The only logical way to put the Warne vs Murali issue "to bed" is to agree to a TIE, which IMO is the only fair judgement. I have said it before and I'll say it again - Murali was the better wicket taker but Warne the better match winner. I cannot elaborate on that feeling.

Well clwalcott

This point was raised by me in relation to your comment that batting is stronger now that what it was prior to Murali's career. This is patently untrue. Apart from Australia and India (and S.A) the rest are worse now than what they were IMO.

In any case, the issue is a moot point. Their careers spanned the same period of time

Well you can dismiss this if you feel that it undermines your argument. Maybe i will employ the same tact the next time someone says Harbhijan has the wood on Ponting

As to the sample size.

262 overs equates to 1572 deliveries. I bowl in club cricket approx 10 per match. It would take be almost three seasons to bowl 262 overs

How big a sample size do you want??

And you might say that he had to bowl against the might of the Australians. Well, spin never has and probably never will be our strong suit. Australians generally struggle against quality spinners. And it must be said that Murali obviously had a fair crack at our tail enders too.

This is the facts. Warne enjoyed success in Sri Lanka. Murali enjoyed success in Sri Lanka. Warne enjoyed success in Australia. Murali did not enjoy success in Australia.

So one is forced to ask the question. How great would have Murali's stats been had he had to bowl the bulk of his overs in Aus, and Warne bowl the bulk of his in Sri Lanka?

Stats would indicate a whole different scenario.

If Murali had cut it down here, you would perhaps win this debate. But he didn't, and this will always be the thorn in the side of those arguing in favor of Murali.

__________________

Cricinfo - Records - Test matches - Most runs in a calendar year - Consider this list, seven of the leading nine years in Test history (131 years old this year) have occured in the last seven years. Admittedly the weight of Test matches is much more now than in the past but still, not in the last fifteen or twenty years, the last SEVEN.

Perhaps this list is more historically fair - Cricinfo - Records - Test matches - Most runs in a match. Five of the top eight are in the last fourteen years - again, Test matches have been contested for 131 years. The world record score has been reset three times in the past fourteen years. Prior to this it had been reset ONCE since WWII (approx. 50 years). Interestingly, the only contender to this era of batting, the 1930's, had it reset four times in eight years.

Cricinfo - Records - Test matches - Most runs in a day - if I was to tell you something that is blatently obvious, that the 1930's and the period of 1995-present day were clearly the best two batting era's ever, this list should show that. It shows how easy scoring is - runs in a day. TWELVE OF THE TOP FOURTEEN entries are from one of these two eras - not ONE was between 1954-1998.

Cricinfo - Records - Test matches - Highest career batting average - this is a list of highest career batting averages. We have the top nine names, independent of this current era (besides the freakish Hussey which I think we all take with a certain level of trepidation just at the moment), but it is worth noting that four of these nine played less than 25 Tests. Six of the next ten are in this present era (Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara, Yousuf, Tendulkar, Dravid). There are 36 names that qualify, who bat over 50, I'm gonna trim that to 28, because I think 25 Tests should be about the minimum (there are players here with games in the teens), ELEVEN have played in the current era - 39%. Again, this is a game that is 131 years old and 39% of the most talented batsman, by the numbers, have played in one ten year belt. I think it's fair to put numbers into context, and a few Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean Tests aren't going to change that. I could go on but...

This is true.

You have got to be kidding me...if it was simply a matter of quality spin bowling beating Australia, they wouldn't be one of the bes 3-5 teams in the history of the game (I personally rank the 2001 side #3). There is no magic Achilles heel here, and you can't suddenly dismiss the strength of one of the most consistant batting cards in th history of the game. The way you seem to think you can do this casually is astonishing to me - bowling against Australia is no fun, it is very hard, not having to bowl to them does your career numbers a major service. It, in my mind, comes very close to balancing the minnow issue entirely - not that this needs to be done because, to repeat, Murali's numbers ACROSS the board are still much better than Warne's even when you strip him of over 150 Test wickets he took at like 7pm@13 or something...no other player could withstand such a statistical overhaul, but Murali still comes out better.

By the way, what did you make of Warne's 53 match disaster through FIVE YEARS? Talk about sample sizes, that's a decent sample size - Warne's 14 Tests against India averaging north of 47 is a decent sample size.

