Well, in the "Who was best - Warne or Muralitharan" debate, it will be very hard to convince Australians (and perhaps others) of the latter.
Taken out of his comfort zone, Muralitharan was found lacking and these stats make telling reading

Career stats
702 wickets @ 21.51
Versus Australia in Sri Lanka
47 wickets @ 26.02
Versus Australia in Australia
12 wickets @ 75.41

He played down here at three different points in his career, and played everywhere save at Adelaide.

He bowled a total of 262 overs and ended up with the staggeringly bad strike rate of 131 balls per wicket.

Does these stats forever allow Warne fans to win the Warne vs Muralitharan debate?
Will his record in Australia forever be a stain on his career?
His action aside, how would have Muralitheran fared had he been Australian, and been forced to play the bulk of his tests in Australia?

__________________
The thought police are everywhere..............

It doesn't make good reading. I think the SuperTest, in which he bagged five wickets, showed that he's capable of succeeding in Australia, but at the same time the Australians obviously know how to play him much better than anyone else in the world.

I know that you say his action aside, but if he was Australian he would have either never made it even to district first’s level or he would have been fixed by cricket Australia.

He would not have taken as many wickets if he was Australian but his bowling average would have been a bit lower due to sides not scoring as heavily against Australia

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

We are in full agreement over Murali never making it to district cricket in Australia, Quagmire.

The criticisms leveled at Muralitharan by guys like Warne have always been the huge amount of wickets he took at the bowling friendly wickets of Columbo and Kandi
In Sri Lanka
Warne
48wickets @ 20.45
Muralitharan
432 wickets @ 19.12

Warne had a lovely time in Sri Lanka too as we can see. But unlike Muralitharan, Warne did not get the same amount of chances to play on those Muralitheran-friendly wickets

Now while Murali has been exposed in Australia, it can be said that Warne struggled in India. Perhaps in relative terms that is true, but how did Murali fare?

In India
Warne
34 wickets @ 43.11
Muralitharan31 wickets @ 39 58
Not much better so no real kudos to Murali there

Now the next criticism, and one that Warne recently raised resulting in a tantrum from Murali, was the amount of wickets Murali took against Bangledesh and Zimbabwe. I had a look at these to check if there was any credence to Warne's claim...........

Bangledesh
Warne
11wickets @ 27.27
Muralitharan
76 wickets @ 11.94

Zimbabwe
Warne
6 wickets @ 22.83
Murali
87 wickets @ 16.86

So as we see, Warne has a right to be somewhat aggrieved. So too would someone like Stuart McGill, who has just struggled to his 200th wicket, to see Muralitheran get 163 wickets against the minnows.

When you break down the stats, it becomes quite clear that Muralitharan has no real reason to sook, when these very valid criticisms are leveled at his career.

So when Murali gets his 709th wicket against England next month and starts jumping around in celebration, you can forgive the cynics like myself, when i turn up my lip in a cynical smile. And jump on a few Sri Lankan cricket sites to cut and paste these stats

__________________
The thought police are everywhere..............

Have you tried looking at Murali's stats without the wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh?

541 wickets at 23.84, SR of 57.6. Not too shabby.

I think we're lucky to see both bowlers in their prime, and I don't see why the greatness of one should take away the greatness of the other.

Yes Aurelius, but he has taken 432 wickets on taylor-made Sri Lankan wickets. The mark of the man has to be on how well he performs when taken outside his comfort zone surely? Form what i have seen of his efforts in Australia, i question how great he truly is.......

__________________
The thought police are everywhere..............

The correct way of putting it.It is like trying to split Lara and Tendulkar in their prime,both superb players we are priveleged to have been able to witness.

Yes, Greg's put it a lot better than I have.

Obviously Murali's done much better at home than away, but his performances away are still pretty good- 270 wickets from 50 matches at 25.3.

Plus I should point out that Lillee's had to face similar questions about his record on the subcontinent, but I think that if anyone suggested that he wasn't a great bowler because of that, they'd be laughed out of the room.

The greatest inditement of Aussie wickets ever: if any stat warranted just tearing the lot up (or simply deeming them unfit for Test cricket) then it is the one you offer. It's not as if Murali bowls badly in Australia.... it's just (as the great England finger spinners of the 1950s, 60s and 70s found, and as even the very best medium pace seamers have found)... most Aussie pitches absolutely suck.

Warne bowls extremely slowly and his weapons are flight, dip and bounce... hence his periodic struggles on low and slow pitches. Murali bowls slightly more quickly and gives the batsmen less time to pick the delivery and get to the pitch of the ball... but his craft is based on exploiting the pitch and conditions - which he does far better than Warne, but cannot do on Aussie pitches that give him nothing to exploit (especially on the first few days, but quite commonly even towards the end of the game).

Now factor in one final, absolutely crucial difference: Warne's team. Murali has not just had to carry his attack... he's had (very often) to compensate for the inadequacies of a passable rather than decent batting side. His own side's batting has rare given him runs to play with. He's rarely been able to crowd fielders around the bat. IN many cases, as in the second Aussie innings of this game, he's had to bowl against batsmen who've already batted his side out of the game and who have a license to play VERY aggressively.

Statistics shouldn't be used to seperate these two bowlers... who are no more comparable than Warne and McGrath: they both bowl at less than 80 mph and spin the ball... but that's where the similarities end. For the purist (like me) the flight, drift and dip of Warne is more pleasing... but just as the measure of a swing bowler is found when the ball swings... and the measure of a seamer is found when the seam is prominent and the bounce is good... so the measure of a finger spinner is ability to exploit rough, cracks and uneven bounce... and in that, Murali has been supreme.

I've watched the entire test series and I have to say I've been very disapointed with Murali's bowling. He has been unable to even stop the majority of the Australian batsmen scoring at will. In his career, he has often struggled against players who take him on. This has been no different. One thing I will add, is that Murali has often had figures of 1-100 turn into 5-120. Australia's declarations have stopped this happening (unlike on the last Australia tour of SL a few years ago, when he picked up many second innings wickets in the first two tests to salvage bad figures)

And Rachael, we did see Warne carry an Australian team in the 2005 Ashes. Often bought on at lunch on day one, often getting the first wicket and taking 40 wickets in the series. One can only imagine how their careers would have been different if they reversed their roles.