Murali > Warne -- says Flintoff (2 Viewers)

[HotShot]

I don't get why people say things like this. They probably know more about this specific topic (as they should) but just because they are a better cricketer than me or whoever doesn't mean they know more about CRICKET (in general) than me or any other cricket buff. Not saying I do know more, but how can you (or any1) claim things like this.

he said tendulkar, lara etc know more about cricket. and naturall y they would its their job.

Hmmm I think number of wickets and average have equal weighting. It's abot longevity. Lets for arguments sake take out all the wickets both have gotten against those 2 nations (Zim and Bangla). Murali is still 148 wickets behind warne. if by the end of both of their careers, murali has taken more wickets AND his average is still better, then you're argument will be strengethened. But who's to say murali may get another 148 wickets but at 42 runs each, making his average after 668 wickets greater than warnes (remember Murali's average without zim and bangla makes there averages much closer) . i mean he may get an injury, batsmen may figure out the doosra, a new spinner may come in and take of the wickets away from him. He's still 148 wickets away. If it were all averages then Bobby Peel or Jim Laker (a legit choice) would be considered best spinners of all time and Graeme Smith would be considered a better bat than Greenidge.

that argument is flawed its a what if situation, we only argue with what we have. so we know that murali average is lower, and he is younger than warne. Chances are he will be the leading wicket taker, at this rate anyway.

the gatting ball was just a surprise - arney was crap when he was selected and so it was surprise 0 nothin more. watch murali bowl out martyn. u named one incident 0-98, here are some others , 4 for 27 , 3 for 40 against Australia in Australia. he has taken 416 odi wickets @ 23.28 which pretty damn gud for a spinner.

At leat murali doesnt take drugs.

 

[otay]

i think it's you who's sounding like the idiot when you dismiss murali as a chucker rather than argue properly.
Why is it that you choose to remove bangladesh and zimbabawe as proper teams (only to prove your point)?

Warne's avg against bangladesh = 27.27, murali's = 12.52 (test)
Warne's avg against bangladesh = 25.50, murali's = 16.39 (ODI)
Warne's avg against Zimbabwe = 22.83, murali's = 16.86 (test)
Warne's avg against Zimbabwe = 21.14, murali's = 18.15 (ODI)

As you can see, against these teams, murali has a MUCH better average than warne.
Warne's averaages agiainst these countries are worse than against some other countries, so why do you claim that these countries should not be included? What really matters when comparing 2 spinners is the team's ability to play spinners, not their overall strength. Clearly, in this respect your argument is flawed.

How is it clearly flawed? Zimbabwe and Bangladesh aren't all of a sudden great at playing spinners. They are still shithouse, even if they are comparitavely better at playing spin than the quicks. I remove them because they are shit. Look at how many matches they have won. SHIT! Murali has played far more matches against these two teams, thus has far more wickets, wickets that are near meaningless since they are not test worthy. It's quite a far comment dude, and I'm not doing it to prove my point, im doing coz it is the fucking point. And I have argued properly with stats u wanker, only one line did I ever call murali a chucker, and that was right at the end.
And Hot SHot, i repeat, his stats in ODIs are are great, but has he helped the team win a World Cup? Even last time when warney didnt even play and Sri Lanka had a golden opportunity to win, Murali failed to help the team. Warne succeeded 4 years earlier!

Oh and why do you ahve to bring up warne takes drugs, you can't even arue properly...whinge whinge whinge (sorry just tryin to act like pussy murali supporters)

 

[HotShot]

And Hot SHot, i repeat, his stats in ODIs are are great, but has he helped the team win a World Cup? Even last time when warney didnt even play and Sri Lanka had a golden opportunity to win, Murali failed to help the team. Warne succeeded 4 years earlier!

Oh and why do you ahve to bring up warne takes drugs, you can't even arue properly...whinge whinge whinge (sorry just tryin to act like pussy murali supporters)

Dude he can play another two world cups. Warne quit ODIs lol what hell are u going on about.
How many matches do u play in world cup only a few. So u r saying warne is better because he helped a team to win the world cup which was found to be fixed. U do know the final was fixed rite? Murali helped Sri Lanka to win the 1996 world cup and to help beat Australia in the final dude wtf are u going on about?

