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 yearsa 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.