• 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.

Why do Aussies hate murili?

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
Bit different when crowd members paint their faces black though, in what is clearly a racial abuse.

Mind you I understand your point, and understand that its a minority that does these idiotic things, but its not as simple an issue as you're making it out to be.

I personally was disappointed when Murali didn't come.
Not defending any racists out there, or trying to be a stirrer, but what would the appropriate method to dress up as Murali be, without being offensive? This probably sounds like a smart-ass question, but its not intended as such, just a random thought at 2am...
 

C_C

International Captain
That's one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. They have EVERY obligation to us, the audience, so long as our interest in their otherwise useless skills provides them with a living that dwarfs that earned by nurses, teachers, farmers, bakers, you know, people who actually contribute something useful to society. Their ONLY value is as performers and a performer is nothing without an audience.

This isn't to say that people should have no restrictions on their behaviour at the cricket, but the obligation to behave yourself is owed to your society, ie the other members of the audience, not to the paid entertainers out their in the middle.
Bear in mind, i said when you are in *their* element, ie, when you are in a stadium watching a cricket match or in an opera house watching opera, you *are* the lesser one- you are the one who is afforded the priviledge of the performance and you *must* respect the performer or quite simply, clear out.
I dont care if you take a different tone with them in the streets or in your living room but when you are in the element of someone, you do not disrespect them there.
Doing so only exposes your crassness and the failure of your family and your teachers to properly educate you in ettiquette and manners.
When you are in the audience, your obligation to the performer is first and foremost- which is the rather simple and extremely easy thing called 'showing respect'.
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
If Murali's setting the example, then why not?? Warney probably should've boycotted England about 10 years ago if that's what we want our cricketers to do. Crowd taunting, geez how depressing. It's only been happening for how the hell long?? And what you get out in the middle is probably 400 times worse.

Absolutely absurd.
Big difference mate, huge difference.

At heart, we (English people) love Warne as a person and as a cricketer, they chanted 'We wish you were English' at the end of the 5th Ashes test in 2005, in a totally serious manner. The Australians really don't like Muralitharan at all, that's the difference.
 

C_C

International Captain
I understand the argument with regards to Warne having played in a better team, but I think those who point out how he regularly takes wickets at the bottom end of the spectrum need to take this into account too (and I know you didn't bring that up, but I just thought I'd add it here). Bowling behind a very good pace attack has its advantages, but the disadvantage is if Mcgrath and co are on fire you are going to be bowling at the bottom order more often than not. You also have to wait for your chances and sometimes not get them at all. Due to being a very very good bowler Warne got more chances than most as he was a frontline bowler on his own merits, however it could be argued Murali gets more chances due to his support not being as good. I think the are arguments for and against both, and indeed points brought up in either category could be argued either way.

Regardless of this, I enjoy watching them both. I haven't seen enough of Murali bowling long spells as he hasn't been in Aus much of late, but it'll be good to see him when he gets here.
Bowling to the bottom order is something, as a bowler, i'd take any day of the week over bowling to bona-fide batsmen. You can skittle out the lower order more often than not for next-to-no-runs : for example, when Sreesanth and Zaheer destroyed South Africa in the first test first innings, Kumble bowled 2-3 overs, conceded 2-3 runs and took 2 wickets.
Kumble this series took less wickets than his overall wickets/match rate but at a much better average simply because he came in more often with 3-4 wickets down than just 1 or 2. This is precisely the advantage of bowling behind excellent bowling attack.