Sri Lanka won the 1996 world cup, with murali. I seriously dont understand how this shows Warne is better in ODIs? Warne got smashed:
1/44 against NZ
1/50 against Pak
0/49 against IND
1/55 against Zim

 

[funnybunny]

They are still shithouse, even if they are comparitavely better at playing spin than the quicks. I remove them because they are shit. Look at how many matches they have won

You claim that they are shit, even though warne's average against them is seriously shit (compared anyone's. and especially murali's). So how can he be better if his average against these apparently "shit" teams are even worse than other bowlers (not just murali...a LOT of other players have better averages against these 2 countries than him)?

Rather than claim that they're shit teams, why not actually respond properly?.. That's how these kinds of things (u know..threads) work. One puts up claims/arguments then the other responds to those claims/arguments..NOT simply say the same thing over and over again like a monkey!.. seriously.
(i dont i even know why you would accuse hotshot of arguing improperly when you urself are shit at it!)

Clearly it's pointless arguing against you because you're one of those ppl who think that if they've repeated something over and over again, they've proven something.

 

[Wallyhead]

At leat murali doesnt take drugs.

Seriously, which is worse, taking drugs or chucking?

At least Warne's wickets were bowled legally.

 

[funnybunny]

Seriously, which is worse, taking drugs or chucking?

Seriously man, think about it yourself... What's worse than a role model for millions of young boys around the world getting drunk, drugged and treating women like shit?

At least Warne's wickets were bowled legally.

shit dude..do u even KNOW the rules of cricket?...So next time you decide to post on a thread, make sure you know what you're talking about.. Better yet, don't post at all.

 

[ledzeppelin]

shit dude..do u even KNOW the rules of cricket?...So next time you decide to post on a thread, make sure you know what you're talking about.. Better yet, don't post at all.

the rules which were changed to coincidentally just allow murali to continue bowling

 

[HotShot]

the rules which were changed to coincidentally just allow murali to continue bowling

wat was really weird was that only one umpire had ever had problem with Murali no other umpire not even players ever complained about murali actions - because they understand he had screwed up arm.

this same umpire then attempts to screw up Pakistan but miserably fails and will most likely be sacked after his ridiculous letter to Speed.

So many rules have been adjusted, we have just introduced a new game format - and the rules apply to everyone - ur point being?

Murali was no t the only one to extend his arm above certain degrees, i am sure there were other bowlers - no one complained or moved against the adjustment. Stop being sook and accept the fact that Murali owns Warne anywhere against anyteam.

 

[mednerd]

the rules which were changed to coincidentally just allow murali to continue

So they're still rules...if the ICC didnt see fit to change them they wouldnt have.

many matches they have won. SHIT! Murali has played far more matches against these two teams, thus has far more wickets, wickets that are near meaningless

LOL...werent u the one who saying in the prior page that wickets count more than averages and thus warney is better?...lol at least try to remember what you posted so u dont contradict it

 

[ronaldinho]

the rules werent changed for murali. it was found that 99 percent of bowlers throw.. and only in australia do they complsin bout his action.. nowhere else...

every1 knows murali is better dan warne.. and he will soon overtake him in test and will get da record in odi

 

[otay]

So they're still rules...if the ICC didnt see fit to change them they wouldnt have.


LOL...werent u the one who saying in the prior page that wickets count more than averages and thus warney is better?...lol at least try to remember what you posted so u dont contradict it

Yes I do. First off what does the quote you ahve of mien got anything to do with that? And secondly, as I have been arguing for the past past, meaningufl, not meanignless wickets though you dumbshit.


Also every1 is arguing purely on averages, and averages are misleading. How many of you believe Ponting is a better bat than Lara or Tendulkar or Sobers or Hutton. I mean his averages are higher. Nope. It's decided. Ponting is better. His averages says so. No point arguing. Average is all that matters.

p.s. Oh and just quietly with that Jim Laker is better spinenr than Murali. No questions about it.

Oh and ronaldinho, i disagree and so do thousands/ maybe millions around the world. So he may "get da record" (it's "the" not "da" you fucking lame cunt), doesn't make him the best.

And for the record, when i was in Jamaica and playing with all the locals, they would all try and bowl like shane warne ( favourite cricket for most after Lara), and the one kid who chucked it, every1 called him murali. So obviously not just in Australia. And if you don't like the opinion of most of us in Australia then......

