| 
Posts and words
With regard to Jonathan Liew’s comment about Shane v Murali. I was going to say I think Murali is greater as he’s still playing & could take 1000. However Jonathan, you’ve won me over, even though I absolutely can’t stand Aussies’ & in particular Warne’s irrogant attitude.
Two champions, only one winner
By Jonathan Liew 2 years ago, mid-November Add your comment below
Someone is really going to have to put a stop to the Warne-Murali debate. It’s doing my head in.
It’s not that I don’t enjoy a spot of abstract, hypothetical cricketing banter. My teens consisted of little else, in fact. It’s just that this debate is – or should be – so thoroughly redundant. Is there seriously anybody out there who would take Murali over Warne? Please, step to the front of the class so we can ridicule you.
Murali is, of course, a great bowler and I don’t want to hate on him too much. I was present at his two greatest performances on English soil – The Oval in 1998 and Trent Bridge in 2006. He wins games. He turns it miles. He’s a genuinely laid-back guy in a world of grunting Pietersens and Nels. He is, as I say, a great bowler. Even his batting’s quite fun to watch.
But against a great bowler, surely the greatest. Warne won games, and he turned it miles. But where Murali tends to prey on uncertain, vulnerable batsmen, which is why he so often manages to roll an entire side over, Warne thrived on taking key wickets at key times, and cajoling his team-mates into doing the same. That’s something you can’t measure with statistics. Murali is a genius, but greater than a genius is a winner, and Warne is both. And he bats. And he catches. And he turned Shaun Udal into a Test bowler. Case closed for me.
Loading ...Tags: abstract hypothetical debates, bowlers, muttiah-muralitharan, shane-warne, shaun-udal |
22 Responses to “Two champions, only one winner”
November 21st, 2007 at 12.41 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 10.56 pm
I think it’s actually pretty hard to compare the greatness of Warne and Murali, simply because they’re two different styles of bowler. That, to me, is like trying to compare Johnny Cash with Luciano Parvarotti. So Murali can’t bowl a flipper? Warne can’t bowl the doosra? Well, Cash can’t hit those beautiful high notes, and somehow I don’t think the “Voice of Italy” could pull off “I’ve Been Everywhere, Man” like the Man in Black could, either. 
That’s why I don’t think you can say that Warne is the greatest bowler of all time, any more than you can say that Murali is, or Lillee or Marshall or Barnes. That’s my two cents worth, anyway.
November 22nd, 2007 at 6.22 am
murali of course is way ahead of warne! warne is over estimated because of the lack of anything better in terms of spin to come out of australia. warne in india is like rabbit caught under headlights.
and greatest bowler i have seen is richard hadlee. second would be wasim akram. they have the craft, the control and they can bowl at any stage of the game on any given pitch.
November 22nd, 2007 at 7.50 am
Good one Jonathan. You had to go and re-ignite this smelly old debate. Anyone who says Warne’s the best is labelled a hater of sub-continent players and a racist. Anyone who says Murali is the best gets labelled a supporter of cheats etc. Can we please give this one a rest.
November 22nd, 2007 at 7.51 am
Oh and Alex, Warne in India is much like Murali in Australia, so that one doesn’t really qualify as an argument.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10.49 am
Murali in india 31 @ 40
Warne in India 34 @ 43
so if we’re using India as the benchmark they’re about as good as each other
November 22nd, 2007 at 10.54 am
Hang on a minute Chris!!! Warne is a bigger so called “cheat” than Murali. Warne was found guility of the drug thing which “his Mum gave him”, & then there was the report on the weather story, just before he joined Hampshire. Both are quality “greats”, but both will bit a little tarnished with the “cheat & arrogant” label.
November 22nd, 2007 at 11.56 am
well u got me there with numbers, but still murali is the better bowler of the 2. if he was not, he will not have attracted all this hostility!!!
November 22nd, 2007 at 3.11 pm
Shane who????…are we supposed to remember every Australian has been?
Give it a rest!
November 22nd, 2007 at 7.41 pm
You haven’t put on your poll an option for-
‘who gives a stuff!”
November 22nd, 2007 at 10.05 pm
Which is better, Pepsi or Coke?
November 22nd, 2007 at 10.07 pm
Some people say Murali got his wickets against the lower ranked teams, but then, Shane Warne never had to bowl against Australia, did he?
