PDA

View Full Version : Warne or Muralitharan???


Imteaz
January 8, 2007, 04:14 AM
Who is Better? Shane Warne or Muthaia Muralitharan? Warne already Retired and Achieved 700+ wicket in Test Cricket. Muralitharan will Break The Record in Near Future.
If A Test Team is Built with All The Best Players in Test History, Both Warne and Murali will be Contestant. If The Game is Played in a Spinning Track, both of Them will be Selected but If The Condition is Such that Only One Spinner Can Play, Whom do You Choose?

Cast your Vote and Post your Comments with your Logic.

Have a Nice Time.

Tigers_eye
January 8, 2007, 09:21 AM
Murali: 110 mathes, 36705 balls, 14649 runs conceded, 674 Wkts, 9/51, 16/220, 21.73 ave, 2.39 Econ, 54.45 SR, 57 times 5 Wkts, 19 times 10 Wkts

Warne: 145 matches, 40705 balls, 17995 runs conceded, 708 Wkts, 8/71, 12/128, 25.41 ave, 2.65 Econ, 57.49 SR, 37 times 5 Wkts, 10 times 10 Wkts

With less matches almost in every statistical category Murali is ahead. The ones he is behind will be taken care of in due time. For one best spot one would want a bowler who is the best. Check out Murali's 5 wkt haul to Warne's. How about the 10 wicket haul? No contest.

Last year (2006) alone Murali had 90 wickets whereas warne had 49. In this rate, the possibility of an end number of wickets are endless.

israr
January 8, 2007, 12:58 PM
Avid cricket followers from 9 of the 10 test playing countries will vote for Muralitharan. The only exception being Australia.

SMHasan
January 10, 2007, 09:53 PM
Avid cricket followers from 9 of the 10 test playing countries will vote for Muralitharan. The only exception being Australia.

I think you are wrong here. Warne and Murali both have proved their potentials and both of them are great. But If you consider everything then I can show logic for both of them. I like Warne so lets tell you some points:

1. Warne played in a team where he is not the one who kills the batsman, there were Bret Lee, Magrath, Gillespie and of course there other very good bowlers in the 90's. So he had to fight with those class bowlers to take wickets. It was tough!

2.Murali often gets spinning track in his home soil whereas Warne gets fast and bouncy wickets in his home soil.What a pity! Is not it tough to bowl on a bouncy pitch for a leg spinner? Murali is lucky here.

3.Warne has performed brilliantly not only in tests but also in one dayers. Remember the semifinal against South Africa at Edgbaston where he took quick 3 wickets in the semi final of '99 WC and secured a tie. That was a classic one. Had he not taken those wickets Australia would have lost that match. In the final of that WC he killed pakistan as well.

What else he needs to prove himself? I am great fan of Murali but your statement is not correct bro. Leg spin is an art and Warne is an artist - you agree or not.

cricman
January 10, 2007, 10:27 PM
Avid cricket followers from 9 of the 10 test playing countries will vote for Muralitharan. The only exception being Australia.

England? 195 wickets/708 wickets came against England thats remarkable and he was MOM in the WC Semis and Finals.

How come there is no Both option?

AsifTheManRahman
January 10, 2007, 11:12 PM
How come there is no Both option?

because he loves england, has a house there, and will soon have a cricket academy there as well.

<a href="http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/275686.html">The spinning version of Troy Cooley?</a>

AsifTheManRahman
January 10, 2007, 11:13 PM
Avid cricket followers from 9 of the 10 test playing countries will vote for Muralitharan. The only exception being Australia.

interesting. the poll stands at 9-1 as we speak :)

now who will be the pooper of this party?

Sovik
January 11, 2007, 04:58 AM
Murali is the greatest. may be he gets all spinning pitches in home but he also picks up wickets abroad.

James90
January 11, 2007, 07:58 AM
I suppose deep down I know that Murali is better but having seen the significance of Warne I just can't vote against him. Shame there was no irrelevant third option.

BangladeshCricket
January 11, 2007, 09:05 AM
All I wish Murali plays for us after he retires from SL cricket. Both are two different cricketers who have different values.

Tigers_eye
January 11, 2007, 09:34 AM
There is no denying the fact that both of them are great bowlers. But for one spot (which was the thread starters question) in the eleven you can't have both. That is the reason no third option.

195 against England is certainly and eyeopening number however one must see how many test matches he has played against England and how many matches Murali played against England. Aus plays 5 match series almost every year against England. Where as in 5 years SL would play 6 test matches against England. You guys do the match.

The point of winning the WC Semi's is just laughable. How many matches did SL win because of the extra ordinary performance of Murali? And if one talks about ODI bowling then Murali's performance, stats would be untouchable.

Last but not least, Aus has the best batting lineup for the entire career that warne played. He never faced them in test or ODI matches. :) Often times, the great Aussie bowlers had cleared the top order (best batsmen) of the opponents and Warne had to deal with the middle order and the tail. Often times Waugh, Ponting had other options when Warne wasn't getting through. Murali never had that luxury and he had to grind it out.

I am not here to prove myself right. It's just that each arguement can have an opposite side. Certainly everyone can have their own opinion.

Stumped
January 11, 2007, 05:42 PM
Murali all the way.. stats show he is better compared to what Warne was at the same stage... Sad scene really that he will neva get the same recognition and media coverage as him... but then he dun really like all that stuff i guess... he loves cricket! Go Murali-ta!

Shafin
January 12, 2007, 04:54 AM
Murali

Ak
January 12, 2007, 09:28 AM
Murali = Best Ever

ialbd
January 12, 2007, 02:41 PM
Murali, on any given day...

that tera beka bowling style, forever controversial arm action, deliveries with eyes popping out of the socket ...... shane warne er kisui nai eigula....hehe..

Alien
January 18, 2007, 06:03 AM
I think many people are saying Murali is better because few like Warne, coz of his arrogance and off-field dramas. Murali, while excellent spinner is no way near Warne in terms of talent and variation.

ZunaidH
January 18, 2007, 08:15 AM
Murali chucks. Therefore, I vote for Warne. I would not have umpires against me if I were to select. Automatic choice is Warne.

Tigers_eye
January 18, 2007, 10:04 AM
I think many people are saying Murali is better because few like Warne, coz of his arrogance and off-field dramas. Murali, while excellent spinner is no way near Warne in terms of talent and variation.
With higher talent and variation Warne gets less wickets and yields more run. 57 Muraili to 37 Warne (5 wickets), 19 murali to 10 warne (10 wickets) Yup!! Ashraful is the most talented player in the world. He can play all the shots in a cricket book. Talent makes a cricketer better not perfomance.

israr
January 18, 2007, 03:18 PM
Let them speak. Time will tell everything.

Alien
January 22, 2007, 09:23 PM
With higher talent and variation Warne gets less wickets and yields more run. 57 Muraili to 37 Warne (5 wickets), 19 murali to 10 warne (10 wickets) Yup!! Ashraful is the most talented player in the world. He can play all the shots in a cricket book. Talent makes a cricketer better not perfomance.

Oh, you forgot the batting stats. Warne these days (though retired now) is an all-rounder and played as such. Pretty talented for an all-rounder don't you think?

Murali is known to be better statistically. But statistics can be misleading when you look into the flip side of things. It's called Simpson's Paradox.

al Furqaan
January 25, 2007, 02:09 PM
why would anyone vote for warne...murali would have murdered him!!!