murray GOODWIN
4. David HOUGHTON
5. Andy FLOWER
6. Stuart CARLISLE
7. Neil JOHNSON
8. Heath STREAK
9. Paul STRANG
10. Raymond PRICE
11. Henry OLONGA

12. Sean ERVINE
13. Eddo BRANDES
14. Guy WHITTALL
15. Tatenda TAIBU
 
Last edited:

C_C

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Why Haynes ahead of Greenidge? I don't get why you rate him so highly at all. Greenidge was a brilliant opener and Haynes was excellent with him over many years, but he was always the less dangerous of the two. I'd certainly go with Greenidge and Hunte for the Windies all time team. Not sure either why Lloyd gets in at 5 when you could make Sobers captain and pick Headley, or if you prefer someone post-war, Everton Weekes. And, picking a part-time keeper for tests has never been a particularly good idea, however good Walcott is with the bat. Dujon would seem the better bet.

Haynes and Greenidge are both great openers but i rate Haynes marginally better, owing to the fact that Haynes did better against quality bowling attacks in general and he was also a better player of spin.
The reason i have Clive Lloyd ahead of others is because i think he is the best contributor available.
The other contenders, IMO, are Kanhai, Weekes, Walcott, Worrell, Headley and Kallicharan.

Kanhai - has the strongest case, a better batsman than Clive Lloyd but Lloyd was one of the best cover fielders and slippers ever along with astute captaincy

Weekes - he is really one of the greatest ever against spin but against pace he is not of the highest class

Walcott - another very strong contender and while he was an excellent batsman and a decent part time keeper, he was quiete sluggish between the wickets and in the field. Also i dont think he could've maintained that kinda batting form against better bowling attacks.

Worrell - played lower quality attacks for an almost similar average compared to Kanhai and Lloyd

Kalli - was top class before shoulder injury but didnt perform at the highest level for very long

Headley - simply speaking, didnt play much and played most of his time in the amatuer era and that too, often against england second XIs.


All said, i wouldnt mind if Kanhai or Worrell got ahead of Lloyd but i think Lloyd's man-management skills, astute captaincy and far superior fielding should see him in the team ahead of slightly more accomplished batsmen like Kanhai or Walcott.

As per my second XI team, Walcott plays as a batsman. Deryck Murray is my keeper.
 

C_C

International Captain
Prince EWS said:
Zimbabwe

1. Grant FLOWER
2. Alistair CAMPBELL
3. Murray GOODWIN
4. David HOUGHTON
5. Andy FLOWER
6. Stuart CARLISLE
7. Neil JOHNSON
8. Heath STREAK
9. Paul STRANG
10. Raymond PRICE
11. Henry OLONGA

12. Sean ERVINE
13. Henry OLONGA
14. Guy WHITTALL
15. Tatenda TAIBU

Instead of Carlisle, i would pick Taibu in the team. With Paul Strang in the team, i think Ray Price is not of much utility- i would go with Blignaut
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
C_C said:
Instead of Carlisle, i would pick Taibu in the team. With Paul Strang in the team, i think Ray Price is not of much utility- i would go with Blignaut
Dunno about Blignaut... I never really rated his bowling much and he has never been consistant enough with the bat.

I tossed up between Price and Brandes, but it really depend on the pitch.

Carlisle deserves his place ahead of Taibu IMO. If he had been given a permanent place in the batting lineup, he would have had a mid 30s test average.
 

C_C

International Captain
Well i dont follow Zimbabwe cricket THAT closely but i think Taibu should definately get in the team- he is a significantly better keeper than Flower and i think Andy needs to be a specialist bat and not worry about keeping as well. Plus Taibu is pretty gritty- he is one of the few zimboks in the history of their test cricket who tends to stick at the wicket and grind out runs- a perfect partner for Flower IMO.
 

archie mac

International Coach
FaaipDeOiad said:
Why Haynes ahead of Greenidge? I don't get why you rate him so highly at all. Greenidge was a brilliant opener and Haynes was excellent with him over many years, but he was always the less dangerous of the two. I'd certainly go with Greenidge and Hunte for the Windies all time team. Not sure either why Lloyd gets in at 5 when you could make Sobers captain and pick Headley, or if you prefer someone post-war, Everton Weekes. And, picking a part-time keeper for tests has never been a particularly good idea, however good Walcott is with the bat. Dujon would seem the better bet.

I agree Headley should waltz into the top side. He scored 10 of the first WI 20 hundreds made by the Windies, no one else made two. He played the best side Australia could put into the field, and he also played England's best when the Windies toured there.
 
Last edited:

Top