• 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.

16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

marc71178 said:
I think you'll find Warne has also won one of those, and not in spin friendly conditions...
As part of a stronger bowling unit that created the pressure so that the batsmen would try and attack Warne. Also Pakistan seemed intent on copying the little green-haired Lemmings which occupy my sister's computer screen...
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Rik said:
That does not affect weather he is better than Warne or not. Stats and performance do. And give me the proof he chucks or just give it a break, because there are so many people who seem to think Murali chucks yet will never back it up with evidence...
r u saying that chucking does not affect whether he is better or not??if i could just throw the ball, heck i could be the most accurate bowler and would be able to spin the ball a mile. no proof???if u watch the replays i think its quite clear that he bowls with a bent arm. frankly i dont care if he has polio or whatever disease it is that he has that prevents him from straightening the arm- he should be playing cricket with all the other disabled cricketers. the fact is it gives him an advantage over all the other bowlers. if the icc arent covinced whether he chucks or not then they should make him change his action...they cant just give him the benefit of the doubt here and let him get 600 wickets with a suspect action!!!
 

Swervy

International Captain
tooextracool said:
r u saying that chucking does not affect whether he is better or not??if i could just throw the ball, heck i could be the most accurate bowler and would be able to spin the ball a mile. no proof???if u watch the replays i think its quite clear that he bowls with a bent arm. frankly i dont care if he has polio or whatever disease it is that he has that prevents him from straightening the arm- he should be playing cricket with all the other disabled cricketers. the fact is it gives him an advantage over all the other bowlers. if the icc arent covinced whether he chucks or not then they should make him change his action...they cant just give him the benefit of the doubt here and let him get 600 wickets with a suspect action!!!
bowling with a bent arm isnt an issue, the issue is whether he straightens it during the time the arm comes over..i personally dont think it does
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
tooextracool said:
r no proof???if u watch the replays i think its quite clear that he bowls with a bent arm.
That is plainly obvious to anyone with two working eyes.

Throwing is about straightening the arm in the action, and Murali's does not.
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
tooextracool said:
its quite clear that he bowls with a bent arm. frankly i dont care if he has polio or whatever disease it is that he has that prevents him from straightening the arm
What an ignorant thing to say. Bowling with a bent arm is totally legal. The problem is if you straighten a bent arm on release. You yourself say he can't straighten it, so by definition he simply cannot throw even if he wanted to. Contradicting yourself there mate.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
a massive zebra said:
5)Warne has been known to be hit around occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree (Thorpe 2001 etc), he has never been smashed around the park.
Oh, he has. If anyone takes the time to read my posts (unlikely) then I pointed out a while ago that against England in 2002 he was smacked big time.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

Rik said:
As part of a stronger bowling unit that created the pressure so that the batsmen would try and attack Warne.
I don't remember it happening quite like that in the latter stages of WC99...


Rik said:
Also Pakistan seemed intent on copying the little green-haired Lemmings which occupy my sister's computer screen...
It wasn't just against Pakistan.

P.S. Lemmings was a classic.
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

'Better maybe, but not that much better in all honesty.'

Better average, strike rate, economy rate, wickets per match. What more could you ask for?


'And Australia...'

Warne has not played against Australia so what a stupid thing to say. Technically you are correct, but in reality you are just being picky.


'his record against Pakistan is superb.'

Yes I mentioned that in point 2.


'Likewise, Murali hasn't had to play Sri Lanka.'

If you could chose who to play against (Australia or Sri Lanka) who would you chose? Its pretty obvious that anyone with a brain would chose to play Sri Lanka, so clearly Warne has a slight advantage in not having to play Australia.


'Including his 1st couple of matches is a little harsh.'

If you actually read my original post, Warne was hammered on odd occasions right up to 2001 actually.


'Also, Murali has had a fair few times of being hit around - but you've not listed them I see.'

Really? When? I quoted all instances of Warne bowling for at least 20 overs while going for at least 3.5 runs an over. You do the same for Murali and we'll see who has been hit about more often.



'Nor does it make Murali better than Warne.'

It is one of the reasons why some people rate Warne higher. Players should be rated on performance, and although reinventing a style of bowling is great, it has nothing to do with how good you actually are.


'Likewise, the strength of their attacks says nothing about them.
If anything it flatters Murali's figures a lot more.'

This is complete rubbish. Warne often comes on with the opposition 4 or 5 down, with all the best players gone. Murali nearly always has to bowl at (and get out) the best players. Therefore Warne should have a lower average and strike rate because he bowls a higher proportion of his deliveries at the lower order. Likewise Warne should have a lower average and strike rate because pressure is built with good bowling at the other end, unlike when Murali is bowling. If you want an example, look at Hadlee and Marshall. Great bowlers both - Hadlee taking more wickets per match but Marshall having the lower average and strike rate.


