a massive zebra
International Captain
16 Reasons Why Muralitharan Is Better Than Warne
1) Muralitharan has a better record in almost every way possible.
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
Murali 85 4827.5 1309 11130 485 22.94 9-51 39 12 59.7 2.30
Warne 107 4979.3 1417 12624 491 25.71 8-71 23 6 60.8 2.53
2) Muralitharan has a record against all test playing nations, except Pakistan.
Murali
v Australia 7 306.2 922 22 41.90 5/71 3.00 83.5 1 0
v Bangladesh 2 89.5 209 20 10.45 5/13 2.32 26.9 4 2
v England 10 768.3 1431 69 20.73 9/65 1.86 66.8 4 2
v India 12 637 1680 51 32.94 8/87 2.63 74.9 3 1
v New Zealand 10 536 1232 52 23.69 5/30 2.29 61.8 4 0
v Pakistan 12 623.5 1622 68 23.85 6/71 2.60 55.0 4 1
v South Africa 12 755 1747 77 22.68 7/84 2.31 58.8 8 2
v West Indies 8 408.1 1039 53 19.60 6/81 2.54 46.2 6 2
v Zimbabwe 12 703.1 1248 73 17.09 9/51 1.77 57.7 5 2
Warne
v England 26 1298.4 3040 132 23.03 8/71 2.34 59.0 7 2
v India 11 514.1 1608 29 55.44 4/47 3.12 106.3 0 0
v New Zealand1 5 734.5 1881 75 25.08 6/31 2.55 58.7 2 0
v Pakistan 12 550.4 1414 76 18.60 7/23 2.56 43.4 6 2
v South Africa 18 1021.4 2257 101 22.34 7/56 2.20 60.6 6 2
v Sri Lanka 8 259 706 23 30.69 5/52 2.72 67.5 1 0
v West Indies 16 547.2 1581 49 32.26 7/52 2.88 67.0 1 0
v Zimbabwe 1 53.1 137 6 22.83 3/68 2.57 53.1 0 0
3) Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (29 wickets at 55.44). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94).
4) Warne has not had to play against Australia.
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.
Warne 45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
22 2 107 0 4.86 1st Test v SL in SL 1992 at Colombo (SSC)
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
15.5 2 70 1 4.42 3rd Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Bridgetown
13 1 60 0 4.62 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1999/00 at Sydney
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
6) Although he may have “reinvented” legspin, that in itself does not make Warne a better bowler than Murali.
7) 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 far more often all he would have to do is clean up the tail). Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.
8) Murali takes 69.7% of his wickets against the top 7, Warne 64.8%.
9) Warne takes a lot of his wickets against the same batsman, whereas Murali takes more of a variety. What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar, Dravid or Lara?
10) If Murali was Australian, and Warne was Sri Lankan, we would not even be having this conversation. Murali has had to work hard to reach where he is today, and I am quite sure he is a lot better in his prime than Warne ever was.
11) One reason why some people prefer Warne to Muralitharan is they think that the latter has a suspect action. I quote Sir Donald Bradman here “clearly, Muralitharan does not throw the ball.” And Murali has also been cleared by a committee from the ICC. So, unless these people think they no better than the experts and also the best batsman ever, they should stop labelling Murali as a chucker.
12) Another 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 he is a Pakistani.
13) Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to
both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.
14) Murali was recently voted the best bowler ever in an objective Wisden analysis.
15) Murali is the only bowler to take 5 wickets in an innings against all 9 possible opponents, while Warne has only taken 5 wickets in an innings against 6 opponents.
16) 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.
Murali 2000-present
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24
Don’t get me wrong – I still think Warne is a good bowler, but there really should be no comparison between the two. The fact that Warne is ranked in the same league as Murali is strong evidence to suggest that Warne is the most overhyped bowler ever. Facts don’t lie, fools do.
1) Muralitharan has a better record in almost every way possible.
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
Murali 85 4827.5 1309 11130 485 22.94 9-51 39 12 59.7 2.30
Warne 107 4979.3 1417 12624 491 25.71 8-71 23 6 60.8 2.53
2) Muralitharan has a record against all test playing nations, except Pakistan.
Murali
v Australia 7 306.2 922 22 41.90 5/71 3.00 83.5 1 0
v Bangladesh 2 89.5 209 20 10.45 5/13 2.32 26.9 4 2
v England 10 768.3 1431 69 20.73 9/65 1.86 66.8 4 2
v India 12 637 1680 51 32.94 8/87 2.63 74.9 3 1
v New Zealand 10 536 1232 52 23.69 5/30 2.29 61.8 4 0
v Pakistan 12 623.5 1622 68 23.85 6/71 2.60 55.0 4 1
v South Africa 12 755 1747 77 22.68 7/84 2.31 58.8 8 2
v West Indies 8 408.1 1039 53 19.60 6/81 2.54 46.2 6 2
v Zimbabwe 12 703.1 1248 73 17.09 9/51 1.77 57.7 5 2
Warne
v England 26 1298.4 3040 132 23.03 8/71 2.34 59.0 7 2
v India 11 514.1 1608 29 55.44 4/47 3.12 106.3 0 0
v New Zealand1 5 734.5 1881 75 25.08 6/31 2.55 58.7 2 0
v Pakistan 12 550.4 1414 76 18.60 7/23 2.56 43.4 6 2
v South Africa 18 1021.4 2257 101 22.34 7/56 2.20 60.6 6 2
v Sri Lanka 8 259 706 23 30.69 5/52 2.72 67.5 1 0
v West Indies 16 547.2 1581 49 32.26 7/52 2.88 67.0 1 0
v Zimbabwe 1 53.1 137 6 22.83 3/68 2.57 53.1 0 0
3) Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (29 wickets at 55.44). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94).
4) Warne has not had to play against Australia.
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.
Warne 45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
22 2 107 0 4.86 1st Test v SL in SL 1992 at Colombo (SSC)
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
15.5 2 70 1 4.42 3rd Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Bridgetown
13 1 60 0 4.62 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1999/00 at Sydney
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
6) Although he may have “reinvented” legspin, that in itself does not make Warne a better bowler than Murali.
7) 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 far more often all he would have to do is clean up the tail). Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.
8) Murali takes 69.7% of his wickets against the top 7, Warne 64.8%.
9) Warne takes a lot of his wickets against the same batsman, whereas Murali takes more of a variety. What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar, Dravid or Lara?
10) If Murali was Australian, and Warne was Sri Lankan, we would not even be having this conversation. Murali has had to work hard to reach where he is today, and I am quite sure he is a lot better in his prime than Warne ever was.
11) One reason why some people prefer Warne to Muralitharan is they think that the latter has a suspect action. I quote Sir Donald Bradman here “clearly, Muralitharan does not throw the ball.” And Murali has also been cleared by a committee from the ICC. So, unless these people think they no better than the experts and also the best batsman ever, they should stop labelling Murali as a chucker.
12) Another 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 he is a Pakistani.
13) Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to
both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.
14) Murali was recently voted the best bowler ever in an objective Wisden analysis.
15) Murali is the only bowler to take 5 wickets in an innings against all 9 possible opponents, while Warne has only taken 5 wickets in an innings against 6 opponents.
16) 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.
Murali 2000-present
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24
Don’t get me wrong – I still think Warne is a good bowler, but there really should be no comparison between the two. The fact that Warne is ranked in the same league as Murali is strong evidence to suggest that Warne is the most overhyped bowler ever. Facts don’t lie, fools do.