As i said, bowling to the lower order because the top order has been scythed out by your pacers will cause you to take less wickets/match but your average, your strike rate, etc. will improve considerably.
Some ill-informed ****** in this thread disputes this but this is not just a logical supposition-this is factual, as evidenced by examining the statistics of bowlers from great bowling attacks. Since bowlers, even from a great bowling attack dont generally start their careers and end it exactly in sync(ie, there is a few years gap and several years overlap : eg Walsh and Ambrose/Bishop, Holding/Roberts and Marshall/Garner, Lindwall and Miller, Statham and Trueman, etc etc) the years they bowl while they have good bowling attack invariably produces better averages and strike rates but with slightly reduced wicket/match haul (ie, instead of 5-80, you get 3-40). When Walsh had Bishop(who was good enough to walk into any lineup before his back injury) and Ambrose set and bowling in the team in the late 80s/early 90s, his average dropped - it climbed back again when Bishop was laid low and it was higher before the arrival of Ambrose/Bishop, when he was essentially partnering Marshall, Patterson and Baptiste, etc for a short period.
Same is true for Ambrose, Trueman, Lindwall, miller,Wasim,Waqar, etc - ie, it is the general pattern, which is not to say there isnt any exception to this. The spin quartet too improved their averages/strike rate in the early-mid 70s when they were all bowling in tandem.This is why, statistically, Hadlee's average/strike rate is worse than Marshall's but his wicket/match rate is higher.
As such, if a bowler, while bowling in a lesser bowling attack ends up with a better wicket/match haul as well as a better/equal average and strike rate, the tangiables, quite categorically point towards him being the superior one.

But i realise why some Aussies are so entrenched about this- you find this irrational hatred of Murali from the aussies, the irrational hatred of Warne from Lankans(though on a much lesser degree- i suspect because the element of racism/ethnocentricm is far less pronounced in their society), the continuous sniping at Tendy from carribean messageboards, the focussing on Lara's failures far more than successes from Indian boards, etc. all fit the pattern.
It is quite simply, insecurity and jealousy- if you are an irrational fan of one particular performer, you develop a dislike automatically for his/her closest rival, simply because they are the ones most likely to deny your 'hero' the #1 spot.
Its just that simple. Some try to couch it behind fuzzy-logic and marked distortion of the basics of the sport/art in question but it is quite common phenomena.
I dont know if there are many music historians here but a friend of mine a long time ago (who eats, breahes and craps music) showed the entrenched rivalry between Bach and Mozart fans too.
 

legglancer12

School Boy/Girl Captain
http://ashes.sportinglife.com/crick...TORY_NAME=cricket/06/12/21/manual_081248.html

who's the greatest?

Muralitharan - likely to overtake Warne's haul.

By Rory Dollard, PA Sport

In any other era, the achievement of becoming the first bowler in Test history to take 700 Test wickets might be enough for Shane Warne to confidently request a fitting for the crown of greatest spinner of all time.

But despite being only one wicket from this monumental feat, Warne knows that the true owner of finest slow bowler of the modern era is a vexed question.

Because for every mesmerising performance from the Australian icon, there is an equally compelling display from Sri Lanka's own cricketing legend - Muttiah Muralitharan.

From the moment Warne bowled former England captain Mike Gatting with his fabled 'ball of the century' the cricketing world was firmly, and unbreakably, in the Victorian's thrall.

The year was 1993 and at that stage the notion that a Sri Lankan bowler may one day challenge Warne for his unofficial title would have been considered highly unlikely - it is a testament to the achievements of Muralitharan that he is now doing just that.

Their standing in the game is such that Warne and Murali are the only two players in Test history to have claimed more than 600 wickets, with Warne's team-mate Glenn McGrath the highest ranking seamer on 555.

As such there is a largely unspoken race between the two to finish with the most career wickets and set a record that many believe will never be broken.

And although Warne's current pre-eminence sees him leading Muralitharan by an admirable margin, it is now doubtful that he will finish ahead of his rival having announced his retirement at the end of the current Ashes series.

At 34 Murali is around two-and-a-half years younger than Warne - meaning that he should easily outlast the leg-spinner in the international arena.

Naturally comparing the towering achievements of two such giants can be a unenviable task and the conclusion, undoubtedly, is that each player has had a profound effect on cricket as we now know it.

But both men can make tangible claims on the rank of first among equals.

In Warne's favour is that, aside from his own personal tally, he has contributed regularly and heavily to the successes of one of the finest cricket sides ever produced.

Although led by distinguished, era-defining captains like Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and current leader Ricky Ponting, the Baggy Greens generation that will go down in legend alongside the once-dominant West Indies of the 70s and 80s is as much Warne's Australia as anybody's.

World Cups, an almost endless run of victorious Ashes series and a near monopoly of first place in the world rankings have all come to the Antipodeans in the course of Warne's career and success is frequently the barometer by which one can reasonably judge sportsmen.

To that end, he is second to none. Not even Murali.

But delve a little deeper and the Sri Lankan finger-spinner again presses a convincing case.