'Another one that says nothing about relative abilities. One of Murali's biggest bunnies is Waqar...'

If you look at the facts, in the last half dozen years, McGrath takes most of the big wickets for Australia.


'Again, how does that make him a better bowler?'

Because, as I say, if Murali was Australian and Warne was Sri Lankan, it would be unanimously agreed that Murali was better.


'Also, relevance to Murali being a better bowler?'

It is one of the reasons why Warne is rated so highly.


'Link please - I don't remember seeing about this.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2572069.stm




'And if you snipped out the other parts of their careers (the unhighlighted stats) - I think you'll find Warne's figures better - that would mean that when he's not as good, he's not as bad as Murali was...'

At his worst Warne gets smashed about, and Murali just doesn't take wickets at his weakest. At their best, as I have shown, they are both great but Murali is far more dangerous. Overall Murali is also superior in practically every statistical way possible.
 
Last edited:

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
tooextracool said:
r u saying that chucking does not affect whether he is better or not??if i could just throw the ball, heck i could be the most accurate bowler and would be able to spin the ball a mile. no proof???if u watch the replays i think its quite clear that he bowls with a bent arm. frankly i dont care if he has polio or whatever disease it is that he has that prevents him from straightening the arm- he should be playing cricket with all the other disabled cricketers. the fact is it gives him an advantage over all the other bowlers. if the icc arent covinced whether he chucks or not then they should make him change his action...they cant just give him the benefit of the doubt here and let him get 600 wickets with a suspect action!!!
How nice to see such unbiased views!

No I really doubt if you would become the best bowler in the world if you threw the ball, and I'm sure I'm not the only person round here who finds it impossible to bowl without a dead straight arm, if I bend it then I loose all control and power. There is no proof, no one can find any and no one brings any up, except proof that he doesn't throw the ball. I'm saying his action and the fact that many people think he throws does not make Warne a better bowler, or Murali a worse one. I'd give Murali the chance to get 600 wickets, incidentally more than Warne will probably reach, because he's possibly the greatest spinner ever. What you are seeing on TV is the typical "Illusion" that Murali throws which is caused by his ultra-flexible wrists and his elbow which he cannot fully straighten and never actually moves during the delivery, which means he doesn't throw.

People often forget Murali was largely innefective when he was younger and during the mid-90s he was nowhere near as effective as he is now. A lot of hard work has turned him into the bowler he is now. His elbow didn't help him then, and doesn't now, but hard work has.

Also as a side note, I happen to be quite involved with disabled cricket, and believe me you would not get into it with just a minorly deformed arm! Murali can use his arm quite freely, whilst the cricketers who play disabled cricket either cannot use their limbs, suffer from CP, poor vision...
 
Last edited:

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Re: Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

a massive zebra said:
'Better maybe, but not that much better in all honesty.'

Better average, strike rate, economy rate, wickets per match. What more could you ask for?
I never denied it was better, just that it wasn't that much better.


a massive zebra said:
'his record against Pakistan is superb.'

Yes I mentioned that in point 2.
But not when talking about bowling to the better spin playing batsmen, which is an unfair omission.


a massive zebra said:
'Including his 1st couple of matches is a little harsh.'

If you actually read my original post, Warne was hammered on odd occasions right up to 2001 actually.
And Murali has also been smashed about on odd occasions, but you refused to list them, thus clouding the picture.



a massive zebra said:
'Also, Murali has had a fair few times of being hit around - but you've not listed them I see.'

Really? When? I quoted all instances of Warne bowling for at least 20 overs while going for at least 3.5 runs an over. You do the same for Murali and we'll see who has been hit about more often.
20-2-83-2
54-3-224-2 (Remember how bad Lee got slated for figures along those lines?)
33-6-136-0
36-5-137-4
25-2-96-2

So 5 against 8, but then as you've pointed out, Warne has played more games...


a massive zebra said:
'Nor does it make Murali better than Warne.'

It is one of the reasons why some people rate Warne higher. Players should be rated on performance, and although reinventing a style of bowling is great, it has nothing to do with how good you actually are.
So you agree with me then, that's not a basis to rate either higher.




a massive zebra said:
'Likewise, the strength of their attacks says nothing about them.
If anything it flatters Murali's figures a lot more.'

This is complete rubbish. Warne often comes on with the opposition 4 or 5 down, with all the best players gone. Murali nearly always has to bowl at (and get out) the best players. Therefore Warne should have a lower average and strike rate because he bowls a higher proportion of his deliveries at the lower order. Likewise Warne should have a lower average and strike rate because pressure is built with good bowling at the other end, unlike when Murali is bowling. If you want an example, look at Hadlee and Marshall. Great bowlers both - Hadlee taking more wickets per match but Marshall having the lower average and strike rate.


