Away vs ENG NZ IND PK SA WI (respectively)

Warne 21 21 43 28 24 39 = 29.3
Murali 19 19 39 21 26 18 = 23.6

so in fact i was a little off - i thought it was closer but in fact Warne only takes SA - of course there are many reasons for that and i don't like comparing the two - for the reasons i stated above.

what it does highlight, with reference to the poll result, is that graham smith is right (and that in itself is worrying): "perception is reality to they that percieve". More encouragingly (or indeed discouragingly) though, it shows what kind of public perception murali has had to deal with and yet remains peerless in his performances. more respect to him, good lad!

Australians don't have a high opinion of Murali as a bowler because
a) He's been too scared to come to Australia for years. Murali says it's because of crowd abuse, but everybody knows it's because ...
b) He gets slaughtered whenever he steps on Australian soil. In test matches down under, he's taken 8 wickets at 63.1 . Australia would have a better opinion of him if he had the guts to take his punishment more often, but he's mentally weak. Warne got hammered in India, but he kept going back like the massochist he is, good stuff Warney.

Therefore, being Australian, I have voted for Warne. Your weak character means no votes for you Mr. Doosra.

a)I am thankful that you don't actually speak for all australians, despite claiming to.

b)Warne has never bowled against Australia in Australia so the statistic is irrelevant using my criteria (comparing the two against the same 'strong' opposition, on the same pitches ie. away)

c)Murali certainly matches Warne using your criteria for assessing character - as murali, too, was hammered in india and kept going back. if that is the limit of your character test - murali passes. my criteria here too is slightly more demanding and in certain areas warne falls short. He never faced the same kind of scrutiny/abuse murali has had to (in fact, to the contrary, warne got off lightly with a couple of quite serious charges against his personal choices - his character was only really tested on one occassion; when he took drugs and he wouldn't accept blame) about things that had nothing to do with freedom of choice - so your character analysis is, I'm afraid, rather limited.

mental-characterwise - except for the one time he refused to play in australia (it is a blemish but i can accept it) as he was fed up with more than just abuse but for being on the wrong end of a witchhunt - he has continued to perform exceedingly well under circumstances no other cricketer has had the misfortune to bear. In the area of mental character too, Murali again gets my vote. However, this time it is because i believe he has earned it, whereas in answer to the thread title's question - i still won't attempt to be definitive about the two's abilities but i'll stick to my vote in search of the balanced result they have both earned.

I wasn't using your criteria, I was just stating that a lot of Australians are disappointed that Murali keeps running from playing in Australia. I don't care if he can spin it on ice, he'll always be a prima donna in my eyes.

Murali's first series in India - 12 wickets, 420 runs, avg of 35. Not a bad series from the young spinner.
Warney's first series in India - 10 wickets, 540 runs, avg of 54 ... bleh!
Of course Murali went back, his figures weren't too bad, Warne got a beating and kept going.

Murali's first series in Australia - 1995 - 3 wickets, 348 runs, avg of 116 and a self-imposed exile for the next 10 years . Murali didn't return till 2005, in other words, he was so scared of how that Australian team treated him on Australian tracks, he waited till most of them retired before he dared to come back.

Also, the scrutiny on Murali was justified when, in about 2001, the biomechanical testers found he bowled his doosra at an angle exceeding 10 degrees, over 5 degrees outside the legal limits back then. Sure, it's legal now, but before the rules were changed, and before he worked to bowl his doosra with minimal flex (he can bowl it at 6 degrees now).

And everybody knows Warne's character off the field. It doesn't change the fact that as a competitor and an athlete, he was one of the mentally strongest going around.

The witchhunt had nothing to do with Australia, and everything to do with umpires. Hair was the first person with the guts (or the pigheadedness) to call him, however, I believe the umpire who no-balled Murali's legspinner was the other umpire and NOT Hair.

The British crowd maybe taunt Murali about chucking as well, but I see he's more than eager to return to the country who cannot play spin very well. It's not surprising he can cop a bit of abuse as long as it's beneficial to his overall bowling record.

The Australian crowd get on his back because of how he responded when it happened the first time. In other words, because he was such a weak whiner the Aussie crowd gave him hell, like some sort of fragile princess. Every Australian I've talked to were laughing at Murali when he came out and said that the Aussie crowds were the worst in the world, firstly because at least we've never burnt down a stadium, and secondly because we know that he's going to get it even worse next time. Andre Nel copped a load when he came to Australia, we like him (on the whole) because he took everything that was dished out. Murali's coming back to Australia this year solely to try and break the Warne's record on Australian soil. It seems that Murali, like the angsty teenager he mentally is, is trying to 'pay back' Australia in his own special way. I just hope Murali can take the barrage he's going to get.

