• 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.

Kumble vs Warne

Swervy

International Captain
a massive zebra said:
Thats not the only reason...

Murali has a better average, strike rate and economy rate despite having comparitively no support and the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team. Murali been more successful against every team except Pakistan, who fielded teenagers during one of Australia's tours. 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. Warne has been known to be hit around occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he has never been smashed around the park.

O'Reilly never had a bad series and was far more consistent. Bradman was one of the few people to have seen both and said O'Reilly was superior.

Laker at his best kicks Warne's ass at his best.
and considering Richard once said that Robert Croft is a better spinner than Laker, then ny that reasoning Croft is better than Warne...and so if most people think the gap between Warne and Murali is not even worth talking about..then that means Croft is probably the best spinner to play the game for at least the last 30 years :D
 

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
Swervy said:
and considering Richard once said that Robert Croft is a better spinner than Laker, then ny that reasoning Croft is better than Warne...and so if most people think the gap between Warne and Murali is not even worth talking about..then that means Croft is probably the best spinner to play the game for at least the last 30 years :D
:wacko: :-O :huh: :surrender
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
a massive zebra said:
Thats not the only reason...

Murali has a better average, strike rate and economy rate despite having comparitively no support and the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team. Murali been more successful against every team except Pakistan, who fielded teenagers during one of Australia's tours. 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's home Test conditions are far more favourable than the corresponding conditions for Warne. Having comparitively no support can work for or against bowlers, it has certainly helped Murali as far as his career wicket total. Someone like Warne would get less opportunity to bowl at the tailenders in my opinion than Murali would (Aus would sometimes bowl Gillespie/McGrath/Lee to clean the tail up - SL would very likely persist with Murali). Anyway Warne is definitely better than Kumble, and as a player I'd pick Warne ahead of Murali because of the extra fielding and batting - the bowling I'd say there's very little in it and they're different bowlers anyway and will sit on the fence.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Hopefully this doesn't turn into a Murali/Warne debate ;)

Anyway, I'm just glad we've had 3 great spinners in our time. :) almost 1500 wickets between all three, just amazing.
 

shaka

International Regular
Both are Quality spinners, and will entice youngsters to bowl the spin. I think Warne uses his experience to good use to outpsych the batsman whereas Kumble is more attacking and thoughtful in his approach.

IMO I like Warne compared to Kumble, but that does not mean that I am unhappy when he gets heaps of wickets for India.
 

Arrow

U19 Vice-Captain
a massive zebra said:
Thats not the only reason...

Murali has a better average, strike rate and economy rate despite having comparitively no support and the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team. Murali been more successful against every team except Pakistan, who fielded teenagers during one of Australia's tours. 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. Warne has been known to be hit around occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he has never been smashed around the park.

O'Reilly never had a bad series and was far more consistent. Bradman was one of the few people to have seen both and said O'Reilly was superior.

Laker at his best kicks Warne's ass at his best.
How does murali do away from home though? Im not sure but i know that everytime hes toured australia ive barely noticed him..
 

shaka

International Regular
I think he's played two tests in Australia and only has 3wkts, for a total of 348, made a total of 14 runs in four innings
 

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
Scaly piscine said:
Murali's home Test conditions are far more favourable than the corresponding conditions for Warne.
True.

Scaly piscine said:
Having comparitively no support can work for or against bowlers, it has certainly helped Murali as far as his career wicket total.
Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If the two bowlers were of equal ability Warne 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 greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.

For another example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee - Marshall having a better average because the high class West Indian bowlers put greater pressure on the batsmen, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them.


Scaly piscine said:
Someone like Warne would get less opportunity to bowl at the tailenders in my opinion than Murali would (Aus would sometimes bowl Gillespie/McGrath/Lee to clean the tail up - SL would very likely persist with Murali).
Infact Warne has dismissed more tailend batsmen than Murali.