'Another one that says nothing about relative abilities. One of Murali's biggest bunnies is Waqar...'

If you look at the facts, in the last half dozen years, McGrath takes most of the big wickets for Australia.
Those 2 points go against each other - criticism for not getting the top men out, then pointing out he doesn't bowl to them because the rest of the attack is strong.


a massive zebra said:
'Again, how does that make him a better bowler?'

Because, as I say, if Murali was Australian and Warne was Sri Lankan, it would be unanimously agreed that Murali was better.

What makes you say that? Are you accusing the Cricketing World of rascism?


a massive zebra said:
'Also, relevance to Murali being a better bowler?'

It is one of the reasons why Warne is rated so highly.

See above - I don't agree one bit that it's to do with colour of skin / nationality.





a massive zebra said:
At his worst Warne gets smashed about, and Murali just doesn't take wickets at his weakest.


Not always...
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

marc71178 said:
I don't remember it happening quite like that in the latter stages of WC99...




It wasn't just against Pakistan.

P.S. Lemmings was a classic.
I do, and I watched it all when it was on the BBC non-stop.

Yeah and Lemmings was.
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

marc71178 said:
What makes you say that? Are you accusing the Cricketing World of rascism?





See above - I don't agree one bit that it's to do with colour of skin / nationality
I'm pretty sure he's talking about Warne being a member of a team as successful as Australia. Australia are the strongest team, so if Murali was Australian his performances would be recognised more often. If Warne was from Sri Lanka, an "unfashionable" country, do you really think he'd be the superstar he is today? Not a chance.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

Rik said:
If Warne was from Sri Lanka, an "unfashionable" country, do you really think he'd be the superstar he is today? Not a chance.
Murali IMO is over-rated.

He has not done well away from home, apart from that Test at the Oval, on a pitch more like Colombo than the Oval.
 

Swervy

International Captain
i dont think he is over rated in the slightest, I have never ever seen off spin bowling as good as Murali's,...in the same way as I have never seen leg spin bowling as good as Warne's when he was at his peak
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

Tom Halsey said:
Murali IMO is over-rated.

He has not done well away from home, apart from that Test at the Oval, on a pitch more like Colombo than the Oval.
I don't see how someone with a record such as his can be "over-rated"! He's done well away from home, but really does it make him such a bad bowler if he happens to come from a part of the world where it turns a lot? Anyway, if you look at the ammount of turn Murali gets, he could turn the ball on glass! You cannot fluke his record. No doubt Warne is a fantastic bowler, it's just I rate Murali as even better.
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

Rik said:
I'm pretty sure he's talking about Warne being a member of a team as successful as Australia. Australia are the strongest team, so if Murali was Australian his performances would be recognised more often. If Warne was from Sri Lanka, an "unfashionable" country, do you really think he'd be the superstar he is today? Not a chance.
Exactly.
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

Tom Halsey said:
Murali IMO is over-rated.

He has not done well away from home, apart from that Test at the Oval, on a pitch more like Colombo than the Oval.
What a bizarre thing to say. Murali has worked hard to get where he is today and is arguably (not just my opinion but objective evidence exists) the best bowler ever. If anything Warne is overated. He was outstanding between 1993 and 1997 but not as good as Murali is now and since then he has been one of the most overhyped bowlers ever. Murali has done better at home than abroad, but his away record is no worse than Warne's.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

Rik said:
I don't see how someone with a record such as his can be "over-rated"! He's done well away from home, but really does it make him such a bad bowler if he happens to come from a part of the world where it turns a lot? Anyway, if you look at the ammount of turn Murali gets, he could turn the ball on glass! You cannot fluke his record. No doubt Warne is a fantastic bowler, it's just I rate Murali as even better.
He is not massively over-rated, but some people make him out to be better than Warne, which he is not.

Also, some make him out to be the best bowler ever on statistics.

If you go on them, George Lohmann is. But, as Neil and Marc say, he is a SM. :P
 

Swervy

International Captain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

a massive zebra said:
What a bizarre thing to say. Murali has worked hard to get where he is today and is arguably (not just my opinion but objective evidence exists) the best bowler ever. If anything Warne is overated. He was outstanding between 1993 and 1997 but not as good as Murali is now and since then he has been one of the most overhyped bowlers ever. Murali has done better at home than abroad, but his away record is no worse than Warne's.
in the same way as i dont think Murali is overrated, i certainly dont think warne has been overrated either...there is a lot more to it than just stats..watch Warne bowl, it might teach you something
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top