Firstly, Warne has played a full 33 more matches than Murali - more than enough time to establish a deceptive lead in the wickets-taken category. Given time to play catch-up Muralitharan might even make his way to the once-imponderable 800 mark. In terms of successes, few would rank higher than that.

Warne has bowled in excess of 600 more overs in his Test career. That is a significant deficit for Murali, who boasts a strike-rate of a wicket every 55 balls.

While Warne enjoys a similarly regular success-rate (one every 57 balls), it is the Sri Lankan who has enjoyed a greater volume of big hauls.

He has now claimed five wickets in an innings on 56 occasions and in addition he has recorded a 10-wicket match on 18 occasions, including a staggering sequence of four such matches in succession (against India, Bangladesh and twice against the West Indies in 2001/2).

It is also worthwhile to note the vastly different environments in which the two men have been playing.

While much of Warne's career has been spent in an Australian side as dominant as there has ever been in world cricket, Muralitharan's Sri Lanka, despite their remarkable rise in Test cricket, have spent large amounts of that time - especially away from the sub-continent - on the back foot.

Where Warne has long enjoyed the luxury of his side's prolific batsmen establishing a huge advantage to play with, Murali has often been handed the task of saving the match with little or no margin for error. In many instances he has done just that.

But the perception of Muralitharan as a one-man attack also works in his favour. Where he is frequently given carte-blanche to bowl without rest - thereby increasing his chances of taking more Test scalps - Warne has had to share the burden of wicket-taking with luminaries such as McGrath, Craig McDermott, Merv Hughes and Brett Lee.

On many occasions, the Australian seam department has been in such rude health that there are just a handful of wickets left when the spin is called upon.

Had Warne, the man who saved from extinction the art of leg-spin, been born into another era, he would surely have become indisputably the greatest slow bowler of his generation.

But the shadow of Muralitharan, whose achievements in redefining what is possible with finger-spin at least match Warne's, means it is an honour he cannot take for granted as he prepares to bow out next year.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Care to mention How many % wickets Warne's got from England and 8-11 batsman ?
I was talking about 8-11 batsmen for every country. Murali is only a tad ahead despite getting more than enough opportunities to bowl at higher-order batsmen. Whereas Warne is in a side where it's not unusual for him to start his match when 6 wickets have already fallen down leaving only batsmen 7-11. And when you take into account the lower order take from both is differed only by 6-7% it should give you something to ponder about.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Big difference mate, huge difference.

At heart, we (English people) love Warne as a person and as a cricketer, they chanted 'We wish you were English' at the end of the 5th Ashes test in 2005, in a totally serious manner. The Australians really don't like Muralitharan at all, that's the difference.
The difference is that whilst the English dislike Warne, they RESPECT him. And while I know many many Australians genuinely like Murali, those that don't share those sentiments have their opinions stemming from the lack of respect.

Australians like somebody who gives it a go and is okay with taking crap. We love that person. We think someone who is strong enough to outdo his opponents and takes the crowd harassment on the chin as a legend. A good example of someone like that is Andre Nel. I think Aussies just love that the guy wants to stick it to the Aussies and wants to win. When Murali complains and doesn't come here he isn't winning anyone over.

You know in school where you start complaining to your classmates that you hate a certain nickname and instead of stopping it they call you it more frequently? It's kinda the same stupid thing.
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
The difference is that whilst the English dislike Warne, they RESPECT him. And while I know many many Australians genuinely like Murali, those that don't share those sentiments have their opinions stemming from the lack of respect.

Australians like somebody who gives it a go and is okay with taking crap. We love that person. We think someone who is strong enough to outdo his opponents and takes the crowd harassment on the chin as a legend. A good example of someone like that is Andre Nel. I think Aussies just love that the guy wants to stick it to the Aussies and wants to win. When Murali complains and doesn't come here he isn't winning anyone over.
I get what you mean, but however much Muralitharan tries and takes the abuse on the chin, the Aussies as a whole will still hate him because they think he cheats.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I get what you mean, but however much Muralitharan tries and takes the abuse on the chin, the Aussies as a whole will still hate him because they think he cheats.
Hate - no

No respect - yes

BTW, Murali does not come across as someone who "takes it on the chin."

