• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Holding, Lillee and Marshall - The greatest

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Murali was excellent against India at home, but he wasn't particularly good against India in India. Warne hasn't been good against India anywhere.
This came up during yet another Murali - Warne debate,
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/71107-can-ashwin-beat-murali-s-800-a-7.html#post4039366
Yep, Murali did do better vs India.

But then Australia never prepared wickets to suit Warne. They prepared fast, bouncy wickets as they have always done. Sri Lanka were notorious for preparing bunsens for Murali to run through sides on. Murali's average in India is 45 vs Warne's 43. The fact of the matter is that both bowlers failed in India. Warne also failed at home vs India. Unfortunately for Warne he never really faced India at home while he was in his prime. He debuted against India in 93 and famously did quite poorly. He faced them again at home in 99/00 which was smack bang in the middle of his injury-induced dry spell and then never faced them at home again due to his suspension. It's a shame that India didn't tour in 97 or in 2006 when he was in the middle of one of his peaks.

Even then, Warne took 6 top order wickets in the first test in 99 and got Tendulkar in the second test. The third test blew out his stats against them taking a combined total of 0/82 (25) while McGrath and Lee blew India away.

Warne's only series against India when he was at his peak was the 04 series when he took 14 wickets in 3 tests at an average of 30. Not world beating but definitely solid.

The main difference between Warne's record and Murali's record against India is the home tests and Warne's home record against India was 5 test, two of which were the first two of his career, before he was ready and the next three of which were while he was recovering from his shoulder reconstruction. Getting banned in 03 was the worst thing for those of us who wanted to see Warne face India at home when he was in form.
Could make a similar argument for Ponting tho. Facts are facts.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Yep, Murali did do better vs India.
Stop right there. If you want to make a ton of excuses for Warne's performance then throw in ODI performances too. Murali miles better than Warne again. It's a different format but shows that Indians never had trouble against Warne, and excuses are just excuses.

No one's saying Warne isn't great; he's a legend. When it comes to performance against India, Murali is comfortably superior. I know this also as an Indian supporter with benefit of knowing emotions that we felt against Warne vs. Murali.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm trying to work out how a thread entitled 'Holding, Lillee, Marshall' came to be a Warne vs Murali exercise.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well, back on topic I'd say Marshall slightly>Holding=Lillee. I have both tied as 6th greatest.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Could make a similar argument for Ponting tho. Facts are facts.
No Ponting was tripe in India.

Warne when he took wickets against India took them against the middle order. He never ran through the tail which says more about team strategy than anything else.

Warne vs India in India = Murali vs India in India
Warne vs India in Australia = 5 tests, two of which were before he was any good. Of the remaining 3 tests he ranged from very good to ordinary, reflecting the fact that he was ast the worst point of his career post shoulder surgery.
It's honestly silly to draw any real conclusions from this just like it's silly to draw conclusions from Botham's overall averages.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
No Ponting was tripe in India.

Warne when he took wickets against India took them against the middle order. He never ran through the tail which says more about team strategy than anything else.

Warne vs India in India = Murali vs India in India
Warne vs India in Australia = 5 tests, two of which were before he was any good. Of the remaining 3 tests he ranged from very good to ordinary, reflecting the fact that he was ast the worst point of his career post shoulder surgery.
It's honestly silly to draw any real conclusions from this just like it's silly to draw conclusions from Botham's overall averages.
:laugh:

I can understand. Warne is pride for some people. It's like trying to tell a Tendulkar fan that anyone can be better than Tendulkar.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Last edited:

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Someone else said it : spinners are inherently downhill skiiers, to an extent. Can't expect Murali to run through Australia (in Australia especially) when he comes in to bowl at 1-100 or so every time. Same applies when he toured India, and he did bowl out India at home a few times. Warne has less of an excuse for flopping in India, but India somehow managed to play him exceptionally well. I'd put that down as an anomaly.

Quicks should find it easier to at least contain the scoring and pick up 2-70 type figures even when conditions are unsuitable for them.
Going back to this original point.

I think spinners have things a lot harder overall if the pitch and conditions are not in their favour.

A fast bowler may be able to draw a mistake out of the batsmen at any point simply due to their speed. They are also required to bowl a lot less overs than spinners are, so if they're being carted around they can be pulled off and replaced.

Spinners are called upon to bowl long spells in often unfavourable conditions with an older ball. If a ball is good for drift it's also good for swing, which means that the spinner often will not get an opportunity to bowl with a ball that would help them. Similarly, if the ball is gripping the pitch a fast bowler can also use that to seam the ball. It's only really on dustbowls that spinners get assistance and even then that's more finger spinners who rely more on flinging the ball into the pitch than leg spinners who don't impart the same forward energy on the ball. Wrist spinners by their nature are bowling more in a style that won't be helped by dustbowls as much as they help finger spinners.

Spinners can't hide, since they're always needed even when they're ineffective simply because fast bowlers can't take the workload, especially in the modern game. The famed WIndies quartets often would bowl less than 80 overs in a day and by the 90s had Hooper to get through the overs.

That's why spinners will always have higher averages than fast bowlers - the game simply favours the quick men. Murali would have been nowhere near as effective if he played most of his matches in Australia and Warne would not necessarily have even been in the number one Indian side if he were an Indian, simply because pitches are so important for spinners.
 

Bolo

State Captain
Also almost always more quicks playing at a time- they hide behind each other when conditions aren't favourable.
 

Bolo

State Captain
Get that hack out of here. Double digit test bowling average is amateur hour.

I was thinking of Mark Boucher.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
That's why spinners will always have higher averages than fast bowlers - the game simply favours the quick men.
Only if you think what makes someone a success or not is their statsguru bowling average. Within the context of a game of test cricket spinners play an immense role: when the ball is old, as the pitch deteriorates, as the quick bowlers tire.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Only if you think what makes someone a success or not is their statsguru bowling average. Within the context of a game of test cricket spinners play an immense role: when the ball is old, as the pitch deteriorates, as the quick bowlers tire.
Note I made a point to say that it was about averages and not impact.

Spinners are able to take wickets when the fast men can't which makes them incredibly useful for a team.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
Spinners bring variety and character to the game. Theirs is a more exacting science.

At one time in the 80's, there was a real concern that they would become extinct, what with fast bowlers running around amok. Only Qadir kept their kind afloat.

Who would've thought they would re-bound to such effect that they took over the lead in Test aggregates from their quicker cousins.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I firmly believe that the 90s was a golden era for cricket. Great fast bowlers, great spinners, great batsmen. The game saw the reintroduction of South Africa. The Windies, Australia, Pakistan and South Africa were all relatively close. What an amazing era of cricket.
 

Top