Muttiah Muralitharan vs Shane Warne, who was the better bowler?

[pun500]

warne for the drama and his bowling style but if you want a pure bowler who picks wickets its murali..

warne has far too often feasted on weak english saf and windies sides ...esp

as warne plays 5 tests against windies and english

whereas murali generally plays only 2 test series abroad

again warne is devastating towards the tail but no so much against the top order ...murali is good both ways

 

[aravinda1234]

1st Warne had other bowlers who took out the openers and the best batsmen of the team more often. Leaving Warne to feast on the rest. Plus when there is quality bowling from both sides it is easy to get wickets because batsmen would lose concentration. Bowling in tandem, or like wolves hunting in packs. That is test cricket. Murali did not enjoy either.
Here is a stat that you can easily get from statguru cricinfo.
In Test:
Position ---Murali ---Warne
---------224 inns---273 inns
1st--------56--------42
2nd-------71--------62
3rd--------72--------59
4th--------77--------62
...
8th--------70--------73
9th--------74--------75
10th------69---------72
11th------39---------43

I don't think you should have any more questions on who got easy wickets because of playing along side great bowlers.

As for having to able to bowl more balls and getting wickets here is the statistics.

Murali's SR is 54.6.
Warne's SR is 57.4.

Plus, how effective one can be after bowling 240+ deliveries in an innings? Afterall, Murali is not a machine. I think the less you bowl than that 240 mark more effective you can be, no?

A good one BD-Fan… you are revealing the most important statistic here. If I add to this... when you talking about teams like Eng’s and SA’s no 8th ,9th 10th and 11th batsmen, they are weaker against spinners than Ban’s tail enders. We all no even their top order is not that good against spin (Warn played against them more often). Some of our part time spinner’s best bowling figures were came against England... not against Bangladesh.

For example just take a look at this one England v Sri Lanka at Sydney, Feb 3, 1999 (SL’s best test batmen Samraweera suddenly becomes a great spinner and won the man of the match award for his bowling and Aravinda opened the bowling with Vasi). )

Our leg spinner Malinga Bandara’s ODI figures in Aus is better than that of Shane Warn’s. His figure's against SA is also better than Warn’s.

After the above stats I realize comparing Murali vs. Warn is a disgraceful to the Great Murali, Shane "Couldn't get those Indian batmen out" Warn is just not there really.

If we start a thread like SL’s part time spinners vs. Warn then it’s sounds little ok I think.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Shane Keith Warne>daylight>Murali.

Murali is a class player but imo Warney will go down in history as the greatest spinner of all time and if you ask the batsmen who faced them both I bet they'd say the same.

 

[bantu]

Murli > longest (kiss good) night > warne.......

 

[LG]

Conclusion: Warne enjoyed garbage wickets while Murali got the lions. How do I sound now?

Why do you hate Warne so much?

A good one BD-Fan… you are revealing the most important statistic here. If I add to this... when you talking about teams like Eng’s and SA’s no 8th ,9th 10th and 11th batsmen, they are weaker against spinners than Ban’s tail enders. We all no even their top order is not that good against spin (Warn played against them more often). Some of our part time spinner’s best bowling figures were came against England... not against Bangladesh.

For example just take a look at this one England v Sri Lanka at Sydney, Feb 3, 1999 (SL’s best test batmen Samraweera suddenly becomes a great spinner and won the man of the match award for his bowling and Aravinda opened the bowling with Vasi). )

Our leg spinner Malinga Bandara’s ODI figures in Aus is better than that of Shane Warn’s. His figure's against SA is also better than Warn’s.

After the above stats I realize comparing Murali vs. Warn is a disgraceful to the Great Murali, Shane "Couldn't get those Indian batmen out" Warn is just not there really.

If we start a thread like SL’s part time spinners vs. Warn then it’s sounds little ok I think.

Now you're just being arrogant.

 

[Random Aussie]

Bottom line is if you switch the two players, in my opinion, Murali would still come out on top in number of wickets, much less average and strike rate since he would not had to face the aussie greats at all. That is his greatness in getting wickets.

This is totally wrong. If Murali was Australian he would never have been picked in any side. So would never have taken any wickets at all.

Anyway each to their own. Some prefer Murali, some prefer Warne. Some prefer chucken some prefer beef.

 

[Saqs]

Wrong, Warne could not bowl the googly convincingly nor consistently, he relied mostly on his flippers as the change up from the conventional legspin....

