That is true and if Warne played for Sri Lanka instead of Murali he would get more wickets, although IMO less than Murali does ATM. I feel he would be unable to lead the Sri Lankan attack the way Murali does, and would be rather more expensive than he is at present, due to lack of support.Tom Halsey said:
I'm not so sure.a massive zebra said:
Also influenced by the fact that Aussie ptches don't spin as much.marc71178 said:
Where's the proof he would? In the last Test they played, Murali managed to take more wickets against a stronger batting lineup despite his side collapsing in a heap in their 2nd innings. There is no proof Warne would be able to handle the number of overs Murali bowls on average, let alone take the number of wickets he does or be able to handle the pressure of being their main bowler. Warne's allways had McGrath to take that off him.a massive zebra said:
You may be right that batsmen adopt a more aggressive attitude towards Warne, and this leads to him going for more runs per over. This attitude should not effect his average, however, infact it should actually help it because by definition the more aggressive a batsman is the more likely he is to get out. Yet Murali still has a better strike rate. Consequently, if your theory that batsmen are more aggressive when facing Warne is correct, Murali's greater strike rate suggests he is far more dangerous.marc71178 said:
It is clear that bowlers of equal ability take more wickets per match in weaker teams because there is less competition for wickets. It is also clear that bowlers of equal abilty have higher averages and strike rates if they play in worse teams.Rik said:
That's very true. Murali is often played defensively, batsmen try to survive his spells and score off the other bowlers, yet Murali ends up with the better strike rate. From watching cricket for quite a while now, to me it's obvious that it's harder to get a player out when they are trying to block everything, Hoggard showed as much against the West Indies. But still Murali has the better strike rate. It's very hard to bowl someone who isn't interisted in scoring, so you need to do something to trick the batsman, and with Murali, not only does he turn it so much you can't tell where to position your bat, he's also increadibly accurate and can now turn the ball both ways.a massive zebra said:
I'm not doubting he would take more wickets if he played for Sri Lanka instead of Australia, but to say he would take more than Murali, which several members have stated they feel would happen, is something that can never be proven and I doubt would be correct anyway. Murali has shown an amazing ability to play with injuries and still be effective, although sometimes they do limit him noticeably. He's also got amazing stamina, since many other bowlers would tire and be taken apart but he rarely is. I'm not sure Warne's body would be able to take the workload, or of his stamina. I remember the last time he bowled 50 overs in an innings he went for 164 or so, Murali tends to go only for about 80-90.a massive zebra said:
Agree entirely. I never said he would get more wickets per match than Murali, infact I actually said 'if Warne played for Sri Lanka instead of Murali he would get more wickets, although IMO less than Murali does ATM.'Rik said:
YOU WHAT!?!?!?:O :O :Oa massive zebra said:
No such thing as a "much spinnier wicket." Unless your Grammar packed up and went abroad of course. Anyway, Warne tends to rely much more on bounce, as shown by his record in India. Don't those pitches support spin enough for you? Yes they are dry and dusty and the ball can grip on them, but you don't get much bounce off them and the ball only tends to turn slowly unless it hits a rough patch. Warne is a good spinner when conditions are conductive to spin bowling, but he's even better when he gets bounce, and we are discussing here what would happen if Warne played in Sri Lanka. In my view Warne would struggle with the lack of bounce and be less effective, while AMZ is adding that he feels the extra overs Warne would have to bowl would affect his stamina, he would have to bowl when tired, which he rarely ever does when playing for Australia, so his accuracy would wane and he would conceed more runs. What makes Murali such a great bowler is that he manages to pick up wickets and keep the runs down even when he is into his 50th over of the innings, he has amazing stamina.Tom Halsey said:
Not as much as in Sri Lanka.Rik said:
They are basically in the same part of the world and spin about as much as each other. There are plenty of pitches in India and Sri Lanka that spin slowly and don't bounce, especially Galle a few years ago when Atapattu scored that 200 against England, that pitch was basically dead. The difference is Murali relies on spin, Warne relies more on bounce.Tom Halsey said:
As long as I have been following cricket, it has very much apparently spun more in India than Sri Lanka. IMO India is the biggest spin haven in the world of cricket.Tom Halsey said:
