*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Ikki]

No mate, it isn't about Warne being a saint. Look at the post I rebutted to...it's full of

"He is this kinda person..."

"I think he is trying to say..."

They're all derivatives you have from his character. They're never used to exemplify anything other than "Warne is the devil", so that replied to my question of this thread. Even when Faaip pointed out the dates, you still went after his throat. Even when both of us showed you the mispresentation you seemed to want to disagree. I'm sorry if I offended you.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I thought it was warne Warne said something about Murali's action, I was not sure about it, I will have to research it, some aussie player did say it.

I think it was Gilchrist.

 

[Sanz]

Even when Faaip pointed out the dates, you still went after his throat. Even when both of us showed you the mispresentation you seemed to want to disagree.

You seem to have skipped few posts..I did say that I misread the link and finally accepted that you were right the article did insinuate that.And I did offer my apology for not reading the article properly.

But the discussion about the article was over and it was about what Warnie actually said few months ago after making the World Record. You said it was truth, that's why it hurts. I pointed to you that it's not truth, and it wouldn't have matted if Murali had played those many tests England, he would have ended up with more wickets (tthan he had against BD+Zim), a post you completely ignored.

And to prover your point you continue to make gross generalisation about aussies such as 'aussies are straight forward people and how they speak truth and blah blah blah'. Not to forget you continue to insinuate everyone, who criticizes Warnie or ponting , as kind of an aussie hater of some sorts.

To be frank I dont know enough about aussies to hate them for anything.

 

[C_C]

Why is an injury seen as an excuse? It's explanation that there is a reason for his off form. Indian batsmen playing him very well is different to him being totally off in Bangladesh. So you're saying he's using excuses against Bangladesh...as in...he wouldn't get wickets against them? As for the England comparison, cut Murali to 20 overs and give him a McGrath, I think I know who I would pick.

Because for one, Warne isnt the only one getting injured- Murali missed a lotta time due to injuries too.You dont see Murali fans trying to justify his shortcommings ( which are very few compared to Warne) by playing the injury card.
And for two, some of Warne's injury claims are totally bogus and engineered purely as an excuse for his flop. Take the India tour in late 90s where he got absolutely annihilated.
Everybody- and i do mean everybody- was bigging up Warne and just how potent he would be on Indian pitches. He bowled the most, turned the ball truckloads and still got clobbered ( simply because you cannot bowl to Indian batsmen on a legstump line and expect to succeed for a spinner. Doesnt matter if you are gonna spin it a mile- you will still get annihilated). And lo ! he gets injured in the ODIs after the tests and suddenly its 'hes been injured all along, it was magnificient for somoene who's shoulder is utterly bolloxed blahblah' pure excuses ( and to borrow a caribbean term-) and skuntery.

Add to that Warne's curious habit of clutching his shoulder way way way more often than any other bowler when he's getting clobbered and its pretty dubious to take all this pusillanimous vacillations about Warne's injury problems seriously.
yeah, he's been injured before. But others have too and its no big deal for an international bowler with a near-14 year career. Some bowlers have been far more injured than Warne ( like Waqar, McDermott, Imran Khan, Bob Willis) and yet their fans dont use injuries to excuse performances and neither do they pre-date injuries to suit their agendas.

Its especially rich talking about injury-related problems from a team like Australia- who have by far the best medical staff hands down for injuries and a team who's players make astounding recovery from injuries all the time over the last 10-12 years.

And with McGrath around to scythe through and give the spinner a headstart something like 50-4 rather than 80-1, its pretty easy to see who I would pick - the one who doesnt get that kinda luxury and STILL does better. The fact that Murali's overseas figures are better than Warne( against all overseas opposition they've both played against - Murali's overseas record is 219 wkts @ 25.31 against all teams overseas minus OZ and Warne's record is 306 wkts @ 26.44 against all teams overseas minus SL ) despite all this and its pretty damn easy who I would pick as the superior bowler.

 

[Ikki]

I did see your apology. Your argument was the same, just using a different reference/evidence. I'm not saying the Aussies are angels at all. But how often do you see them take back what they've said or deny saying it altogether? Usually they stand their ground no matter how silly they look. Yet, when they do try to clarify it's left unappreciated. I.E Warne + Ponting = Humble Pie.

It is about truth, in both instances: Bangladesh and Murali.