If you go back to my post - I was talking about Murali.

 

[bullseye7]

Not too sure if this has been done on PP before.

I've always wondered whether some sort of cultural bias makes Pakistani fans dismiss Warney as a genius of the art, or the 15-degree bias makes us fans dismiss Murali as someone who has the right to be crowned King of Spin.

Who do you think was the better spinner?

(I realise we are talking Leg Spin vs Off-Spin, but let's give it a shot anyway)

For me - I've always enjoyed watching Warney play over Murali - so I'd have to say Warney even though a lot of Pakistani fans I know used to hate his guts when he used to play (for his arrogance, constant appealing etc.)

But he was one of those bowlers that when he had the ball in his hand, a buzz went around the ground and you just knew something was going down (which was usually a wicket or two, if he was playing v Pakistan). He was a constant tormentor of our batting lineup, and for that, there is grudging admiration and respect.

Warne for me.

Both are phenomenal and can run through any line up with relative ease.

But I guess Warne looked more agressive and with Murali's earlier bowling action issues, I think Shane wins by a whisker.

 

[JeeraBlade]

For example just take a look at this one England v Sri Lanka at Sydney, Feb 3, 1999 (SL’s best test batmen Samraweera suddenly becomes a great spinner and won the man of the match award for his bowling and Aravinda opened the bowling with Vasi). )

Hey guy, do you even know your own players? This guy came into the your ODI team as a specialist bowler. He is an off spinner who has 348 wickets in 1st class cricket at a very decent average of 23. He never batted above # 7 in 1st 4-5 years of his career.

These are his ODI & Test innings from his debut in 1998 to 2003. Most of the times he batted at #8 -- and even #11.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Plus the reason Arvinda DeSilva opened the bowling in that match was because the other pacer Wickramasinghe did play in the match but did not bowl because of some injury reasons.

Also, here is the match report from Cricinfo:

Even without Muralitharan, nursing a groin strain, Sri Lanka had five slow bowlers and wore down England on a deteriorating pitch. Samaraweera struck first, with two wickets in three balls; he and Chandana finished with three each.

--- and everybody knows that if Kumble can take wickets on deteriorating pitch then Samraweera can too.

 

[Gollum]

If we think about how our players fared against these great spinners, there is no question Warney comes out on top. I still have nightmares about the 1999 World Cup final! We are never too bothered when playing against Murli.

 

[observer1]

Both of them have played 10 matches against each other.

Murli 52 wickets @ 30.51 ( SR 59.8 )
Warne 51 wickets @ 20.35 ( SR ( 44.4 )

This pretty much settles it, in similar conditions Warne outbowled Murli by miles. Now porbably someone will claim Australia are better players of spin.

That does not make any sense....

Against each other? lol?

Last i checked there were like 7 or so other teams in the game.
Where Murli got much better stats then Warne.

You can't pick and mix dude, that's just dopey.

 

[Saqs]

Just to throw another spanner in the works - Stuart Mcgill outperformed Warne in most games they played together. Does that make him better than Warne?

 

[boycott_IPL]

Well if u look at my post closely, u'll find out that i was replying to a previous post saying "Warne had more wicket taking ability compared to murali". And my point was, if warne had that ability how come he become secound to murali with both wickets and average. One with more wicket taking ability gets more wickets. it's simple as that! By the way I didn't say murali was the greatest bowler ever, did i?

Point taken.

1st Warne had other bowlers who took out the openers and the best batsmen of the team more often. Leaving Warne to feast on the rest. Plus when there is quality bowling from both sides it is easy to get wickets because batsmen would lose concentration.

Sri Lanka had a one-man bowling attack so of course Murali was going to take the wickets that noone else could. Apart from Vaas no other Sri Lankan bowler in his time has been a great wicket taker. Warne played in a team with a top class bowling attack. McGrath, Gillespie, Lee AND McGill picked up 1000 test wickets amongst them, so the fact that Warne managed 700 wickets DESPITE being among such a prolific group of wicket takers just makes his achievment evens greater.

 

[Keith]

Warne for me.

 

[adit_sh]

Wrong also to be technical.

At the beginning of his career, Warne had a decent turning googly. But it was too easy to pick.

