Questions over greatness of Warne? (1 Viewer)

[TriState]

In any other era, the achievement of becoming the first bowler in history to take 700 Test wickets might be enough for Shane Warne to start his retirement by requesting a fitting for the crown of greatest spinner of all time.
But with another legend on his trail, Warne knows the true owner of finest slow bowler of the modern era is a vexed question.

Good analysis from Sporting Life (UK)
http://www.sportinglife.com/cricket/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=cricket/07/01/05/CRICKET_Warne_Muralitharan.html

 

[Jimmy_B]

hey mate, it's a very detailed argument you're looking at and it's an interesting article. put simply, it's probably impossible who you'd say is the greatest spinner of the two, more down to personal experience and preference in deciding the winner.

the problem i have with a thread like this is that it eventually turns into a flame war where everything but the merits of the two players will come into question, as in you'll have one side questioning murali's action and attacking his integrity from that viewpoint and the other side will be having a go at warnie's lifestyle, drugs ban, bookie incidents etc.

to answer your thread title, no-one questions the greatness of shane warne the cricketer and just because he happened to be a contemporary of murali shouldn't have any bearing on his status as a cricketer and vice versa. both unbelievable cricketers in their own right.

 

[BlackDragon]

In any other era, the achievement of becoming the first bowler in history to take 700 Test wickets might be enough for Shane Warne to start his retirement by requesting a fitting for the crown of greatest spinner of all time.
But with another legend on his trail, Warne knows the true owner of finest slow bowler of the modern era is a vexed question.

Good analysis from Sporting Life (UK)
http://www.sportinglife.com/cricket/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=cricket/07/01/05/CRICKET_Warne_Muralitharan.html

No. You don't know what you are talking about. Just because murali is bringing home heaps of wickets it doesn't mean that he challenges warne for the greatest spinner ever.

Rebuttles:

1. Murali is pretty much the soul of his bowling team. Warne has had to compete with some of the worlds best bowlers in the same team as him. Hence Murali has much greater potential to take more wickets.

2. Sri Lanka play much crapper teams much more regularily than Australia.

3. You can't compare the skill of warne to the skill of murali. They are both great but Warne has such an ability to turn, skill, tenacity, and cricket intelligence that he can take wickets at the most amazing times, on any pitch with the most amazing balls.

4. It has also been what Warne has done and when he has done it that makes Warne so amazing. That ball of the century was so brilliant not only because warne turned the ball almost square, but also because it was at the WACA in the 1990s.
Also, did you watch the adelaide test match? that was AMAZING and it was all warne. He has such ability to strike, dominate teams and change games, where as murali just churns wickets of tail enders usually.

 

[Meads]

Murali will never be widely considered the slow bowler in history, even if he takes 1000 wickets. This is simply because he is already widely regarded as a chucker and a cheat.

Unfortunately for him that will never go away.

By the way, he IS a chucker and a cheat.

 

[wuddie]

awww harsh boys, very harsh. but i'll agree with blackdragon there. simply because that warne has to compete for his wickets and murali can take an age to get them. the flip side of the coin is that warne has peers who can 'sustain prolong periods of pressure' in the batsmen, so that warne's aggressive bowling becomes more effective, while murali has to do it all by himself.

i suppose warne will be widely regarded as the best spin bowler in the modern era, this is always going to be arguable.

 

[HotShot]

No. You don't know what you are talking about. Just because murali is bringing home heaps of wickets it doesn't mean that he challenges warne for the greatest spinner ever.

Actually it does, the whole point of being a bowler is to take wickets. Each wicket has equal value - perfect example is Jason Gillespie and his double century. There are lot of factors to consider, but I have argues before in this forum why murali is better. But I can also argue the other way why Warne is better? But since this forum seems to support warne more, I will support Murali.

1. Murali is pretty much the soul of his bowling team. Warne has had to compete with some of the worlds best bowlers in the same team as him. Hence Murali has much greater potential to take more wickets.

To some extent Warne was the soul of Australia, I mean this was evident in the ashes in England, when warne was pratically asked to bowl all the time. But also remember it actually helps to have some good bowlers in your team, it means the the batsman has more pressure. Mcgrath at one end, hard to score off and Warne can really attack the batsman.