Bangladesh - Too many matches in cricket, Bangladesh aren't of the standard (apart from one innings against Australia and a single test win in their entire history) they haven't proved it really. I am an advocate of giving them a chance. The Aussies aren't the only team/people to be saying that.

Murali - Gets a good proportion of his wickets from the weaker test nations.

Both are true and accurate in their scope. It may not be nice to say, but it's definately there. As you can see the Aussies, at least recently, have not been shy of saying these kind of comments. Now when something is clarified before the tests (which serves to show 0 need for saving face, as they haven't even played bad to come retract something on those grounds) they're still seen in the same light. My argument is: they're given no leeway to be good. No praise, it's only the worst aspect that's focused on. I'm sure if we got a big enough magnifying glass on other test nations we can dislike what they do too.

 

[C_C]

My argument is: they're given no leeway to be good. No praise, it's only the worst aspect that's focused on. I'm sure if we got a big enough magnifying glass on other test nations we can dislike what they do too.

Australian team has to keep up the goodwill to atleast international standards instead of being arrogant loose cannon yappers for a good while before they are given any leeway.
Goodwill is earnt. Not given around happily and freely. The OZ has to do a complete 180 in their reputation for them to be given leeway. Just the way it goes with behaviour in any aspect the world over. The highschool teen bully isnt perceived as a good humble lad the first time he does something nice. Or even the second. They are encouraged and given support but the fact remains that they are considered dodgy characters until they lay down some good solid groundwork. Same applies here.

 

[GotSpin]

.
And for two, some of Warne's injury claims are totally bogus and engineered purely as an excuse for his flop. Take the India tour in late 90s where he got absolutely annihilated.
Everybody- and i do mean everybody- was bigging up Warne and just how potent he would be on Indian pitches. He bowled the most, turned the ball truckloads and still got clobbered ( simply because you cannot bowl to Indian batsmen on a legstump line and expect to succeed for a spinner. Doesnt matter if you are gonna spin it a mile- you will still get annihilated). And lo ! he gets injured in the ODIs after the tests and suddenly its 'hes been injured all along, it was magnificient for somoene who's shoulder is utterly bolloxed blahblah' pure excuses ( and to borrow a caribbean term-) and skuntery.

I don't know if this is the kind of proof you will like but Steve Waugh in his autobiography mentioned how he was indeed injured throughout the tests and carried on.

 

[social]

Australian team has to keep up the goodwill to atleast international standards instead of being arrogant loose cannon yappers for a good while before they are given any leeway.
Goodwill is earnt. Not given around happily and freely. The OZ has to do a complete 180 in their reputation for them to be given leeway. Just the way it goes with behaviour in any aspect the world over. The highschool teen bully isnt perceived as a good humble lad the first time he does something nice. Or even the second. They are encouraged and given support but the fact remains that they are considered dodgy characters until they lay down some good solid groundwork. Same applies here.

Absolute nonsense.

Ponting advocates that batsmen should accept the word of fieldsmen leads to universal rejection leads to Ponting standing his ground leads to 3rd umpire proving Ponting correct leads to Ponting being labelled a cheat

Aus sledge so are roundly criticised for being bullies.

Bangas have proven themselves to be every bit as bad as Aus in the sledging dept but are crap so theyre excused.

Ponting plays a role in correcting a 3rd umpires mistake and is criticised for his demeanour despite being right.

The list goes on and on.

Unfortunately, whilst Aus are the best, double standards will prevail and the some people in the rest of the world will moan "poor little us", we cant compete on or off the field.

 

[C_C]

I don't know if this is the kind of proof you will like but Steve Waugh in his autobiography mentioned how he was indeed injured throughout the tests and carried on.

I consider that total BS.
Its a convinient excuse. Sure he may've had a ache here or there- but most bowlers dont go into the match with 100% fitness rating. There was absolutely no noise about injuries- no dip in performance whatsoever, no nothing until he got injured in the ODIs and then the Australian media just extended that to cover up his pathetic test display. That is the perfect 'excuse job' and its not the first time its been used in sports either.

The reason Warne got annihilated and has routinely been annihilated by India is just very simple- the 'bread and butter' line of Warne- pitch it outside the rightie's legstump ( on the rough) and get it to spin across is pure cannon-fodder to indian batsmen who a) are the best players of spin and b) viv richards-esque on anything bowled on their legs.
He sort of got the idea in the most recent series vs IND, where he pitched on off-n-middle a LOT more often. Still got clobbered a fair bit though.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah, I agree. Warne is crap, and England are the minnows of world cricket.