In the mid part and most destructive section of his career, he used the flipper as a deadly weapon. This ended in 1998 when a sucession of injuries effectively ended his use of the flipper - he kept talking about it as part of the mind games but he could never land it properly again. Those injuries played a large part in his poor average against India incidentally. No need to make excuses for Warne and the Indians played him very well but they never faced him at his best. The reasonable Indian fans would acknowledge that.

For the final and most successful in terms of wickets part of his career, Warne used the slider and top spinner as his contrast ball to the leg break.

And for all of Murali's career he used his ability to throw the ball to get wickets. Thank you very much.

Agreed RA. Except for Tendulkar and VVS no one would have played him that well for long. in 2004 series he was instrumental in winning matches in India.

Murali whose capability is to singled handedly win matches never won a test match in India for SL. Thats going to be big blot in his career which Warne does not irrespective of avg here

 

[Savak]

If you asked me Murali did damage to himself by playing for records, he is past his best now and his sharp spin is gone, he just relies on guile and experience but even then he is no longer the same force, i dont think he has the capacity to run through a team anymore especially in test cricket.

Warne was high quality throughout the fag end of his career and won my deepest admiration when he left the game on a high even though he still had a good 2-3 years left in him. Warne wins over Murali when it comes to having a clean action and using one's brain to set the batsman up, Murali's action has always been a lot more difficult to read for a batsman as oppossed to Warne but Warne still remained a lethal bowler because he used his brain a lot and knew the art of setting up players (something which our Danish Kaneria lacks unfortunately).

 

[aravinda1234]

Hey guy, do you even know your own players? This guy came into the your ODI team as a specialist bowler. He is an off spinner who has 348 wickets in 1st class cricket at a very decent average of 23. He never batted above # 7 in 1st 4-5 years of his career.

These are his ODI & Test innings from his debut in 1998 to 2003. Most of the times he batted at #8 -- and even #11.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Hey... hey, I know about our players… don’t bother about that.

You know Jayasuriya, he batted at no 7 for years in SL team. Even Sanjay Manjekar mistakenly pointed out Jayasuriya in his early days, was a bowler who can bat a bit.

I got fowling info from an article about Jayasurya because I was too young to follow cricket at that time,
Jayasuriya played for SL B team in two unofficial 'Tests' against Pakistan in the 1988/89 tour and Pakistanis had Test players like Iqbal Qasim, Ijaj, Manzoor Elahi, Iqbal Sikkander. Jayasuriya began with 102 in the opening three-day game in Karachi which was his debut match in first class cricket and followed it up with two double-century knocks - 203 not out in Lahore and 207 not out in Karachi.

Gul Hameed Bhatti - the Editor of "The Pakistan Cricketer" in its 18th edition had this to say of Sanath: "Jayasuriya has taken Pakistan cricket by storm” and Jayasuriya was featured on the cover page of that magazine along with star batsman Javed Miandad in the 1989 issue.

Later on in the same magazine, Bhatti went on to say: "For Sri Lanka 'B', it's Jayasuriya all the way," and added: "We'll be hearing a lot about this youngster in the months to come."

The reason why I pointed out above information is I wanted to tell you that Smaraweera’s story is much similar to that of Jayasuraya’s rather than Shoib Malik’s story. He was just an ok off spinner and don’t bowl anymore… and that’s not because of an injury.

Don’t try to judge players from your Cricinfo knowledge... I know Samaraweera from his school days. There was this big match between Ananda and Nalanda colleges played every year and also there was a live commentary on radio. When Mahela batted at no. 3 for Nalanda, who batted at no. 3 for Ananda?… It was Samaraweera. End of discussion!!!

To other’s who read this thread: I’m sorry to be off topic but that guy is questioning my knowledge about SL players.

 

[Ghoshtbuster]

To other’s who read this thread: I’m sorry to be off topic but that guy is questioning my knowledge about SL players.

No problem, nice info.

Our leg spinner Malinga Bandara...

It was good to see him fully recovered, and back playing cricket again. He had gone missing for a few years

 

[aravinda1234]

It was good to see him fully recovered, and back playing cricket again. He had gone missing for a few years

Yes, I doubt whether this is you speaking or your Avatar man talking behind you who may like to meat Bandara again in an ODI match. … I remember that match where he took him apart in an ODI match... scored about 30 or something like that in an over. Bandara kept tossing the ball up to him. It was a mistake on a flat track.

