What's new

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

Who was the better spinner?


  • Total voters
    77
If you are in an average team, you still have to be mighty good to be taking 800 bloody test wickets at 20 odd runs. If the absence of good bowlers could help people taking more wickets, the likes of Mushfiqur Raheem and Raymond Price would have been the record holders. lol

FYI mushfiqur rahim is a keeper batsman
 
Also, why shouldn't the stats of minnows be taken out? It is quite obvious that is a sad attempt to justify Murali racking up the wickets against them and thus lowering his average to what is an amazing 22 but in actuality close to 24.5 (still amazing by the way but not as great as 22)

Minnows are ruining test cricket with their appearances in it and padding a good number of people's statistics. They should definitely be removed or at least heavily discounted (exceptions can be made for "matchwinning performances" a la Inzi in his 138* against BD though I wouldn't mind removing that as well) in any sort of intellectual debate on cricket where statistics are coming into play.

Anyways, my opinions may never be validated by cricketing commissions unwilling to take real action but the point is that Warne is the superior spinner to me. He could have used every type of delivery yet was amazing even with just his stock delivery. He showed that you don't need to necessarily bowl mystery deliveries like Murali to get wickets but instead just fool batsmen in the flight, trajectory, and changes of pace to get wickets. A truly brilliant bowler.

What seals it for me though is the percentage of away wickets for the respective bowlers.

Murali:

298 of Murali's 783 wickets are away from home. His average rises from inhuman 22 to a good but not great 26.65 away from home (this is including BD and ZIM just to "make it fair" for the posters who have complained about it. His average, in fact, rises to an even more ordinary 27.41 excluding BD and ZIM away from home)

Warne:

362 of 708 wickets are away from home. His average stays basically the same as his career average with 25.50. This is, of course, including his aberration that is India which makes it all the more amazing. In fact, it only gets better if you remove his visits to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe which makes his average go to an amazing 24.56 away from home!

Conclusion:

Murali clearly enjoys the tailor made wickets for spin at home which afford him his incredible home record. When only 38% (in about half your career matches being away as well) of your wickets are taken abroad you definitely are not something special. Murali chucks and has an unfair advantage (without a doubt in my opinion) yet is still nothing compared to warne away from home
How about giving same percentage of matches to both players? Warne's numbers are inflated by playing against Eng, SAF and NZ. Murali has better away averages than Warne against them. If he played them as regularrly as Warne, his away stats would have been even better.
 
Murali was far better against the odds, he played the better players of spin more often.
Warne played England and possibly New Zealand too often (not great players of spin).

Murali better, stats don't lie. but both enjoyable to watch unlike the mostly mundane players now....
 
Warne 9 times out of 10...mainly because of his mental strength. I am not saying Murli didn't possess that but Warne have won multiple battles by just playing with batsman's mindset.
 
Warne 9 times out of 10...mainly because of his mental strength. I am not saying Murli didn't possess that but Warne have won multiple battles by just playing with batsman's mindset.

Just to add.. One of the fine examples I probably wouldn't forget ever was his bowling in 1999 ODI WC semi-final and final...
 
To put a end to the statistical debate, we have to look at how each bowler would do against same batsmen under same conditions. Obviously this is not the case as each batsman and location would have been slightly different from each occasion. But over a very long career these things iron out.

So we look at bowlers performances in same era, same opposition and same conditions. this will effectively rule out home and neutral tests from analysis. It will rule out bilateral series as well, because batsmen are different. Any country that only one bowler has played will be ruled out as well. Fortunately for Warne and Murali latter is not the case.

Now we consider what will happen if each bowler given similar number of balls (say 6000) against all common oppositions. Fortunately this is not rocket science as it will be average of bowling average / SR and ER.

The common opposition consists of BAN, IND, ENG, PAK, SAF, NZ, WI and ZIM. We just average the bowling average / SR / ER to have adjusted stats.

Warne: A - 28.6, ER - 2.8, SR - 60.6
Murali: A - 25.7, ER - 2.6, SR - 59.2

So in conclusion, all drivel stating;

1. Murali benefited from playing more against minnows
2. Murali had spin friendly conditions to ball
3. Murali's away performances are inferior to Warne

yadda, yadda, falls flat on the face.

Sources:
1. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/8166.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling
2. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/49636.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling
 
And I present you with the ICC ratings comparison.

It's even visible from naked eye that Murali had a higher percentage of time over 750 points.

Warne was > 750 from 30/11/1993 to 29/03/1998 and then from 07/10/2002 to 01/06/2007. That gives a grand total of 3278 days. Warne's career spanned 5429 days from 02/01/1992 to 02/01/2007. Warne has 59.8% time over 750 points.

Murali had points of >750 from 31/05/1998 to 22/07/2010, 4435 days. Murali's career spanned from 28/08/1992 to 18/07/2010, 6533 days. Murali had 67.9% of time >750 points.

Don't think there is even a comparison.
 
And for people who thought Saqlain had a ridiculous peak in ODI cricket. This will be difficult to swallow.
 
Warne. I would take the best ever leg spinner any day over best ever finger spinner
 
This thread can only be settled this way:

make a list of the thirty five best batsmen who played during both bowler's era, and then see who got the most of these wickets.
 
Only one of them is a bowler. So no comparison really.
 
muraly for me though is a wizard. his bowl to mike gatting, against gibbs in 99 semifianl and against strauss in 2005ashes was unbelievable.
 
Murali could have even better record if he got oppurtunity to bowl English batsmen as often as Warne.
 
It's not like Warne had a clean slate. He was caught violating the doping rules when he gave a "I ate my mom's pills" excuse.

It's a bit unfair to ignore an entire career due to chucking allegations.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Shoaib Akhtar "Muralitharan was the toughest batsman I bowled to. He asked me not to kill him & said he'd die if I hit him with a bouncer so please pitch the ball up & I'll give you my wicket. But whenever I pitched the ball up he'd slash hard & say he hit it by mistake" <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1414988072362577921?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 13, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Back
Top