 

[mednerd]

Sobers or Hutton. I mean his averages are higher. Nope. It's decided. Ponting is better.

SMART!....So now this guy goes to comparing batsmen from diffrent ERAS...this guy doesnt knoe that bowlers in the 1980s were much harder to bat to.
Clearly this guy does not knoe anthing about crickets,nor statistics.

es I do. First off what does the quote you ahve of mien got anything to do with that? And secondly, as I have been arguing for the past past, meaningufl, not meanignless wickets though you dumbshit.

Rite...guyz, i dont knoe what he is trying to say.
we should reply like him:
ogbabagob goabg goggoo ogbab goabgba warney rulz ..ogbabgba.

 

[otay]

SMART!....So now this guy goes to comparing batsmen from diffrent ERAS...this guy doesnt knoe that bowlers in the 1980s were much harder to bat to.
Clearly this guy does not knoe anthing about crickets,nor statistics.

Rite...guyz, i dont knoe what he is trying to say.
we should reply like him:
ogbabagob goabg goggoo ogbab goabgba warney rulz ..ogbabgba.

Hutton was from the 30's you wanker. I clearly know quite a fair bit about cricket. Whereas you see Sobers (who was 70's just quietly) and assume "that other guy was also 80s". Step aside to the master!

And even you got what I was getting at. Yes it's not fair to compare different eras, but what about comparing different teams each played against? Oh ok so that variable we can ignore, but the other one msut be considered. mkaaay right.

How do you account for Lara or Tendulkar? They are same era as Punter. Is Punter still better?

Don't think you're in the majority mate in Australia. Most agree both are great, but Warne being greater. Even Benaud put him in his all time squad and named him top 5 cricketers of last century.

Oh Reply to me however you will, but I can piss you lot off with 2 simple words..."NO BALL". I can see all the whingeing Sri Lankans now having a teary.

 

[mednerd]

And even you got what I was getting at. Yes it's not fair to compare different eras, but what about comparing different teams each played against?

And u STILL compare ppl from different eras...and cant u read..funnybunny gave statistics for warney and murali against the same teams in the SAME ERA and murali's better...clearly stop avoiding this mmmkaayyy i hope i dont have to point thins out

Even Benaud put him in his all time squad and named him top 5 cricketers of last century.

LOL so..benaud NEVER played against murali but FLINTOFF ACUTALLY played agiainst him and he reckons murali is better and many greats think so tendulkar, lara...see 3 GREAT players who actually played against both spinners

Don't think you're in the majority mate in Australia.

Yeah maybe but im in the majority in the world

Oh Reply to me however you will, but I can piss you lot off with 2 simple words..."NO BALL".

loL Look where that got Daryl lol
piss ppl off?not relli but...i get pissed of trying to unjumble ur goobbleglook

teary teary..haha.who's calling who a "dumbfu*k"
lol ape logic is relli crap

 

[otay]

And u STILL compare ppl from different eras...and cant u read..funnybunny gave statistics for warney and murali against the same teams in the SAME ERA and murali's better...clearly stop avoiding this mmmkaayyy i hope i dont have to point thins out

Where have I still compared people from different eras????? Stop talking out of your arse mate. I'll ask again? Is Ponting better than both Lara and Tendulkar? According to your logic, yes he is.

And Ponting thinks Warne is better than Murali, and Ponting is even more of a legend than Lara or Tendulkar (or Flintoff who hardly rates as a Great yet - too early) so.....

And back to my first post in this thread, is it possible Flintoff only said this because England actually beat the Aussies but failed to beat the Sri Lankans, who are in all fairness not as good. I mean imagine if kaspa wasn't given out, Australia win the series and the only person who did anything of note for the Aussie was Warne. Would Flintoff still be saying this?????? I highly doubt it. It'd not the first time a sportsman has tried to defend a loss (or lack of win ) in such a way.

Goobleglook? FUck you're a loser. And it's quite evident from you're lack of even attempting to answer my questions that I am indeed calling a dumbfuck...wait for it, a dumbfuck.

Majority of the world? Says who. Shows me stats from India as to public opinion? Since India comprises such a high percentage of the cricketing population it's the only country that really counts. I suspect it will be closer than you think (you know warne does do commercials in India, he's quite popular).