 

[LG]

What makes Warne great: http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/423889.html

 

[Gabbar Singh]

*bump*

 

[ace58]

People are makeing too much of Muralis superior record against India.

Warne record in india is slighlty better than Muralis and if murali had to face the indian batting line up on aussie pitches he wouldn't be any more succesul than warne. Plus their was that one test series in sri lanka which laxman and tendulkar didn't play in. And the 2008 series that the indian batsman were clueless against mendis and Murali to his credit made the most of the pressure the Indian batsman were in.

 

[jeetu]

There is not much to choose between the two. I'll go with murli for his slight better bowling record.

 

[Random Aussie]

*bump*

) )

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

One was a chucker according to the Aussies, the other was a genuine talented leg spinner who could have been banned for life before he ever got close to a world record according to today's legislation. Take your pick.

 

[AZ]

Warne, definitely.

 

[pinger]

Warnie by a mile.

 

[Sledger]

Murali may have more victims but Warne wins this comfortably, especially throughout a lot of the 90s. Never seen spin bowling like it, neither before nor since.

 

[161 KPH]

Definetly Warne for me....he bolwed some of the greatest deliveries i've ever seen.

e.g. Strauss 05 ashes

 

[Inzy's Aloo]

Shane Warne by a long way! Greatest spinner of all time!! Infact i would say Saqlain in his prime was better then Murali

 

[GLORY OF '92]

Warne!

Like comparing Leonardo da Vinci with a very good fake artist, one is the real thing the other a very clever fake.

 

[Kray_jackson7]

TESTS
Shane warne: 145 matches-708 wickets-25.41 average-57.4 strike rate
Muttiah murli : 133 matches-800 wickets-22.72 average-55 strike rate

ODIS
Shane warne: 194 matches-293 wickets-25.73 average-4.25 economy-36.3 strikerate
Muttiah murli : 337 matches-515 wickets-23.07 average-3.92 economy-35.2 strikerate

 

[Inzy's Aloo]

Forget these guys, who would you rather have in your team Kumble or Swann?

 

[*sallu*]

Swann anyday

 

[*sallu*]

Have never seen Murali bowl like this, Warne was magical, no spinner (from what I've seen) has come close to Warne in terms of sheer skill and ability

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zQieHjQjt6A?fs=1&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zQieHjQjt6A?fs=1&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[sowhat!]

Having seem them both play and being an Aussie it has to be Warnie, that said Murali was good to watch and very close to Warne in ability.

 

[Liverpool_Faizan]

i wonder what people's views are now that both are gone.

I still think Warne is a better bowler, a better entertainer and was much more enjoyable to watch.

 

[Krishnan]

I have one question for all people blindly telling warne.I have seen whenever people give views about certain players like dilshan,yuvraj,stuart broad etc i see lot of people saying "I dont like his arrogant attitude,off field attitude etc etc".There are even separate "i don't like..." threads for dilshan and all i think.

So why this double standards when it comes to warne.He had probably the most disgraceful off field behaviour involving everything right from drugs to women, and as well as on field where he deliberately tried to put pressure on umpires with lot of appealing leave alone sledging and other things.

Just because he automatically took lots of wickets and had great talent does not mean its an exception for him.

Murali always the best considering both aspects-on and of the field.

 

[Random Aussie]

So why this double standards when it comes to warne.He had probably the most disgraceful off field behaviour involving everything right from drugs to women, and as well as on field where he deliberately tried to put pressure on umpires with lot of appealing leave alone sledging and other things.

You mean he took a slimming tablet once?
And slept around?
And he appealed when he thought he might get a wicket?

LMAO at you here....

 

[Krishnan]

You mean he took a slimming tablet once?
And slept around?
And he appealed when he thought he might get a wicket?

LMAO at you here....

Hi RA,hows life.ya RA,ICC was biased,and he was always innocent.probably the cleanest cricketer ever to play the sport.

 

[Fireworks11]

Warne was fortunate to play in one of the greatest teams ever, which further ignites his greatness. Murali's stats are near unbeatable, probably edges Warne if you compare the two on spinning ability.

 

[Poison]

Warney. Any day of the week.

 

[Random Aussie]

Hi RA,hows life.ya RA,ICC was biased,and he was always innocent.probably the cleanest cricketer ever to play the sport.

Life's going alright mate, very rainy here of late.