2. Sri Lanka play much crapper teams much more regularily than Australia.

Firstly provide some proof that they play crapper team than Australia? I mean England have been the worst team for some time, and so have West Indies. Australia have played them a lot.

3. You can't compare the skill of warne to the skill of murali. They are both great but Warne has such an ability to turn, skill, tenacity, and cricket intelligence that he can take wickets at the most amazing times, on any pitch with the most amazing balls.

Firstly a lot of people have compared and they can compare to Murali or any other bowler. Murali has the ability to get any batsman in the world out, he has accuracy and speed equal or better than Warne. His endurance is excellent and his persistence is incredible.

4. It has also been what Warne has done and when he has done it that makes Warne so amazing. That ball of the century was so brilliant not only because warne turned the ball almost square, but also because it was at the WACA in the 1990s.

To be honest, that ball was nothing, it was just shit batting from Gatting.

Warne's record against India is horrible. Murali against all nations has an excellent average. Plus Murali had to bowl to the no.1 ranked team Australia - do you consider AUstralia crap? Warne has been able to bowl freely, not as pressure on him as murali has had.

There is already a thread on this. I will try and find it.

But if you ask me who is better player? rather than spinner? Then I would say Warne, is leadership and captaincy skills are invaluable. His fielding and batting is way better than Murali.

 

[BlackDragon]

To some extent Warne was the soul of Australia, I mean this was evident in the ashes in England, when warne was pratically asked to bowl all the time. But also remember it actually helps to have some good bowlers in your team, it means the the batsman has more pressure. Mcgrath at one end, hard to score off and Warne can really attack the batsman.

that's bullcrap. how are you mean to take heaps of wickets in a match when you have the best bowling line up in the world? - glenn mcgrath takes five in an innings, stuart clarke taking the most wickets in the series, and bing cleaning up in the last test. if australia didn't have such a strong line up, but still had warne we would lose more test matches but warne would take more wickets. hmm? does that sound like sri lanka? they lose much more test matches and yet murali takes more wickets. but they mean nothing because murali takes so many due to the fact that they are ALWAYS there.

Firstly provide some proof that they play crapper team than Australia? I mean England have been the worst team for some time, and so have West Indies. Australia have played them a lot.

wtf? the worst team for some time? England are ranked 2nd in the world. that means apart from australia, they are better than ever single other test team..

Firstly a lot of people have compared and they can compare to Murali or any other bowler. Murali has the ability to get any batsman in the world out, he has accuracy and speed equal or better than Warne. His endurance is excellent and his persistence is incredible.

To be honest, that ball was nothing, it was just shit batting from Gatting.

lol. no it wasn't. cricket experts wouldn't have called it the ball of the century if it didn't mean anything. gatting played it well but it was just a wonder ball that turned greater than anybody could have ever believed. and this is why warne is the best ever, because he such strike power and ability to control his opposition.

 

[HotShot]

http://community.boredofstudies.org...s-flintoff.html?highlight=Shane+Warne,+Murali

Read the above thread -lol.

England are the worst team - with odi ranking 7th (sorry 8th!) and losing 5-0, you must be crap team????

Plus they only reached 2nd ranking recently a couple of years ago. Warne has been playing for long long time!

 

[wuddie]

dude, regardless of where england stands in the ranking, australia plays all sorts of opponents, so the type of batsmen warne bowled against varies. you cannot question the variety of batsmen warne has faced over the years. the current english team is just one of many.

to even question the integrity of 'the ball of the century' is just un-australian and you're making yourself a laughing stock. the ball turned no less than a foot and bowled between the bat and pad of the english captain. sure gatting was surprised, but it doesn't take away the fact that it was a beauty.

the fact that warne is a part of the best bowling attacks in the world can be a con and a pro in this argument. no doubt that mcgrath, lee and gillespie (for a long time) provided him with great situations where the batsmen are pressured to the breaking point, and on many occasions warne can just do the honours of tumbling the batsman.

HOWEVER, it must not go unnoticed that on occasions when the team is under pressure, the quicks are not firing and there are limited runs on the board, warne comes up with the goods. the greatest example i can use is the 05 ashes, mcgrath was out injured, lee was out of form, dizzy was on a slide, yet it was warne who managed to take 40 wickets, giving aust the chance. had aust won the game in edgbaston, then warne has single handedly won the ashes for aust. i can give you more examples, such as the recent test in adelaide, where warne took 4 wickets in the 2nd inning. but you get my point.

on the other hand, the bowling attack of sri lanka basically rests on murali, think of the times when murali fails to take wickets and sri lanka got hammered. sure charminda vaas and co has done some work, but it is nothing compared to SL's reliance on murali.

if you still think murali is a great bowler than warne is, using the same logics and reasons you've given, then you're making a mistake. BUT, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

 

[mcs]

While Murali will end up with many more wickets etc, I just dont think they are on the same playing field. Now I dont really care where they have taken their wickets, who against etc etc in the whole context warne imo will go down as the best spinner ever.

I do believe that Murali's action is illegal (Why if it is not has the ICC changed its laws 3 times to allow further leniency from 5 degrees bend to 15 degrees bend) but he is a matchwinner. Its just Warne imo is a one of a kind who is in a class of his own.

 

[HotShot]

While Murali will end up with many more wickets etc, I just dont think they are on the same playing field. Now I dont really care where they have taken their wickets, who against etc etc in the whole context warne imo will go down as the best spinner ever.

I do believe that Murali's action is illegal (Why if it is not has the ICC changed its laws 3 times to allow further leniency from 5 degrees bend to 15 degrees bend) but he is a matchwinner. Its just Warne imo is a one of a kind who is in a class of his own.

Firstly Murali's action is not illegal otherwise he wouldnt be bowling. AT least murali didnt take drugs!

to even question the integrity of 'the ball of the century' is just un-australian and you're making yourself a laughing stock. the ball turned no less than a foot and bowled between the bat and pad of the english captain. sure gatting was surprised, but it doesn't take away the fact that it was a beauty.

I dont care if its 'un-australian' or 'australian' or whatever stereotypical views you hold, that ball was just any other ordinary bowl that got a wicket. Gatting was crap against spin, the whole england team was. Its purely subjective to say it is the ball of century. Even Healy said the ball after was much better!

Murali has bowled against everyone - more importantly he has bowled against AUstralia who have been ranked no.1 for sometime.

HOWEVER, it must not go unnoticed that on occasions when the team is under pressure, the quicks are not firing and there are limited runs on the board, warne comes up with the goods. the greatest example i can use is the 05 ashes, mcgrath was out injured, lee was out of form, dizzy was on a slide, yet it was warne who managed to take 40 wickets, giving aust the chance. had aust won the game in edgbaston, then warne has single handedly won the ashes for aust. i can give you more examples, such as the recent test in adelaide, where warne took 4 wickets in the 2nd inning. but you get my point.

You will take more wickets if you bowl more overs. In the 05 ashes series warne bowled heaps of over + add to that to the fact that England along SOuth Africa are the worst players of spin.. 40 wickets is no surprise.

if you still think murali is a great bowler than warne is, using the same logics and reasons you've given, then you're making a mistake. BUT, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Simply saying i did a mistake with no explanations is silly. YOu did A mistake! lol.
There are only one or two reasons i have given why murali is a better spin bowler than Warne.

I have plenty more!.

Sri-Lanka bowling attack is mostly Vaas and Murali, but in recent times Malinga has entered into the equation. The whole purpose of bowling is to take wickets and each wicket has the same value, if you are bowling well you are entitled to bowl more overs.

HEre is a comparison between Warne and Murali:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype

Murali has only played 4 more matches against Bangladesh than Warne. - Will not really affect the average. But Warne has played more matches against England who are pathetic against Spin.

Murali has a much better record against India - who are the best players against spin than warne.

Warne has played more matches against SA and PAK (only by one) who are 2nd and 3rd worst players against spin, than Murali.

 

[BlackDragon]

This thread is pointless really. We gain no knowledge and come to no conclusion. Just annoyingly non-constructive oppositional arguing.

 

[timlay]

they are both cricket greats..

frankly. to australians, warnies a legend.

to sri lankans, muralis a legend.

to me, they're both legends.... but warne is more of a legend than murali. okay?

 

[HotShot]

I dont care - lol.