Whether it be media spin or the man himself, he comes across as a whinger
 

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bear in mind, i said when you are in *their* element, ie, when you are in a stadium watching a cricket match or in an opera house watching opera, you *are* the lesser one- you are the one who is afforded the priviledge of the performance and you *must* respect the performer or quite simply, clear out.
I dont care if you take a different tone with them in the streets or in your living room but when you are in the element of someone, you do not disrespect them there.
Doing so only exposes your crassness and the failure of your family and your teachers to properly educate you in ettiquette and manners.
When you are in the audience, your obligation to the performer is first and foremost- which is the rather simple and extremely easy thing called 'showing respect'.
The performer must first earn the respect before the audience grants it to them. Players who boycott certain countries do nothing to help themselves in that regard.
 

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I get what you mean, but however much Muralitharan tries and takes the abuse on the chin, the Aussies as a whole will still hate him because they think he cheats.
:@ Honestly, get a life, and get rid of the sweeping generilisations, i'm sure i'm not the only Australian who's found them offensive because your basing us as a whole upon the actions of a select few gits whom we all agree need to go and take a hike.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bear in mind, i said when you are in *their* element, ie, when you are in a stadium watching a cricket match or in an opera house watching opera, you *are* the lesser one- you are the one who is afforded the priviledge of the performance and you *must* respect the performer or quite simply, clear out.
I dont care if you take a different tone with them in the streets or in your living room but when you are in the element of someone, you do not disrespect them there.
Doing so only exposes your crassness and the failure of your family and your teachers to properly educate you in ettiquette and manners.
When you are in the audience, your obligation to the performer is first and foremost- which is the rather simple and extremely easy thing called 'showing respect'.
You're obviously not an opera buff

At a recent performance of La Scala at Milan Opera (highlight of the European opera season), lead tenor Roberto Alagna walked off mid-act in response to booing from certain sections of the audience. This resulted in his second having to complete part of the performance in his street clothes

Alagna's actions were universally condemned by members of the audience, critics and the general public

The point is that your view is a little extreme.

Today's cricketers are generally paid very well to, amongst other things, entertain (let's not forget winning and fulfilling sponsor commitments)

Crowds generally pay big money to watch the cricket and have the right to voice approval/disapproval so long as they dont go to extremes.

Virtually nobody supports the actions of the Murali "impersonator" and I cant believe that the burning of effagies is condoned on the sub-continent.

However, barring displays such as the above, it's pretty much a free-for-all and, unfortunately, will get worse with the introduction of 20/20.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I have to say I'm guessing C_C doesn't get to sporting events very often. Never been to an opera in my life (nor do I intend do, steaming pile of bollox that it is; foreign bollox for the most part too, but I digress) but i imagine the accepted etiquette is somewhat different to your average football match.

"Call that an aria, you fat ****?"

"Paverotti - Shut your mouth!!"

"There's only one Placido Domingo, one Placido Domingo..."
 

Josh

International Regular
I honestly think Murali does have a bit of a persona and way about him. It's always a laugh watching him bat with that big beaming smile on his face. But I can't get over the fact that, in my eyes, he is bowling illegally, and was bowling illegally until the ICC changed their laws to accommodate him more comfortably.

Point is, it's probably not worth bickering about anymore because when he does get tested it is mildly corrupt and he's always going to be cleared.
 

pasag

RTDAS
Big difference mate, huge difference.

At heart, we (English people) love Warne as a person and as a cricketer, they chanted 'We wish you were English' at the end of the 5th Ashes test in 2005, in a totally serious manner. The Australians really don't like Muralitharan at all, that's the difference.
You have anything to support that stupid generalisation? You wouldn't happen to be basing it on a tiny minority of the crowd or some outspoken members on this forum would you? I'm struggling to fathom how you would know what Australians as a whole like and don't like, because I certainly don't and I've lived here all my life, but I assume you're the expert on such matters.
 

adharcric

International Coach
Tbf, most Aussie members in here don't seem especially fond of Murali at least from what I've seen.
 

pasag

RTDAS
Tbf, most Aussie members in here don't seem especially fond of Murali at least from what I've seen.
Firstly it's not most, secondly it's outspoken members who may make it seem like it's most and thirdly it would be rather idiotic to presume that members in this forum represent the wider Australian public. But whatever.
 

Top