I am not sure why off field behaviour is relevant to on field performance TBH. The only thing Warne actually did wrong was take the tablet, for which he got a years ban. The rest is really not anyone's business. No doubt there was more things going on with him than was reported though. Not much really gets out about cricketers, except for Pakistan players.

Incidentally, the ICC did not ban Warne, CA did.

As for the OP, there are only really 3 lines of thought on this:

1) You accept that Murali was a legit bowler and he is statistically superior to Warne.
2) You accept that Murali was a legit bowler and he is statistically superior to Warne but the other intangibles Warne had elevate him above Murali (winning matches, cricketing impact etc)
3) You don't accept Murali as a bowler, therefore Warne wins by default.

 

[1137moiz]

Warne for me.

 

[Love Pakistan]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="853" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2sSyYSFhTLA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[DW44]

Life's going alright mate, very rainy here of late.

I am not sure why off field behaviour is relevant to on field performance TBH. The only thing Warne actually did wrong was take the tablet, for which he got a years ban. The rest is really not anyone's business. No doubt there was more things going on with him than was reported though. Not much really gets out about cricketers, except for Pakistan players.

Incidentally, the ICC did not ban Warne, CA did.

As for the OP, there are only really 3 lines of thought on this:

1) You accept that Murali was a legit bowler and he is statistically superior to Warne.
2) You accept that Murali was a legit bowler and he is statistically superior to Warne but the other intangibles Warne had elevate him above Murali (winning matches, cricketing impact etc)
3) You don't accept Murali as a bowler, therefore Warne wins by default.

Gotta go with the third one. Never really liked Murali as a bowler anyway. Sure, he had 8185843403434732434 wickets but he was never someone I'd want to watch. Ugly bowler to look at with that weird contortionist style action.

 

[Krishnan]

Life's going alright mate, very rainy here of late.

I am not sure why off field behaviour is relevant to on field performance TBH. The only thing Warne actually did wrong was take the tablet, for which he got a years ban. The rest is really not anyone's business. No doubt there was more things going on with him than was reported though. Not much really gets out about cricketers, except for Pakistan players.

Incidentally, the ICC did not ban Warne, CA did.

As for the OP, there are only really 3 lines of thought on this:

1) You accept that Murali was a legit bowler and he is statistically superior to Warne.
2) You accept that Murali was a legit bowler and he is statistically superior to Warne but the other intangibles Warne had elevate him above Murali (winning matches, cricketing impact etc)
3) You don't accept Murali as a bowler, therefore Warne wins by default.

send the rain gods here mate.probably too hot as usual in chennai.
without the off field behaviour,in terms of skill i would consider both equal,in terms of entertainment and the zing one adds in the field,warne is definitely above murali.so overall warne is better.

 

[justbetter]

Warne was so entertaining to watch. Loved how he could just bowl his stock legbreak at a batsman a few times, then tell them another stock ball was coming up but it will take your wicket.
Next ball the batsman is standing there puzzled after being bowled out by just another legbreak.

 

[Liverpool_Faizan]

i think another rsn why many people are saying warne is because australia were generally a very entertaining side to watch, whereas sri lanka have always provided yawn fests.

 

[ash 68]

send the rain gods here mate.probably too hot as usual in chennai.
without the off field behaviour,in terms of skill i would consider both equal,in terms of entertainment and the zing one adds in the field,warne is definitely above murali.so overall warne is better.

with this kind of logic, Miandad is better than Tendulkar as I rate off-field zing very highly

anyway Mods can we get a poll on this thread as I think it might be close

Id say Warne was the better bowler if I had to pick one, but no denying Murali is a true champion

I think when you consider that Murali was carrying S/L attack whereas Warne had McGrath to keep pressure at the other end.

However for most batsmen (right handed) legspin is much more difficult to play and the lack of this type of bowling in World cricket today is a tragedy

 

[momin97]

as a cricketer i would murali becasue warne had done alot of wrong things but as a top class its probably warne

 

[madhurjyaadhikary]

Shane Warne made it recently to Cricinfo's All Time Test XI, Murali couldn't. Why do you think Warne is regarded by most ex players and cricket experts to be the greatest bowler the game has ever seen? Just have a look at 2 lists of All Time Greatest Test players, both have Warne listed as the greatest ever bowler in history -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_Legends_of_Cricket

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article6307539.ece


P.S. By the way, this comparison ain't rational. You can't compare a legit bowler to a chucker.

