16 Reasons Why Murali Is Better Than Warne

[a massive zebra]

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.

[Swervy]

Originally posted by a massive zebra
EDIT: <snip> - don't need a post that size quoted!

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.

I think you have only posted this to get a reaction...

You cant compare the two bowlers..the art of leg spin is by nature a lot harder to master...and is a naturally more agressive style of bolwing..so Warne probably will go for more runs an over etc...in my eyes it like comparing ShaneBond to Derek Underwood.A futile excerice.

So i think people should not respond to this obvious bit of baiting

[tooextracool]

because he chucks...because he chucks....because he chucks...because he chucks....because he chucks....because he chucks...because he chucks...because he chucks...because he chucks...because he chucks....because he chucks...because he chucks...because he chucks....because he chucks...because he chucks...because he chucks

there 16 reasons

[a massive zebra]

Originally posted by Swervy
I think you have only posted this to get a reaction...

You cant compare the two bowlers..the art of leg spin is by nature a lot harder to master...and is a naturally more agressive style of bolwing..so Warne probably will go for more runs an over etc...in my eyes it like comparing ShaneBond to Derek Underwood.A futile excerice.

So i think people should not respond to this obvious bit of baiting

If writing an interesting thread and hoping to create a good debate is what you are accusing me of then yes I am guilty, but what is wrong with that? This would be a very boring forum if no thread ever received more than 5 responces.

Legspin may be a harder act to master, and more aggressive, but if so surely Shane Warne should have the better strike rate of the two bowlers?

[a massive zebra]

Originally posted by tooextracool
because he chucks...because he chucks....because he chucks...because he chucks....because he chucks....because he chucks...because he chucks...because he chucks...because he chucks...because he chucks....because he chucks...because he chucks...because he chucks....because he chucks...because he chucks...because he chucks

there 16 reasons

Take a look at reason 11.

[Swervy]

Originally posted by a massive zebra
If writing an interesting thread and hoping to create a good debate is what you are accusing me of then yes I am guilty, but what is wrong with that? This would be a very boring forum if no thread ever received more than 5 responces.

Legspin may be a harder act to master, and more aggressive, but if so surely Shane Warne should have the better strike rate of the two bowlers?

but you are trying to provoke a debate on something that is barely debatable...you just cant compare the two players because they are completely different.

I dont think anyone disputes the fact that Murali does what he does very successfully...i cant recall anyone bringing up the fact that they think Warne is better or anything..I just dont know why you have chosen these two players

No doubt this thread will go on and on...

There are other things to take into consideration other than lines and lines of statistics...here is one for you..Warne has been instrumental in the success of the best team in the world....there you go..Warne is a winner..what has Murali won????

I do agree that Murali is out of this world as a player..but so is /was warne

[deeps]

lets put it this way...if u were a batsman...and u were playin australia...this is what u would say

hmm..mcgrath,gillespie,warne, lee....... u have to target one of them.........


Sri Lanka... vaas,murali... and the rest are no namers... It would be alot easier and better for the team if u just blocked out vaas and murali,and chased after the others

You can't do that against aus


You say Murali has a good record against every1 but pakistan...Warne has a good record against every1 but india

You said Warne has not had to play against Australia... But i thought India were the best players of spin?! so why does australia matter? fine, in that case...Murali has never had to paly against sri lanka!



I agree,murali is a better bowler...But your reasons are pathetic... And the fact that your starting this thread for no apparent reason,other than to just start another flame war, makes me wanan play the devils advocate....

[a massive zebra]

Originally posted by Swervy
but you are trying to provoke a debate on something that is barely debatable...you just cant compare the two players because they are completely different.

I dont think anyone disputes the fact that Murali does what he does very successfully...i cant recall anyone bringing up the fact that they think Warne is better or anything..I just dont know why you have chosen these two players

No doubt this thread will go on and on...

There are other things to take into consideration other than lines and lines of statistics...here is one for you..Warne has been instrumental in the success of the best team in the world....there you go..Warne is a winner..what has Murali won????

I do agree that Murali is out of this world as a player..but so is /was warne

I have chosen these two players because a lot of people have the deluded belief that Warne is the best spinner ever. There is very little evidence for such a claim other than he has more wickets than any other spinner (largely because he has played more matches), and he is part of the best team in the world.

Warne has been instrumental in the success of the best team in the world, but it is not Murali's fault that he plays for a worse team. If Murali and Warne swapped teams Australia would undoutedly be even better and Sri Lanka would probably be the third worst team in the world.

What has Murali won.....errrr.... A World Cup. Not very important is it? lol! He also helped Sri Lanka beat Australia at home last time the Ozzies visited Lanka.