The more Murali whines, the more abuse he'll cop. Australian crowds are like children, if you take the abuse and cop it they'll love you (on the whole), however if you respond you're only gonna cop it worse. Murali couldn't take it when it was first dished out to him, therefore the Aussies, being the charitable people they are kindly directed increasingly more abuse in his direction. I don't know about you, but I have to agree with M.Waugh's assertion, that the cricketing world as a whole is getting a little precious.

By the way, going outside of cricket, did you know Raphael Nadal is the most tested tennis players on tour (for drugs). He's been tested an obscene amount of times. I think it was into at least double digits over a one year period, far more times than anyone else was tested. He also cops a lot of flak from the French crowd and the French commentators who hate him yet he displays a sense of maturity beyond his years. In comparison, Murali is a prepubescent (and yes, I know the 'drugged one' is an attention seeking, womanising child, but as a cricketer I respect him a lot more than 'woe as me' chucky chuckerton).

Everyone gets a bit of stick - i'm not bothered about other sports (i occasionally watch WCups but i'm not that interested) but i have seen Nadal play..in France. the comparison is poor (he's not considered a drug-cheat and is guilty wherever he goes - despite clean tests) and shows me this conversation will probably not go anywhere - though i am happy to continue it (i wouldn't want you thinking i was a prima dona now - i am a man).

well, it's at least charitable that you've changed from saying he isn't as good a bowler to acknowledging the facts - that is a start!

As far as your love of testosterone - it is not something we have in common!! aggression is easy when you're in a winning team - to interpret it as mental strength is a personal thing - i don't.

As for the rest of the text - thank you. i can really only skim through the rhetoric about tests and degrees of flexibility as you may see from my join date that i really know this conversation inside out and know all the toing and froing. i know that murali did throw under the old laws, i know that in fact almost all bowlers threw under the old laws. i know that generally murali has created a new axiom in the english language. 'guilty, despite being proven innocent' - i have a feeling this did exist in german..about 60 years ago - but i now know that one should not moan about such matters. be men.

I also know that Warne's mettle was really tested only once - mom got the blame (he was a 33+ year old man)

BTW, Muralis 2nd outing in india was as bad as your stats for his 1st outing in oz (a stat which remains irrelevant when deciding between the two as it was not an experience they both shared) and he went back to face practically the same opposition.

I'm sure that the prosecution will not rest but at present my verdict is:

mental strength = Murali
Best Spinner = Murali (in the interests of the fair % of poll votes they have both earned)

I'm already spending more time on this that i should but you might find there was a touch of ozzie about the whole calling affair.

Who has called him? Emerson (Aussie), McQuillan (Aussie) and Hair (Aussie).

Where has he been called? in Australia in 1995 and 1999

Pigheadedness or guts (in your words)? I know what I think: not guts!

“Instead of no-balling Muralitharan, Emerson should have warned the match referee of his intention and asked that Muralitharan be filmed and subsequently studied again by the International Cricket Council's sub-committee on throwing. This would not have given Emerson the limelight but it would have earned him respect. In this technological age of camera angles and super slow motion replays there is no need to victimise a man in public, particularly as the man has previously been cleared of bowling unfairly. “…. “A cricketer was publicly demeaned and discredited, which is unforgivable and should have been avoided.”

An English writer’s summary in 1999 the day after murali was called:

“For the last month a witch hunt has followed Muralitharan around Australia. Suggestions that official reports about the fairness or otherwise of his bowling action have been filed are rife. Crowds have heckled him and newspapers have put him in the dock. Australia has appointed itself as judge and jury. The hostility to an innocent, gentle man who possesses an intriguing cricket talent, whatever its legality, has been extraordinary”

“Muralitharan was first called for throwing by Hair in Melbourne on Boxing Day 1995. There were questions then about the timing of Hair's action. Why Boxing Day, the biggest day in the Australian cricketing calendar? Why not Sydney five days earlier in a limited-overs match? Why call him from the bowler's end and not from square leg where the view is so much clearer?
Then, a short time later in Brisbane, Emerson and McQuillan did the same, though from square leg. Emerson got it so wrong that he continued to call Muralitharan when he switched to bowl leg-breaks in an orthodox manner.”

In Australia, Muriltheran would have been weeded out in the school system, and would never even made it to 6th grade, let alone first class level. Emerson and Hair only did what probably every other Australian umpire would have done in the same situation.

At that point in time when Hair and Emerson called him, he was a chucker. He was a chucker before that and even after that, he continued to chuck, and chuck, and chuck. Chucker here, chucker there, chucker, chucker everywhere basically. Then they changed the chucking rules, which meant that while previously, we could rightfully and legally call him a chucker, now we can not call him a chucker, even though many Aussies (and others) that still consider him a chucker in the traditional sense. Chucking as we knew it is not chucking now.

A couple of seasons ago, one of my teammates was able to do a perfect imitation of Murali's action. It's not that hard really, but it does take a but of practice to land them. You basically hold your your arm up as if you were going to flex your bicep, and then straighten it at the point of delivery, while flicking your wrist. Try it, and you won't believe the unnatural amount of revs you can achieve.

This guy tried it in a dead match situation. Everyone burst out laughing, including the umpires, who then dutifully called it a no-ball. The ICC may change the rules, but there is no way in hell Aussies will ever accept it and play like that. Bowling a player with an action like that can only bring dishonour to your team, and is treated with the same contempt given to those who try to manipulate the scorebook during a match.

That said, i doubt Muralitheran will cop it any worse than what has gone on in the past down here; for the first few overs of his spell, sections of the crowd will yell "No Ball!!" but will get bored of it after 20 minutes or so. That's all that has ever happened, but Muralitheran can't handle it

__________________

Edit: I don't mind my posts being censored by the moderators (much), but will you stop making me sound like I'm on drugs? Just reading the below paragraph makes my eyes bleed now . Anyway, I'd like to know why Ernest has stuck 'claimed' in there, seeing as it was biomechanically proven that he chucked his doosra. Personally, I would have thought that the ICC banning Murali from bowling the doosra under the old laws would have advanced the theory beyond 'claimed' status and positioned it firmly under the 'fact' heading .

Murali could claim that he was unfairly labelled a chucker before 2001, but not anymore. Since 2001, since he was proven to be unable to bowl one of his deliveries without chucking it is claimed, he has maybe been justly labelled a chucker. The fact that he doesn't chuck anymore just means that he's officially a rehabilitated chucker (although changing the laws helped there, and even though a lot of people still shudder at some of the balls he 'bowls').

And you're right, there's no comparison. No one has ever mistranslated a speech made by Murali in a post match interview to make it look like he was an egotistical ass, and the commentators haven't commentated that they hope Murali get smashed because they don't like his fashion sense or the way his arms look. (For all those that don't know, after the 2006 French Open final, Nadal started his post-match speech by praising Federer, the translator mistranslated the speech leading the public to think he was praising himself, inciting more boos from the already anti-Nadal crowd. There was no apology. Also, French commentators were supporting Nadal's opponents stating "we don't need construction worker arms in tennis").

I interpret aggression as mental strength? Steve Waugh was one of the mentally toughest on tour, but I doubt he was overly aggressive. Glenn McGrath is very aggressive, but he can get shaken mentally from agressive batsmen.

The difference being that most of the bowlers were 'suspected' of throwing the 'occasional' ball, a vast difference from being biomechanically proven to be unable to bowl a certain delivery without chucking. If Glenn McGrath was unable to bowl an off cutter without chucking it, or his slower ball, then he would have got blasted the same as Murali. Murali chucked every doosra he ever bowled before the rule changed. Glenn McGrath was suspected of chucking the occassional ball, big difference. In regards to throwing, Akhtar would probably be the most unfairly treated, not Murali. Murali was proven guilty six years ago, so chucky will have to live with it.

His mental toughness on the field was unquestioned, regardless of how much of a child he acted off the field.

He already tasted success in India, so he had enough confidence in his ability to keep going back, the weak sod. And as I said before, his stats in Australia may not be useful in your criteria, but I'm not using your criteria (as good as it is).

Touch of Aussie? Tapes of Murali's actions had been sent to Lords and the ICC BEFORE Hair decided enough was enough. Back in 1993 when England toured Sri Lanka, Dermot Reeve (in the England squad) was so concerned about Murali's action, that he filmed it with an amateur camcorder and sent it straigh to the ICC. Back in 1992, when Neil Perera visited the Chief Executive of the cricket board in the UK (Tim Lamb), he saw a video tape with the name 'Muralitharan' lying on the desk, and another tape labelled 'Warnaweera' (another person thought to chuck). A number of umpires had questions, a number of fans and ex players had questions, and all Hair was guilty of was jumping the gun. The idea it was an Australian conspiracy is one of the funniest, and ill-researched theories going around. Emerson called Murali because, as some umpires of other nationalities did, he too had questions on Murali's action and jumped on the bandwagon. Needless to say, he botched the officiating.

The newspapers you referred to question why he didn't inform the match-referee, filming and eventually studied etc etc. A lot of those steps had already been taken, match referees were already being consulted, tapes were being studied (Sri lanka's coach, Whatmore, said that one of them was inconclusive because it was shot from long on) all before the first incident took place, Hair had enough and decided to take the laws into his own hands as was his right as an umpire.

Your newspapers just spout garbage and sensationalim, and only serve to reiterate the point everybody already knows, that Emerson is an idiot.

My summary:
best spinner : Warne
Biggest crybaby : Murali