 

[attock]

Warne is a better a bowler in tests and in one day I would say Murali....But Warne is more exciting to watch....

 

[iZaman]

[utube]BDxRhcpBZio[/utube]

PS: Even though its a pleasure watching legspin, Murali was statistically better but Shane warna was intelligent i.e 1.Appeal and some other variations.

 

[ads101]

Murali.

Doesn't matter if Warne was better to watch (which is debatable), Murali was more effective than warne, and stats show it.

Warne played 12 more tests than Murali. Yet still ended up nearly 100 wickets behind him. That's a big difference.

Percentage of top order wickets, again Murali was better. Against top teams his record was better. Both economy and strike rate Murali was better.

A difference of nearly 3 in bowling average is actually quite big. If Warne had a bowling average of just over 28, I wouldn't think he'd be considered as a legend to be honest. He'd be simply a great bowler. Murali's average was almost unheard of as a spin bowler, and was competitive against even the averages of the best fast bowlers e.g. Wasim, Malcom Marshall.

Warne may have been more talented, but Murali was the better and more effective bowler.

 

[madhurjyaadhikary]

^^ Problem is that Murali ain't a bowler. Nothing against him though, he's a nice person who always behaved on the field.

 

[ads101]

^^ Problem is that Murali ain't a bowler. Nothing against him though, he's a nice person who always behaved on the field.

If he was cleared (and repeatedly), then he is classified as a bowler. Most cricketing pundits/ex players will class him as a bowler too.

His variations had little to do with the chucking anyway. They didn't come about as a result of chucking.

It is sad to see a guy's achievements diminished because people think he chucked. Murali was brave enough to openly allow tests and to show the world he didn't chuck. And time and time again he was proven not to chuck. What else can he do? If a guy is operating in the legal limits of the cricketing laws put in place, is he doing anything wrong?

If another world class cricketer from a different country were subjected to the same kind of criticism murali has despite being cleared repeatedly. How do you think Pakistan would react if Akhtar was labelled constantly as a chucker, and his achievements diminished? They would be in uproar.

 

[jeetu]

On a spinning track track - Murli over Warne.
All others tracks - Warne over Murli.
Murli was more effective but Warne was more fun to watch. I'll pick Warne over Murli because i have bias for leg-spinner over off-spinner. Murli had slight advantage of bowling most on spin friendly home condition.

 

[madhurjyaadhikary]

If he was cleared (and repeatedly), then he is classified as a bowler. Most cricketing pundits/ex players will class him as a bowler too.

His variations had little to do with the chucking anyway. They didn't come about as a result of chucking.

It is sad to see a guy's achievements diminished because people think he chucked. Murali was brave enough to openly allow tests and to show the world he didn't chuck. And time and time again he was proven not to chuck. What else can he do? If a guy is operating in the legal limits of the cricketing laws put in place, is he doing anything wrong?

If another world class cricketer from a different country were subjected to the same kind of criticism murali has despite being cleared repeatedly. How do you think Pakistan would react if Akhtar was labelled constantly as a chucker, and his achievements diminished? They would be in uproar.

Nothing more that he can do. But do you expect him to bend his arm in the lab just as much he would in the field? It's obvious, ain't it?

 

[ads101]

Nothing more that he can do. But do you expect him to bend his arm in the lab just as much he would in the field? It's obvious, ain't it?

These tests are used on many cricketers. And some have been banned as a result of this testing.

If they could not see him bowl to the standard he usually does without bending his arm over the limit, they would have picked up on it. He's showed that bending his arm in the legal limits in these tests, he's still got the same amount of spin and variation he's produced in international games. As I said the chucking does not produce the variations he gets from spinning anyway.

They've replayed murali in slow motion when bowling, and again the arm does not bend over the limit. It's a testament to the guy that every test they have undertaken, none proves him of chucking. For so many tests and accusations he's had, if even one report could prove that he'd chuck, people would be making a huge deal about it. But they can't. The only ones they can prove is that he doesn't chuck. Yet those are often conveniently ignored by many.

People's suspicions of whether he does chuck or not are just suspicions. That's it. Murali is shown to be operating time and time again within the legal limits. I really find it staggering that people diminish his achievements just on the suspicions that he might chuck. It's very unfair. If Murali believed he was chucking, I doubt he'd have undergone all these tests and effort to clear his name really. If he were chucking, there was a good chance that one of these tests would have been bound to catch him out.