November 22nd, 2007 at 11.47 pm
Easy Mark, I didn’t say Murali is a cheat, I was looking at this more from the point of view of the people who support one or the other. Personally I don’t like to say which is the greater bowler, because they are both great in their own way, and has their own strengths and weaknesses. There are too many grey areas when trying to compare them, not the least being that one bowls offspin and the other leggies.
November 23rd, 2007 at 6.22 am
Somebody has tweaked the statistics to suit their favourite player. As per Cricinfo Statsguru,
M W BB BowlAv 5w
Warne v India 14 43 6/125 47.18 1
Murali v India 15 67 8/87 32.47 4
Now, that difference of 15 tells its own tale…
November 23rd, 2007 at 12.32 pm
IN India, JII, not vs India. We know how much the Sri Lankan pitches are prepared to suit Murali at home, so that’s not too surprising.
And Angus, Warne may never have had to face the Aussies. But at the same time, he had to compete with McGrath for wickets. Chaminda Vaas is a smashing bowler. But he’s no Glenn McGrath.
November 24th, 2007 at 5.52 am
Good one! I love this old Chestnut and bring it up regularly on my own site 
Warne is a better CRICKETER than Murali by a factor of about 1000 and wouild be picked before him in any side picked anywhere, in any conditions…
He’s a better bowler in all regards, and if he hadn’t carried seriouis injuries into two tours of India (shoulder and spinning finger) woiuld win that “Indian” related stat as well.
Everyone keeps trying to say Warne didn’t have to play Australia, Warne this, Warne that - Warne didn’t get to play most of his matches on dusty spinning Sri Lankan wickets and Murali doesn’t have to fight amongst the likes of McGrath and co. for a chance to get at the batsmen.
For me, it’s Warne by so far it’s not funny - except that it is funny coz everytime this topic comes up, I just can’t help myself…
There, rant over, and I didn’t even mention chucking…d’oh.
November 25th, 2007 at 10.13 am
Well said STUmp, you’ve covered that Warne is a superior bowler (I heard someone say he can’t bowl a doosra - I’d argue a wrongun is a ball that spings the other way).
In terms of the greatest CRICKETER, you’d have to analyse other aspects of their respective games to be conclusive, so I’ve done this with marks out of 10 for each discipline
Bowling : Warne +10, Murali +7
Batting: Warne +10, Murali -3
Fielding: Warne +10, Murali 0
Tactical: Warne +8, Murali +2
Mind Games: Warne +10, Murali -5 (can’t handle be called chucker)
Threesomes: Warne +1 (hopefully more), Murali 0
Pureness of action: Warne +10, Murali -14.6
November 28th, 2007 at 10.39 am
Warne - Played the game legally except for a 1 year ban.
Murali - Has cheated all his life.
November 28th, 2007 at 1.10 pm
Please………some one find a shovel and bury this theme,preferably with Mr Mosey’s (??????? Statistics?????)
December 8th, 2007 at 9.42 am
Steve Waugh once said ‘Murali is the Donald Bradmon of Bowling’. He has been tested and prooved of his innocence at the KH University of Science and Technology and also at the University of Western Australia. But why pelople like former Cricket Australia chaiman Col Eagar and spin guru Terry Jenner are still complaining about him? Mud slining at Murali originated from the Down Under and it is still being used todate. As a man from Kandyand as an Old Antonian, I request the people from Down Under to accept the reality and wish him well in achieving the 1000 mark. Keep it up Murali!
December 27th, 2007 at 1.48 am
Warne had McGraths, Gillespies, and Lees in his sides. These great bowlers almost always took 3-4 wickets early on. Most of the time Warne came to bowl when the quickies have blown away part of the opposing top order. So it was alway easy for him. Whereas Murali never had that luxary and had to bowl more at top order batsmen even often to the openers.
February 15th, 2008 at 6.00 am
the indians generally played murali with respect in tests.The high average in india is because he bowls a hellof a lot of overs.Warne on the other hand gets hrashed by sidhu,dravid,ganguly,azhar,mongia,irfan & even zaheer khan.Did I forget a certain SACHIN TENDULKAR??The most overrated bowler in the world is warne.Actually ,WAS warne.
Comments
« Notes from the pavilion for November 20th | Main | Relive Harmison’s horrors »
