***best Bowlers***

[chaminda_00]

Seems everyone has given up with the murali vs warne debate and realise the only viable option is mcgrath vs murali. Thought something like this might happen .

I though someone out their would think Warne No.1, i guess people don't rate him as high as they did before

 

[twctopcat]

I though someone out their would think Warne No.1, i guess people don't rate him as high as they did before

Stats don't lie

 

[chaminda_00]

Stats don't lie

I guess McGrath the only one that comes close to Murali statistically

 

[twctopcat]

I guess McGrath the only one that comes close to Murali statistically

Betters in some respects, but not the one's i deem important,

 

[a massive zebra]

I though someone out their would think Warne No.1

Halsey does, but that is down to hero worship rather than logical thinking.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I though someone out their would think Warne No.1, i guess people don't rate him as high as they did before

If it's just about spinners, I'd pick Warne. Warne vs Murali for me has always been like Lara vs Tendulkar, Tendulkar is more consistent and reliable but on his day Lara is more devastating. And generally speaking, I prefer Lara as a player, but they are both all time greats without question.

Anyway, I may think Warne is the best spinner in the world, but I would rate McGrath ahead of him as a bowler. Also, Warne isn't quite what he used to be, and since the question was about "the last couple of years", one of which Warne didn't play in and the rest of which he has sometimes been astonishingly brilliant (eg against Pakistan in 2002 and Sri Lanka in 2004) and sometimes below his usual standard. So, over the period named here, Murali can certainly give Warne a fair run and McGrath is better, in my view.

 

[a massive zebra]

If it's just about spinners, I'd pick Warne. Warne vs Murali for me has always been like Lara vs Tendulkar, Tendulkar is more consistent and reliable but on his day Lara is more devastating. And generally speaking, I prefer Lara as a player, but they are both all time greats without question.

Nah, Murali is more devastating at his best than Warne.

Best Period:
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 2000-2003 37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97 57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24

Better average, strike rate, economy rate, wickets per match etc...

And to stop Halsey responding as he always does, lets look at their away stats during their peak period.

Murali 2000-2003 13 688.1 1660 70 23.71 6-39 5 2 58.9 2.40
Warne 1993-1997 19 880.4 2105 83 25.36 6-48 3 0 63.6 2.39

Murali wins again.

Best innings:

9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02 [1583]
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998 [1423]
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001 [1559]

Murali wins again, although admittedly he does get more opportunity to get wickets.

Best Series:
Murali
Sri Lanka in Pakistan, 1999/00 [Series]
3 213.1 516 26 6/71 19.84 2.42 49.1 1 1
South Africa in Sri Lanka, 2000 [Series]
3 227.4 480 26 7/84 18.46 2.10 52.5 3 1
Zimbabwe in Sri Lanka, 2001/02 [Series]
3 203.1 294 30 9/51 9.80 1.44 40.6 2 1
England in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 231.4 320 26 7/46 12.30 1.38 53.4 1 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 209.1 649 28 6/59 23.17 3.10 44.8 4 1

Warne
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1993 [Series]
6 439.5 877 34 5/82 25.79 1.99 77.6 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1994/95 [Series]
5 256.1 549 27 8/71 20.33 2.14 56.9 2 1
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1997 [Series]
6 237.1 577 24 6/48 24.04 2.43 59.2 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2001 [Series]
5 195.2 580 31 7/165 18.70 2.96 37.8 3 1
Australia v Pakistan Test Series in Sri Lanka/U.A.E., 2002/03 [Series]
3 124 342 27 7/94 12.66 2.75 27.5 2 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 168 521 26 5/43 20.03 3.10 38.7 4 2

Warne has had one truly amazing series, Murali has had two. Warne has taken more wickets in a series than Murali, but played twice as many matches in doing so. Murali has taken 25 wickets at under 20 in a series 4 times, Warne has done it twice.

Conclusion: The common notion that Warne is more devastating on his day is baseless media hype.

 

[tooextracool]

more zebra crap thats been argued on so many other threads.

 

[a massive zebra]

You really are such a pleasant individual.

 

[tooextracool]

you really are an annoying one to bring up the same ol already argued murali facts

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, he's merely right. There's no point in posting what we've all seen millions of times.

Aimed at Zebra.

 

[a massive zebra]

If you are going to argue against it at least explain your view and support it with evidence. Anyone could say "that's crap."

 

[Tom Halsey]

And to stop Halsey responding as he always does, lets look at their away stats during their peak period.

And you can't take the periods where they were rubbish out of it. It's just like Richard and first chance averages. There is no point in filtering stats to suit yuor argument without anyu base (atleast the away stats have a base).

I would also point out how many times Murali has played Zimbabwe and Bangladesh compared to Warne, which you always ignore.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If you are going to argue against it at least explain your view and support it with evidence. Anyone could say "that's crap."

Which we keep doing, yet you still post exactly the same thing and hijack enarly every thread by it.

 

[a massive zebra]

And you can't take the periods where they were rubbish out of it.

When you are looking at who is more devastating at their best (which was the subject of the post I responded to), yes you can.

 

[tooextracool]

If you are going to argue against it at least explain your view and support it with evidence. Anyone could say "that's crap."

why? im pretty sure ive done that at least 3 times in the past? eventually you just ignored everything and stop posting in this thread only, about 2 months later to come back in another thread and say the exact same thing. its really a waste of my time. if you want to see why its 'crap', just look back at some of the old murali vs warne arguments that we've had.

 

[a massive zebra]

Which we keep doing, yet you still post exactly the same thing and hijack enarly every thread by it.

I am not hijacking a thread but showing why Warne on his day is not more devatating at his best than Murali.

If I post exactly the same thing, please quote the last time I posted that.

 

[Tom Halsey]

When you are looking at who is more devastating at their best (which was the subject of the post I responded to), yes you can.

In which case you should look more closely at Warne's peak (I'd agree it's 93-97 bowling wise, but statistically [which is all you seem to rely on] it isn't). There he averaged 21.77. WIll look up away stats now.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Warne averages 24 point something, Murali wins. Am off to filter Bangladesh and Zimbabwe out of his stats.

 

[a massive zebra]

Warne averages 24 point something

When and where?

Murali wins.

I cannot believe you just said that.