 

[razzleboom]

Both are in geniuses in my eyes, but Warney takes the nod, slight leggie bias on my part but he was inspiring to watch, true entertainer with the ball. He was like the Wasim of spin, Leg spin had been declining until he came around and gave the art a new life.

 

[Fireworks11]

Warne was a leg break bowler. Murali could bowl off & leg breaks.

 

[Random Aussie]

These tests are used on many cricketers. And some have been banned as a result of this testing.

If they could not see him bowl to the standard he usually does without bending his arm over the limit, they would have picked up on it. He's showed that bending his arm in the legal limits in these tests, he's still got the same amount of spin and variation he's produced in international games. As I said the chucking does not produce the variations he gets from spinning anyway.

They've replayed murali in slow motion when bowling, and again the arm does not bend over the limit. It's a testament to the guy that every test they have undertaken, none proves him of chucking. For so many tests and accusations he's had, if even one report could prove that he'd chuck, people would be making a huge deal about it. But they can't. The only ones they can prove is that he doesn't chuck. Yet those are often conveniently ignored by many.

People's suspicions of whether he does chuck or not are just suspicions. That's it. Murali is shown to be operating time and time again within the legal limits. I really find it staggering that people diminish his achievements just on the suspicions that he might chuck. It's very unfair. If Murali believed he was chucking, I doubt he'd have undergone all these tests and effort to clear his name really. If he were chucking, there was a good chance that one of these tests would have been bound to catch him out.

Ah you are incorrect here. The tests actually found that he did chuck.
Then the rules were changed after pressure from Asian bloc to allow him to keep playing.

I don't want to go over the argument again, but to say he was tested and cleared is not true.

 

[cornered-tigers]

Dickie Bird, while being one of the panelist in selecting World XI, chose Warne over others, but he said that Abdul Qadir was a bigger bowler than Warne, and was someting esle. He did not pick Abdul Qadir, because the choice was not there. I know you would start coming with fiery comments on this, but, before doing that, this was said by a Great Umprie Dickie Bird, who has seen bowlers from up close,

 

[ads101]

Ah you are incorrect here. The tests actually found that he did chuck.
Then the rules were changed after pressure from Asian bloc to allow him to keep playing.

I don't want to go over the argument again, but to say he was tested and cleared is not true.

The whole argument for changing is apparently you can only detect a kink in the action (hence chucking) at 15 degrees. Hence the 10 degree limit was wrong. Many fast bowlers also bowled with an action much closer/over the 10 degree mark, so 15 was more appropriate. Murali may have bent his arm more than a usual spinner, but compared to a normal fast bowler he wasn't. Murali also rotated his arm more at the speed of fast bowlers than spinners.

Anyway, that's the explanation of it given by the guys who did change the rules.



So I'm not sure on this really. You probably might now more than me about it. This rule was rumored to have been as a result of Murali (which was denied), but when Murali was actually tested I believe, he passed (not completely sure on this, but that's what they say. But nothing was done after these tests).

However if the rules were changed for murali, it's not so much murali's fault. He didn't ask for them to change. So he was doing nothing wrong. If he was caught chucking, he should have been banned. Since he wasn't banned, can't really begrudge his achievements.

The biggest fault in this murali controversy saga is that he should have been properly tested much earlier in his career. They left the tests too late, and once you left it at that stage, it's difficult to suddenly ban a big name like murali from the game. A good example is Shillingwood (I think that's his name) from WI who was tested early and then banned and told to rework his action.

Still Murali chucking or not, was still in my mind a more effective bowler than Shane Warne. And I don't believe he was good just because he chucked too.

 

[AZ]

poll added.

all the way.

 

[Random Aussie]

The whole argument for changing is apparently you can only detect a kink in the action (hence chucking) at 15 degrees. Hence the 10 degree limit was wrong. Many fast bowlers also bowled with an action much closer/over the 10 degree mark, so 15 was more appropriate. Murali may have bent his arm more than a usual spinner, but compared to a normal fast bowler he wasn't. Murali also rotated his arm more at the speed of fast bowlers than spinners.

Anyway, that's the explanation of it given by the guys who did change the rules.



So I'm not sure on this really. You probably might now more than me about it. This rule was rumored to have been as a result of Murali (which was denied), but when Murali was actually tested I believe, he passed (not completely sure on this, but that's what they say. But nothing was done after these tests).