Ahaha and as if saying No Ball doesn't piss you off. Ive seen it at the SCG, it's funny as. I don't really think he's a cheat, but you in denial if you don't think 40,000 ppl yelling "No ball" doesn't get a reaction from a few in the crowd.

Where are the other Warne supporters on this forum??

Oh and the stats funnybunny still dont tell the truth. The one test Warne played against Zim, was when Zim had the flower brothers, heath streak, actuall good players. How many of these good players have played in the recent tests Murali has played against Zim? Once again, statistics aren't telling the full truth.

 

[mednerd]

Ahaha and as if saying No Ball doesn't piss you off. Ive seen it at the SCG, it's funny as.

Not relli i thinks it's funny how they diagreeing with icc rulez. i think's its funny that ur writing heaps loong posts that dont relli make sense

I'll ask again?

why dont u answer funnybunny's question

Where have I still compared people from different eras?????

yep u did compared pointing to sobers, etc

 

[mednerd]

Otay, i c this is going to be a flame war...but i will stop...i have some advice which i saw someonw post
Dear Otay,
1. Please post in a coherent manner so i as well as other bos members can understand and reply to ur post approprately
2. Re-read what you have posted as not to contradict yourself

Thankyou
/END

 

[otay]

yep u did compared pointing to sobers, etc

I have never done it. The first time I even mentioned it was to prove a point, to show that you can't compare players from different eras. Is Ponting better than Tendulkar or does your disdain for Aussie crickets override any logic?

Show me a contradiction in my and I am the one writing in legible english, not dat relli gooblegloook crap

 

[otay]

http://httpcode.com/blogs/posts/223.aspx

heres a decent website, has stats and opinions from both sides. Make up your mind for yourself. I'm over it. I believe my argument is stronger, you believe yours is. Whatever, but back to original post, I will stand by my first post in this thread

 

[HotShot]

I have never done it. The first time I even mentioned it was to prove a point, to show that you can't compare players from different eras. Is Ponting better than Tendulkar or does your disdain for Aussie crickets override any logic?

Show me a contradiction in my and I am the one writing in legible english, not dat relli gooblegloook crap

Um Otay - just chill out.

Also every1 is arguing purely on averages, and averages are misleading. How many of you believe Ponting is a better bat than Lara or Tendulkar or Sobers or Hutton. I mean his averages are higher. Nope. It's decided. Ponting is better. His averages says so. No point arguing. Average is all that matters.

Averages are not misleading - if murali's average was 20 against Australia, then it is EXPECTED after every 20 runs he will take a wicket. Its give an indication of his performance - but it may not be relative.

We can to some extent compare Warne and Murali- because they are both spinners, they both played in the same era and they both are still playing now. Averages say Murali are better - cant argue with that. That is what we have to make a comparison. Then we have some other factors that i have taken into account and gone through with you. like sri lanka having a weak bowling attack and murali bowling lot of etc. But i still showed and argued to you that murali was better.

At the moment Ponting is better than Tendulkar - the ICC ratings also show this. Ponting recent form has been outstanding there is no doubt at this current point in time he is better. But go back a few years Tendulkar would kick his ass any day. So it fluctuates (as it should). But with Warne and murali we can see quite distinctly that murali is better - one of the main reasons is warne performance against India.

I would also argue that every wicket has the same value as i gave an example with gillespie. You can see by comparing different eras (not players in different eras) that bowlers dominated in some and batsman in other. The current era is being dominated by Batsman - no doubt. Which means any comparison with a player from another era must take into account the current era?

Also richie benaud only selected warne in HIS World XI because he was aussie. no other reason. If it was Sanath or Tendulkar they would have said murali.

http://httpcode.com/blogs/posts/223.aspx

heres a decent website, has stats and opinions from both sides. Make up your mind for yourself. I'm over it. I believe my argument is stronger, you believe yours is. Whatever, but back to original post, I will stand by my first post in this thread

Both U and me have gone through the say arguments (using up to date figures), but i have also mentioned a few other things as well. From that blog- from the comments most of them have come to the conclusion that murali is better. those that havent are basically in denial.

But as a neutral, what ended the argument for me was that every statistical rating carried out, such as official rankings, wisden rankings, chula rankings, has Murali higher. They are both amazing bowlers, but overall Murali must be the greater.

to sum it up.