Is Warne better than Muralitharan?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack then his average and strike rate would be a lot lower as all he would have to do is clean up the middle, low order and tail ender.

By that reasoning Murali is a star, because he has to bowl at everyone.

That said, I don't agree fully with that reasoning. In some cases it applies though.

 

[Adamc]

If Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack then his average and strike rate would be a lot lower as all he would have to do is clean up the middle, low order and tail ender.

Interestingly enough, some 69.7% of Murali's wickets are from the top and middle order (batting positions 1-7). The corresponding figure for Warne is 64.8%. Make of it what you will.

 

[DT8]

173 tail end (batting position 8-11) for Warne compared to 147 for Muralitharan.

 

[Mingster]

Warne is the better bowler and Murali the better chucker.

 

[DT8]

Also Warne takes a lot of wickets against the same batsmen, whereas Murali takes more of a variety. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[quytst0rm]

Thats a bad thing because what the use of him taking Nehra's wicket game after game but doesn't seem to trouble Tendulkar or Dravid.

 

[deeps]

seriously, looking at the records..murali's speaks for itself! it's much better than warne...if murali was australian,and didn't have a sus action, and warne was sri lankan,and had a suspect action.... we wouldn't even b having this conversation now

 

[Deja moo]

I read reports in the papers that the Australians didnt rate Dravid highly before the test series because he hadnt a good record against the best bowling attack, in Australia.....but once he had performed very well against their bowling in Australia, they rated him highly......


Shouldnt a similar principle apply in this case too?

Warne has performed poorly against the best batting line up ( atleast when it comes to spin..) whereas Murali has done well......

So I dont see why Warne is a better spinner than Murali...

And I quote Sir Donald Bradman here.." Clearly, Muralitharan does not throw the ball."

And Murali has also been cleared by a commitee from the ICC.
So unless you wish to imply that you know better than the Experts and also The Don, stop labelling Murali a chucker.

 

[Jono]

I think the fact that Warne has not performed as greatly against India as Murali has is a BIG factor in this discussion. Everything points to Murali being the better bowler, except for idiots which call Murali a chucker but I prefer to just push aside their arguments and leave them there.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

hey thanks Ford_GTHO351

Who do you think will be first to 500?

I think its too close to call to be honest

 

[godofcricket]

Murli for me...Lets not only see who will reach 500 first, the matches played is also important. Murli has got better average, better strike rate, better economy then how could you say shane warne is better......Shane warne WAS a threat, he isn't any more comparing what he could do with the ball before and on the other hand batsman always feared Murli. If shane warne was a big turner of the bowl Murli can still do it now.

 

[marc71178]

I dont think this is necessarily the case. In AUS we often go on about his action because we see him as a threat, but once he retires then there is no need for this.

So one could argue that there is no need for it at the moment then!

 

[Sanz]

Warnie is an Artist. I have not seen a better spinner than him.

 

[Arrow]

Statisitics can never be the be all end all when it comes to judging players.
Its way to shallow of an insight.

Shane warne was recently rated a top 5 wisdom player of all time and i doubt muri was even mentioned.

I wonder why.

Its interesting that muri has only entered the limelight in recent years in regards to his bowling.Before that id only ever heard of him because of his bowling action.
Shane warne has been a "superstar" now for over a decade.

 

[twctopcat]

Warnie was one of the five wisden players of the last century because he brought such great success to an art that hadn't been that successful recently (mustaq and kumble are successful, but not to the degree of warne). However purely because he is a great leg spinner doesn't automatically make him better then any off spinner, as the results show. The fact is murali has just as much cunning, variation and respect as warne, if not more, which in my opinion marks him out as better. Lets face it if warne wasn't australian you wouldn't rate him as highly, and im not anti-aussies believe me, i respect them as much as the next cricket fan.

 

[quytst0rm]

Statisitics can never be the be all end all when it comes to judging players.
Its way to shallow of an insight.

Shane warne was recently rated a top 5 wisdom player of all time and i doubt muri was even mentioned.

I wonder why.

Its interesting that muri has only entered the limelight in recent years in regards to his bowling.Before that id only ever heard of him because of his bowling action.
Shane warne has been a "superstar" now for over a decade.

Murli had to work hard to reach where he is today. And i am quite sure that he is a lot better in his prime then Warne was in his.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Statisitics can never be the be all end all when it comes to judging players.
Its way to shallow of an insight.

Shane warne was recently rated a top 5 wisdom player of all time and i doubt muri was even mentioned.

I wonder why.

Its interesting that muri has only entered the limelight in recent years in regards to his bowling.Before that id only ever heard of him because of his bowling action.
Shane warne has been a "superstar" now for over a decade.

IMO very true.

Murli had to work hard to reach where he is today. And i am quite sure that he is a lot better in his prime then Warne was in his.

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

 

[Richard]

Welcome DT8

They're both damn good at what they do, and I would not try and split them - alongside guys like Laker, Grimmet, O'Reilly, Tayfield, Chandrasekhar, Prasanna, Venkat and Bedi - they're the top of the class.

Believe me, Tayfield, Laker, Chandra, Venkat, Bedi, Prasanna, Lock and any other fingerspinner would not be considered as good as Warne and Murali if they played today.
They were good at what they did, but IMO it is glaringly obviously not coincidence that there have been none with their records recently.
Good wristspinners will always be better bowlers than good fingerspinners as far as I'm concerned, and nothing will change that.

 

[Richard]

Hey

I know that Murali is considered the 'best bowler ever', but does anyone think Warne is better than him?

Murali is only considered the "best bowler ever" by that insane Wisden thing that attempted to do something so impossible it strained belief. It was worse than PWC, and that's saying something.
Us sane people (like Neil) realise that once you get to Warne and Murali's level (also reached by the like of Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud and Abdul Qadir) there isn't really any significant difference between these like.
As there is little significant difference between the like of me and Neil in terms of either bowling or batting.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Re: Re: Is Warne better than Muralitharan?

Us sane people (like Neil)

Ahem!

Only kidding. :P

Warne and Murali's level (also reached by the like of Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud and Abdul Qadir)

Agree with Grimmet and O'Reilly, not with Benaud and Qadir.