Murali versus Shane Warne?

dirtyden

I'm a sucker for comparing players and gauging opinion on who is the greatest. I've always wondered why in spin bowling that Shane Warne is considered almost universally as the modern master wheras Murali whose figures are superior whilst considered as top class never receives the same acclaim. Not being a cricket connoiseur (I just enjoy watching, dont know the finer ins and outs of off-spin etc.) Im only basing any assumptions on figures. Would there be a certain biase towards a bowler who has taken more wickets against England than someone who has taken the bulk of his on the sub-continent?

Dozen Wicked Words

Muralitharan is/was a fantastic bowler, I never liked his action but the ICC approved it so they are a better judge than me, but I think Warne was the superior spinner because he was more likely to take a wicket on less favourable conditions than Murali is.

I don't know that one has more acclaim than the other, I think it depends where you live and what press you read as to who gets the better write up. English press will probably always favour Warne purely for what he did from debut onwards during the ashes. Go to Sri Lanka or Asia, the Ashes, and Warne's contribution probably has less impact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeLn8sEAKfE

Loving the music :pac:

d'Oracle

I like to think that Warne was the best leg spinner and Murali is the best Off spinner.

Or off-wrist spinner.
Crazy Sri Lankans.

Renno

In the 10 Tests that they played against each other, Warne took 51 wickets at 20.35, and Murali 52 wickets at 30.51. A dominant Australian team for most of that helps, but Warne had the lot (a straight arm included)

djimi

Although Im not sure I could say why if pressed, I always felt that Warne was the superior of the two. Not taking anything from Murali who is an incredible and unique bowler, but I think the fact that Warne was so dominant as a leg spinner, which is (in my opinion anyway) the more difficult and certainly more rare of the spinning types, just gives him an edge for me. Plus the way Warne used to just keep relentlessly grinding away at opposition ball after ball for me was always a joy to watch.

dirtyden

djimi wrote: »

Although Im not sure I could say why if pressed, I always felt that Warne was the superior of the two. Not taking anything from Murali who is an incredible and unique bowler, but I think the fact that Warne was so dominant as a leg spinner, which is (in my opinion anyway) the more difficult and certainly more rare of the spinning types, just gives him an edge for me. Plus the way Warne used to just keep relentlessly grinding away at opposition ball after ball for me was always a joy to watch.

I am inclined to agree with most of the opinions posted here. Always more of an air of expectation when watching Warne bowl, and sense of that something was going to happen. However I was never sure whether I was buying into the hype that always surrounded him. He was possibly the most flamboyant characer in cricket and I think this also did no harm to his profile. I think that a lot of questions were asked about Murali's action as well but expert opinion seemed always to confirm that it was legal and he only ever really had problems with a couple of umpires mainly when he was touring Australia. I reviewed figures a few days ago and was surprised at the fact that Murali had taken more wickets in a less games than Warne although Warne's economy was better (admittedly the opposition may have been a factor many of Murali's were against Bangladesh wheras the majority of warnes would have been against England).

djimi

The oppositions arguement is an interesting one. Murali never played in an Ashes series, but then again Warne never had to face Australia who were for most of his career one of the greatest sides the game has ever seen. I think I remember reading a stat as well that Murali took quite a few more wickets against the weaker opposition, which could be used to argue either side really (ie the better bowler should be destroying the weak opposition vs those wickets are "cheaper" than the ones against top teams).

I dont even think it comes down to stats for me; it was just something I always felt when watching Warne, good and all as Murali is I just feel Warne was more of a presence in a game.

Renno

Good article on Cricinfo this morning on this debate.

The conclusion being that there's nothing much between them. I still go with Warne though!

booth70

Renno wrote: »

In the 10 Tests that they played against each other, Warne took 51 wickets at 20.35, and Murali 52 wickets at 30.51. A dominant Australian team for most of that helps, but Warne had the lot (a straight arm included)

Rathar than compare their stats against each other it might be worthwhile comparing their stats in test matches against the Indians....generally considered the best players of spin bowling.....I'd bet they both have very poor records against India

djimi

Warne vs India: 14 matches, 43 wickets @ 47.18 (34 wickets @ 43.11 in India)

Murali vs India: 21 matches, 97 wickets @ 33.34 (40 wickets @ 45.45 in India)

Thats a pretty huge difference overall, but not much to choose in tests in India (not much of a surprise that Murali has taken more wickets in home tests in Sri Lanka than Warne would have in home tests in Australia).

booth70

djimi wrote: »

Warne vs India: 14 matches, 43 wickets @ 47.18 (34 wickets @ 43.11 in India)

Murali vs India: 21 matches, 97 wickets @ 33.34 (40 wickets @ 45.45 in India)
(/QUOTE]

Kinda prooves my point really....compared to their overall career averages both have pretty ordinary records against India...in Warney's case his record is pretty dismal against India both home and away.....so IMHO the arguement over who is the greatest spinner ever seems irrelevant when both of them haven't done well against the best players of spin!

Pauleta

I was thinking about this the other day. I dont look at the amount of wickets but i look at the amount of balls bowled. Warney has 57.whatever bowls per wicket and Murali has 55.something bowls per wicket. You could take in account that playing in Sri Lanka could be more spin friendly. My conclusion is they were both effing brilliant

booth70

MuMu finishes with 800 wickets and a win against the No 1 team in the world.....what a fairytale ending.....well done!:)

dfx-

Last Indian wicket too...just about!:eek: