Cricinfo - 5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval, Sep 8-12, 2005

This match is interesting as it is the only time that Warne took the five wickets of the top 5 batters. Funnily enough it happened when McGrath was not fully fit, Lee was misfiring and Tait was on début.

I think it would be excellent for someone (with a lot of time on their hands) to find out how many time Murali came on fior his first bowl in an innings with the openers still intact, and how many times that happened to Warne. I would hesitate to guess that Warne will often have started a first spell with one to two wickets on the board, while Murali will often be starting his spells with both openers still there.

As I recell from when I've looked at this sort of thing in the past... even top Test batsmen fail to make a start in at least one innings in three: the difficulty of playing oneself in means that even a fairly ordinary new ball pairing should get one batsman out more often than not... and should get two batsmen out routinely enough.

My maths stats head hasn't woken up yet today... but I reckon a 1 in 3 chance of either opener failing means that a par performance is at least one opener failing in 5 out of every 6 games... and as the odds on the no 3 getting a start are similar... we should not be too surprised to see two wickets down by the end of the first session in ANY decent Test match.

I'm not actually disagreeing with your analysis... I just think it would be better to look at the percentage of cases in which Warne and Murali have first come on with 2 or more wickets down (ignoring the small matter of whether both openers were there or whether the opposition was an opener and a no 3).

One thing that Murali will often do is come on very early as a first change, often when the ball is just 3-5 overs old, especially in the second innings, I recall him doing this a number of times. Warne very rarely does this. The reason, Warne had two very good opening bowlers who could make in roads, while Murali would often only have Vaas to do that job.

What a SAD thread. So SAD that you guys can't simply appreciate what Murali has done. There has not been anyone like him in the game EVER !

The mental strength to keep going against everything that has been said and done to him.

So sorry guys.....I have no words.

12th man, there has been nothing said in this thread questioning the courage of the man, and his contribution to Sri Lankan and international cricket. Or any mention of his action for that matter.

This has been a purely statistical analysis regarding the long running debate over who is king - Muralitheran or Warne. The stats indicate Warne is King, but this should take nothing away from Muralitheran and his achievements.

__________________

Another take on the man here... Muttiah Muralitharan earns immortality - Telegraph

Why is the discussion here who is king. I think both bowlers are great in Test or One Day cricket they both done there best what they can do.

__________________
Cricket is best game in the WORLD.

I have no doubt that if Warne had been the Sri Lankan and Murali the Aussie the arguments being put against Murali would not happen by the Aussies.They seem unable to accept that somebody has outperformed their golden boy which is a shame and feel the need to belittle his achievements at every turn.

How sad that both players can't be appreciated for the special talents that they are.

I feel that we have has a golden generation of spinners, the leading wicket takers are

Murali
Warne
Kumble

all bring something different. Murali - huge spinning off breaks and laterly the very dangerous Doosra. Warne accurate, big spinning leg breaks, with a multitude of variations, in particular the flipper. Kumble fast- accurate leg breaks (often more medium pace), which bite and spit of the pitch.

We have been very lucky, as good as next generation are - Panesar, Kaneria, Habarjan - none will ever compare with these three IMO

By and large the international cricketing fraternity, if one such exists, has been unfair to Muralitharan. Somewhere along the line someone started a grumble about his action and now it has become the fashion to keep on discussing the subject even though the cows have long gone to bed.

Murali is unquestionably one of the two greatest bowlers that ever played cricket, the other being Warne, of course. It is very difficult to say which of the two is better - perhaps there is no straight answer to this. Murali seems to be the better wicket-taker of the two, but somehow Warne comes off as the better big match winner. Maybe, the best result would be to accept it as a tie.