1996 World Cup Final

Murali 10-1-31-1
Warne 10-0-57-0

[a massive zebra]

Originally posted by deeps
lets put it this way...if u were a batsman...and u were playin australia...this is what u would say

hmm..mcgrath,gillespie,warne, lee....... u have to target one of them.........


Sri Lanka... vaas,murali... and the rest are no namers... It would be alot easier and better for the team if u just blocked out vaas and murali,and chased after the others

You can't do that against aus


You say Murali has a good record against every1 but pakistan...Warne has a good record against every1 but india

You said Warne has not had to play against Australia... But i thought India were the best players of spin?! so why does australia matter? fine, in that case...Murali has never had to paly against sri lanka!



I agree,murali is a better bowler...But your reasons are pathetic... And the fact that your starting this thread for no apparent reason,other than to just start another flame war, makes me wanan play the devils advocate....

Point 1 - If batsmen just block Murali and attack Warne this should mean the latter takes more wickets as the batsmen take more of a risk against him. Not so.

Point 2 -A lot of people make this point, but it does not really stand up to scrutiny. If you take a look at Murali's record against all teams it is worst against Australia. Furthermore, if you look at the Australian batting averages they are far better than any other team bar India, and India only have five good batsmen, not seven like Australia. If Murali is less successful against Australia than India, and Warne takes his wickets at an average of 55 against India, think of the carnidge you would see if Warne bowled against Australia.

Point 3 - I did not say Murali has done badly against Pakistan, I said Warne (for once) has done better.

[Swervy]

with statistics you can do alsorts that prove such and such...when in actual fact it hardly proves a thing...

In Australia warne averages 26..Murali 116
In England Warne has a better strike rate
In India neither player has had that much success both average around 50, but Warne has a better strike rate by 10 balls per wicket
In New Zealand Warne has a much better average,and takes a wicket every 54 balls compared to Muralis 77
In Soth Africa,Warnes average is 3 runs better than Murali
In Sri Lanka Warne averages 20.95, Murali 20.17 but Warnes strike rate is some 15 balls per wicket better
In Zimbabwe Warnes average is almost half that of Muralis and his strike rate is 53 compared to Muralis 126.

See what I mean

[twctopcat]

I agree that legspin is perhaps more dififcult action to attempt, because it is such a seemingly unnatural action. However if anyone tries to make out that Warne has had to put more effort into mastering this action than Murali then they are simply trying to put him on a higher level than he actually is. Being an effective wrist off spinner is just as hard as being an effective legspinner, hence the reason all England has to offer is fingerspinners.
Warne should not be lauded more than Murali just because he is a legspinner, just there is this aura about legspinning. The fact is Murali is the more dangerous and effective spinner, facts of the magnitude that massive zebra gave do not lie.

[a massive zebra]

Originally posted by Swervy
with statistics you can do alsorts that prove such and such...when in actual fact it hardly proves a thing...

In Australia warne averages 26..Murali 116
In England Warne has a better strike rate
In India neither player has had that much success both average around 50, but Warne has a better strike rate by 10 balls per wicket
In New Zealand Warne has a much better average,and takes a wicket every 54 balls compared to Muralis 77
In Soth Africa,Warnes average is 3 runs better than Murali
In Sri Lanka Warne averages 20.95, Murali 20.17 but Warnes strike rate is some 15 balls per wicket better
In Zimbabwe Warnes average is almost half that of Muralis and his strike rate is 53 compared to Muralis 126.

See what I mean

Whatever, you are finding the most unimportant and small statistics. As I have said, overall, Murali has a better record against every country except Pakistan.

Murali has only played a few matches in Australia, and they were all against the best team in the world.
Murali has done well against India at home, Warne has being a joke both home and away against them.
In Sri Lanka, Warne has played far fewer matches, and they were all against Sri Lanka. His overall record against them aint that great.Murali has done outstandingly against Zimbabwe at home.

The points I made in the original post have far more credibility than the few things you have found here.

[marc71178]

Originally posted by a massive zebra
What has Murali won.....errrr.... A World Cup. Not very important is it?

I think you'll find Warne has also won one of those, and not in spin friendly conditions...

[Mister Wright]

Originally posted by a massive zebra
Take a look at reason 11.

Look Bradman was a great player, probably the greatest, but just because he says something doesn't make it gospel. He said the batsman closest to him in technique is Tendulkar, personally if I was Tendulkar I would be insulted.

[a massive zebra]

Originally posted by Mister Wright
He said the batsman closest to him in technique is Tendulkar, personally if I was Tendulkar I would be insulted.

Why?