 

[C_C]

Bangas have proven themselves to be every bit as bad as Aus in the sledging dept but are crap so theyre excused.

To my knowledge, no bangladeshi bowler has ever stared down a batsman threatening to rip off his throat, no bangladeshi bowler has ever screamed at the umpire " just look at the replay on the big screen!", no bangladeshi batsman has ever screamed ' black c*nt' on his way back to the pavillion and no bangladeshi player has ever asked or insinuated an on-field umpire to re-check the 3rd umpire's verdict.

You just totally pulled that outta yer ****.

Unfortunately, whilst Aus are the best, double standards will prevail and the some people in the rest of the world will moan "poor little us", we cant compete on or off the field.

Nothing to do with OZ being the best. Everything to do with the OZ team being an inherent bully and ill-behaved team. You'd find that fans universally adored the West Indian all-conquering team.
OZ team of the last 8-9 years has been an uncouth but brilliant team, which is why get respect on cricketing skills but not much warmth.

But more to the point - what i wanted to say was this : The OZ team offering 'goodwill gestures' such as 'lets take the fielder's word for it mate' is akin to a crook whining about people not trusting him/her. Lay down some groundwork and learn to be better behaved and in a few years, the OZ team too will get the goodwill akin to other teams- most of whom are far more civilised on and off the field.

 

[Dasa]

Here's something to consider....could it be some people criticise the Australian team behaviour because (shock horror!) they actually do show poor sportsmanship and behaviour?

According to some people, it seems as if all Aussie cricketers are saints and should be worshipped even more because 'they tell it how it is'...absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Ikki]

Here's something to consider....could it be some people criticise the Australian team behaviour because (shock horror!) they actually do show poor sportsmanship and behaviour?

According to some people, it seems as if all Aussie cricketers are saints and should be worshipped even more because 'they tell it how it is'...absolutely ridiculous.

So of all these Cricket teams....what are the odds....only one of them behave badly. The rest are saints .

It's not about worshipping those who tell it straight. It's actually irrelevant to the point. The point is if Australians are so uncouth that they WILL say what they think, then what makes you think they're trying to HIDE something by retracting a statement.

That's a contradictory statement. It would bare more sense if you had said "Oh, well the Aussies pull no punches, so if they're saying that it isn't what they mean't then it must have been something else". Because, as stated, if they're so 'bad', why would they retract anything? This happening before the test even began. It's non-sensical.

If I rob cars and I'm forthcoming with it, what makes you think I'd be lying if I said: "No, not that one." This is what I mean when I say people will pick up some tripe and run with it, even if isn't consistant in reasoning, just because the price fits the bill.

In the result of the thread, I'm more inclined to Social's thinking.

 

[vic_orthdox]

 

[Dasa]

So of all these Cricket teams....what are the odds....only one of them behave badly. The rest are saints .

Don't twist my words (and you know you're doing exactly that) - I have never suggested all cricket teams are saints. However, it doesn't take a genius to see that the current Australian team is worst among the Test teams when it comes to on-field behaviour and comments to the media.

It's not about worshipping those who tell it straight. It's actually irrelevant to the point. The point is if Australians are so uncouth that they WILL say what they think, then what makes you think they're trying to HIDE something by retracting a statement.

When have I said they have something to hide? I'm saying that they are in the wrong by saying anything in the first place. Anyway, why is being uncouth seen as a positive?

 

[C_C]

The point is if Australians are so uncouth that they WILL say what they think, then what makes you think they're trying to HIDE something by retracting a statement.

Does the whole 'loose cannon who opened his mouth before considering the repurcussions----> issue brought back at an opportune moment-----> manager yelling '**** guys- ya gotta do something. Retract and i'll buy us all dinner' routine seem that foreign to you ?

Here are two examples - Sobers went to apartheid Rhodesia--->defended his decision---->huge public outcry---->changed his stance and apologised later.
Viv said 'WI is an african team' ---> ****ed off the indo-caribbean population and several others---->retracted it later.