However if the rules were changed for murali, it's not so much murali's fault. He didn't ask for them to change. So he was doing nothing wrong. If he was caught chucking, he should have been banned. Since he wasn't banned, can't really begrudge his achievements.

The biggest fault in this murali controversy saga is that he should have been properly tested much earlier in his career. They left the tests too late, and once you left it at that stage, it's difficult to suddenly ban a big name like murali from the game. A good example is Shillingwood (I think that's his name) from WI who was tested early and then banned and told to rework his action.

Still Murali chucking or not, was still in my mind a more effective bowler than Shane Warne. And I don't believe he was good just because he chucked too.

Murali passed at 14.6 degrees after they changed the rule to 15 degrees. No matter what some of us will stay suspicious about that.

And yes you are right he should have been dealt with much earlier in his career. But nothing can be done now. But I would suggest if he was a nobody when tested, there would have been no reworking of the 10 degree rule in the first place.

Edit - on a side note, here is an example of what this has done to cricket. I was playing indoor cricket the other week and a bowler on the other side was a blatant chucker. But now the umpires don't feel like they can call a bowler for chucking so he just walked up and chucked the ball for the whole game.

 

[PakPrince]

Murali passed at 14.6 degrees after they changed the rule to 15 degrees. No matter what some of us will stay suspicious about that.

And yes you are right he should have been dealt with much earlier in his career. But nothing can be done now. But I would suggest if he was a nobody when tested, there would have been no reworking of the 10 degree rule in the first place.

Edit - on a side note, here is an example of what this has done to cricket. I was playing indoor cricket the other week and a bowler on the other side was a blatant chucker. But now the umpires don't feel like they can call a bowler for chucking so he just walked up and chucked the ball for the whole game.

if thats thrue then no way that in match conditions he bends less than 15. 18 must b his average

 

[kkmix]

Murali, any day of the week.

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Warne, as Murali was born with a special human ability. Murali is like superman and Warne is like batman. I like batman

 

[Fireworks11]

Quite a shame Murali's achievements get tarnished by his action controversies. Fact is, it is unlikely that his records will ever be broken.

 

[JackHobbsDownUnder]

As a spinner, Warne just shades Murali. As a cricketer Warne is way ahead (the 2005 Ashes he nearly beat England by sheer force of will despite the team crumbling around him). He deserved to be one of the Five Cricketers of the Century.

This will sound harsh, and I do think Warne has many good qualities such as a generous spirit, but as a human being I think Murali wins hands down. There is just something about him that made you want to like him, whatever you thought about his action.

 

[wasi90lk]

i think shane warne is the greatest spinner of all time.

 

[Ahsan_8]

saqlain mushtaq

 

[bigdaddymiandad]

Murali murders Warne statistically despite the nonsense about him being a minnow basher spouted mainly by some aussie tools. Warne had the big match ability though that made him more feared than Murali ultimately both were legends and are greats in my book some will say Warne and some will say Murali Saqi was a brilliant bowler but does not come into this.

 

[leatherface58]

I enjoyed watching both bowl. Just my taste but I consider leg spinners more entertaining to watch than Off spinners...even when they are getting battered .

So, Warne > Murali. Although Warne is a bit of a tool, can't doubt his class in bowling.

 

[Random Aussie]

I dont think there is any doubt Murali wins in the off field stakes )

 

[bin_pendi_ka_lota]

Whats wrong with you all????
Legspin is much elegant to watch.... Correct. People prefer watcing legspin compared to off spin.... Correct. But that canyt be basis of a better bowler. Ridiculous
Murali wins it fair and square when it comes to effectiveness.... If I was a capatain and had choice to have either Murali or Warne. I will play Murali..

 

[Bhaijaan]

Quite a shame Murali's achievements get tarnished by his action controversies. Fact is, it is unlikely that his records will ever be broken.

Any chucker out there can't take 800 wickets at 22 just like any javelin thrower like Atul Sharma can't be like Shoaib Akhtar. Fact of the matter is these guys put in a lot of effort to achieve all that and you just can't discredit it after they have had a career.

 

[bin_pendi_ka_lota]

Also Warne record are overrated because he simply pawned poor English batsmen in Ashes and cricket media which speaks mostly English was awed by it. He never had to bowl to the likes of Waugh, hayden, Ponting, Langer