As I posted above I could argue the other way as well but since everyone here sucks Warne's cock I decided to support Murali's side.

 

[muttiah]

a small quote from the greatest cricketer..

“clearly, Muralitharan does not throw the ball.” And Murali has also been cleared by a committee from the ICC. So, unless these people think they no better than the experts and also the best batsman ever, they should stop labelling Murali as a chucker."

so every1 here is an expert...

and the real ball of the century
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnRbdfB2syw

 

[wuddie]

alright mr. murali-wanna-be, clearly you're from sri lanka and here to defend your religious symbol, which is understandable. but you do not exaggerate and promote your 'god murali' as the greatest cricketer.

firstly, the icc only cleared murali of chucking after twice changed the law in regard to the bending arm, just to accommodate him. no one else in the world needed that to happen for them, just murali. why? because he chucks and the icc don't want to upset the whole of sri lanka.

now to your little footage of the murali wicket - frankly, it just spun a lot, nothing special about it. you take any spinner in the world and get him to bowl on a turning wicket, with the breeze going with the spin you'll have just that. whereas warne's official 'ball of the century' went through bat and pad, 1st ball of the spell. And what's more, murali chucks.

so err, if you want to brand your 'god' as the greatest cricketer, do it at your spare time please, not on this forum.

 

[muttiah]

firstly.. his not a 'god'.. and the quote is from SIR Donald Bradman.. australians icon!!!!!!!

and what u mean no1 else needed that to happen.. it was found by scientific analysis that 99 percent of the bowlers 'chuck' even if it doesnt LOOK LIKE chucking... so they didnt jsut change it to suit murali

and also.. how many times has he done the bowling test.... about 4 or 5 times.. he even offered to do it.. and each time they have cleared him...

and shane warnes ball of the century..how did it go THROUGH the bat and pad... have u even seen it??.. go and watch it.. bat and pad is together.. it misses the OUTSIDE of the bat and hits off stump.. the ball spins from a bit outside leg and hits off

muralis bowl is about 1 m outside leg and hits off..

murali number 1..

and soon murali is gonna over take shane keith warne in wickets and be the greatest bowler the world has ever seen.. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

p.s looking forward to ur reply

p.p.s muttiah number one.. people will forget about keith warne soon!!!!!!

 

[withoutaface]

How can you be the best bowler of all time if you've had to have the rules changed so that you don't officially chuck anymore.

 

[muttiah]

"and what u mean no1 else needed that to happen.. it was found by scientific analysis that 99 percent of the bowlers 'chuck' even if it doesnt LOOK LIKE chucking... so they didnt jsut change it to suit murali"

the rules were changed to accomodate all bowlers.AND THIS NEW RULE IS A GOOD ONE.....

CRICKET IS NOW DOMINATED BY A BATSMENS GAME.. BATS HAVE MORE WOOD.. SMALLER GROUNDS,BOWL AN INCH OUTSIDE LEG ITS A WIDE.. flat pitches.. y not make a rule which favours the bowlers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When murali was bowling the doosra (in 99 or 2003 WC.. cant remmebr which one) no one complained... but AFTER revealing to the newspapers that he had invented a new delivery suddenly the australian public started criticising because they know the new delievery is a danger to their batsmens..SOOKS!!! bahahahahahhaahhahahaa

 

[withoutaface]

"and what u mean no1 else needed that to happen.. it was found by scientific analysis that 99 percent of the bowlers 'chuck' even if it doesnt LOOK LIKE chucking... so they didnt jsut change it to suit murali"

the rules were changed to accomodate all bowlers.AND THIS NEW RULE IS A GOOD ONE.....

CRICKET IS NOW DOMINATED BY A BATSMENS GAME.. BATS HAVE MORE WOOD.. SMALLER GROUNDS,BOWL AN INCH OUTSIDE LEG ITS A WIDE.. flat pitches.. y not make a rule which favours the bowlers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When murali was bowling the doosra (in 99 or 2003 WC.. cant remmebr which one) no one complained... but AFTER revealing to the newspapers that he had invented a new delivery suddenly the australian public started criticising because they know the new delievery is a danger to their batsmens..SOOKS!!! bahahahahahhaahhahahaa

Why not learn to type properly?