Batting positions of batsmen dismissed (when they were both on 527 wickets)

...................... position 8 9 10 11
================================================================
Muralitharan ............... 41 50 45 26
Warne ....................... 57 48 56 29
================================================================

You could argue that Warne often comes on when the pacemen have got rid of the oppositions top order so all he has to do is mop up the tail. Far more often Murali has to also get the high class top order batsmen out aswell, so this should be detrimental to his average and strike rate, which is still better than Warne's.
 
Last edited:

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
Arrow said:
How does murali do away from home though?
Warne

home 52 2439.4 6165 235 26.23 8/71 2.52 62.2 12 4
away 58 2772.4 7206 272 26.50 7/165 2.59 61.1 13 3
neutral 3 124 342 27 12.66 7/94 2.75 27.5 2 1

Murali

home 53 3150 7051 342 20.61 9/51 2.21 55.2 30 10
away 38 2037.2 5114 190 26.91 9/65 2.51 64.3 14 3

Murali much better at home and only slightly worse away despite having comparitively no support.

Arrow said:
Im not sure but i know that everytime hes toured australia ive barely noticed him..
He has only toured once and struggled but it was right at the beginning of his career when he was nothing like the bowler of the last few years. I seem to remember Warne being hammered far more so in his first few Tests.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
a massive zebra said:
Thats not the only reason...

Murali has a better average, strike rate and economy rate despite having comparitively no support and the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team. Murali been more successful against every team except Pakistan, who fielded teenagers during one of Australia's tours. 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. Warne has been known to be hit around occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he has never been smashed around the park.
seriously can you not go through any warne thread without coming up with the same ridiculous arguments involving murali(and hence starting another one of the warne-murali flame wars), that have been argued against you on several occasions in the past i might add?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
a massive zebra said:
Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.
And a lot of the less runs could be attributed to the fact that in the SL attack batsmen only have the 1 outstanding bowler to face, so can try to play him out and attack the others - against Australia there's no such luxury so they do have to try and get the runs against the better bowlers.

You often bring up this "on his own" argument, but for me there's just as many points that it brings up the other way.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Kumble is a very good bowler, but Warne outplays him. Kumble gets a hell of a lot of help from the Indian pitches, and Warne has to contend with brilliant batsmen against spin on them, and did very well to take 6/125 IMO. The Aussies aren't as good at playing spin.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
a massive zebra said:
Thats not the only reason...

Murali has a better average, strike rate and economy rate despite having comparitively no support and the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team. Murali been more successful against every team except Pakistan, who fielded teenagers during one of Australia's tours. 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. Warne has been known to be hit around occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he has never been smashed around the park.

O'Reilly never had a bad series and was far more consistent. Bradman was one of the few people to have seen both and said O'Reilly was superior.

Laker at his best kicks Warne's ass at his best.
You always bring up the 'Murali has a better record' business, which counts for sod-all.

Murali has played iver half his Tests in Sri Lanka, where it spins from ball 1. If Warne had that luxury, his record would be atleast as good as Murali's.

Warne has a better record outside the subcontinent than Murali, which is a much fairer statistic.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
a massive zebra said:
Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he has never been smashed around the park.
As evidenced by the 3rd Test in the Sri Lanka tour to England, English second innings. 8-)
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
a massive zebra said:
Warne

home 52 2439.4 6165 235 26.23 8/71 2.52 62.2 12 4
away 58 2772.4 7206 272 26.50 7/165 2.59 61.1 13 3
neutral 3 124 342 27 12.66 7/94 2.75 27.5 2 1

Murali

home 53 3150 7051 342 20.61 9/51 2.21 55.2 30 10
away 38 2037.2 5114 190 26.91 9/65 2.51 64.3 14 3

Murali much better at home and only slightly worse away despite having comparitively no support.
I find it amazing you use Murali's home record as evidence! Even MacGill could take wickets in Sri Lanka.
 

twctopcat

International Regular
Not saying Kumble is better than Warne but ive always liked the way Kumble seems to out think the batsmen with regards to wicket taking whereas warne can do that but can also rely on the fact that he turns it a country mile, something which kumble cannot seem to do.
 

Top