So of all these Cricket teams....what are the odds....only one of them behave badly. The rest are saints

What are the odds of a team being unbeaten in a series for 15 straight years ?
Yeah. Right.
Odds are irrelevant when not used in predictive ventures.
The odd of getting hit by lightning is pretty damn small but it happens.
The OZ team is by far the most ill-behaved of international teams and its no surprise- they have by far the most derogatory behaviour on field for a while now.
If you follow Basketball, you'd realise why almost everyone thinks Kobe is an awesome player but a total tosser. Same with most of the OZ team really.

 

[social]

Think about the reaction if Ponting or Warne etc had defaced a wicket in the manner that Afridi did vs Eng.

Afridi shouldve been banned for life - if not for being a cheat then for being stupid enough to do it on camera

However, there has been a greater outcry over his decision to "retire" (aka Im a spoilt brat that cant handle being dropped).

One rule for the sub-continent ........

 

[Ikki]

Don't twist my words (and you know you're doing exactly that) - I have never suggested all cricket teams are saints. However, it doesn't take a genius to see that the current Australian team is worst among the Test teams when it comes to on-field behaviour and comments to the media.

Pardon me if you think I'm twisting your words. It wasn't my intention. What is humourous is that no other test nation is put under the same microscope, and sometimes even unfairly. E.G. The ponting issue. As I said, it's one thing not to trust him and not build an accord regarding the catching matter, it's another thing to vilify him for doing the same thing that everyone else was doing.

I exemplified earlier: If I say, hey guys let's share our food, and you guys say No (for whatever reason) and then after we're done eating our meals you say to me..."Huh? How come you didn't share?

When have I said they have something to hide? I'm saying that they are in the wrong by saying anything in the first place. Anyway, why is being uncouth seen as a positive?

No, it's not you saying it, but if you don't believe them now, why did you before? If they're honest about sledging and all that jazz and you believe them, then why wouldn't you believe them if they were saying they didn't do something? If you think they're uncouth, that's your view, but some people are judging them by the stupidest of details.

Anything to suggest Aussies are sub-par sportsmen. The media does it, a lot of fans do it as well. It gives them something to talk about I guess.

I mean think about this...the Media was brutally savaged in Bangladesh and people are discussing about how Ponting LOOKED like when he was talking to the umpire. Which is the more serious scenario to you?

 

[C_C]

Think about the reaction if Ponting or Warne etc had defaced a wicket in the manner that Afridi did vs Eng.

Afridi shouldve been banned for life - if not for being a cheat then for being stupid enough to do it on camera

However, there has been a greater outcry over his decision to "retire" (aka Im a spoilt brat that cant handle being dropped).

One rule for the sub-continent ........

Okay so the last line of defence is pure hypotheticals.

What exactly was the reaction when the New Zealand pitch curators were caught watering the wicket late in the evening, with India poised to resume batting the next day ( the NZ-IND test series before the last world cup) ?
Right-O.


It is particularly rich one would mention 'one rule for the subcontinent' crap when cricketing history points to a distinct and clear bias towards the Anglo-Australian team for the overwhelming bulk of cricket's existance.

Not to mention, in almost every single sport, behavioural dysfunction is taken far more seriously than seeking illegal advantage in the field of play ( doping is the only exception).
A tennis player saying '**** you' to his opposition in wimbledon finals is FAR more offensive than any act of cheating on court. Look up Jeff Tarango incident. And then look up what exactly was the fate of Bruguera, who deliberately smudged off the baseline in French open finals for the 2nd title he won.
Your analogy is not only purely hypothetical 'what ifs' ( rather than discussing actual instances of misbehaviour), its also not an accurate analogy.

 

[Dasa]

I exemplified earlier: If I say, hey guys let's share our food, and you guys say No (for whatever reason) and then after we're done eating our meals you say to me..."Huh? How come you didn't share?

My only comment on that issue (that of a 'catching agreement') was regarding what the captains disagreed with Ponting on. I'm not suggesting that the Aussies should have to take a fielders word for it if other teams don't.

No, it's not you saying it, but if you don't believe them now, why did you before? If they're honest about sledging and all that jazz and you believe them, then why wouldn't you believe them if they were saying they didn't do something? If you think they're uncouth, that's your view, but some people are judging them by the stupidest of details.

Believe them about what? I don't disbelieve that they did retract their statements and meant it...it just seems to me that it shows their character that they said anything at all initially.