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.