I think the numbers I have been using extensively illustrate what I consider a reasonable sample size. 262 overs may be a lot to a club cricketer like yourself, but considering this represents 4% of Muralitharan's Test career, let's just say it has limited, contextual use. The India numbers for Warne represent 9.6% of his career, a far more reasonable number - this is no illusion, he really did have a MASSIVE, disproportionate problem against a fine batting card like India's. His average was 47.18 (wow, unbelievable); his wpm dropped to 3.1, his econ was also 3.10. Murali bowled MORE to this, extremely talented line up (which makes the task of keeping his numbers down much harder), 12.2% of his career was against Tendulkar, Dravid, good Laxman, good Sehwag, good Ganguly. Average 32.47, 4.5wpm, 2.73 econ. Quite frankly, you could drive a truck between those sets of numbers, so do not talk about Murali's quality of opposition.

This is a bit ridiculous, because now we are not comparing bowler vs team but bowler vs batsman, matchups like these are fairly rare. Harbhajan dismissing Ponting 8 times in 15 some innings is a truly incredible statistic. You cannot sincerely be doubting this. But then again, who cares right, if you sic Danish Kaneria, Australia would never make it to three figures right?

THEY WERE BOWLING TO DIFFERENT BATTING CARDS! How can you miss this very obvious point?

Secondly, the sample size is extremely small in comparison to the MOUNTAIN of evidence of a far more substantial variety (Warne's five year valley, Asian pitches in general, Muralitharan's incredible record breaking accomplishments, numbers against India, addressing the 150 minnow wickets etc). But even beyond this, how is it relevant if they are bowling to different batting cards? Isn't that patently unfair? When Murali does not get to bowl to Sri Lankan cards and Warne is shielded from bowling to Australian cards, isn't the comparison flat out impossible to make???

According to the batting averages of Australian pitches and those of Asian pitches, Warne would have been far worse bowling in Asia against extremely strong batting cards on lifeless pitches and Muralitharan would have benifited from the undoubtedly stronger support from whoever his new ball bowlers were and come in at 3/90 far more often which inevidably leads to more success. So in short, your lucky this wasn't the case or this would be an even more open and shut case in favour of Murali. I still have trouble believing you are making this argument sincerely, but ok.

clwalcott

What can i say? Another fantastic post.

I have followed the two bowlers careers watching with a patriotic eye. I marveled at Warne's prowess, and blinded myself to Murali's

That's the thing about patriotism. It blinds you. Manipulates your thought processes. It is ultimately self defeating.

Who was better? I guess the best ones to ask are the ones that had to face them. In terms of stats though, i guess one would have to say all things considered....Murali.

One thing that must be said though. Murali played the game with true gentlemanly spirit, while Warne did not. In that sense, Murali was the better cricketer.

This question is one that each person will have their own opinion on. But for me, the Murali/Warne issue is finally put to bed.

Thanks for your posts clwalcott. High quality all

__________________

Wow, it's way less fun arguing about cricket when the other person is cool, open minded and rational, you've spoilt my fun!

Warne was undoubtedly a fine, fine cricketer, by far (like, really far) the best leg spinner of all time, there is no doubt whatsoever about that, and India aside, he did bowl to some fine batsman with considerable success (Kallis in particular comes to mind). But he wasn't even the best bowler on his team as far as I am concerned, and I think the 2005 Ashes illustrates this perfectly - Warne played out of his mind in that series, he couldn't possibly have played better (actually his last three years were outstanding, if he kept playing he COULD have made this debate more interesting)

30 runs and 6/83 match figures at Lord's

50 runs including a crucial 42 in the second innings, arriving at 7/137 and leaving Australia in a considerably better position at 9/220, a match they would fall just 2 runs short and his first of two 10WM of the series (10/162), a superb performance in Birmingham

An underwhelming 4/173 with the ball at Old Trafford but did add 124 runs in the match, including 90 in the first innings (arriving at 5/133 after England had posted 444 and leaving at 8/302) and 34 in a 9 wicket second innings, occupying the crease for 99 minutes in a tense draw.

8/133 at Nottingham, rest of Australia 9/473. Also another valuable innings with the bat, this time more handy than crucial, adding 45 in the second innings.

A brutal, near heroic effort, ultimately in vain at The Oval, bowling an incredible 76 overs, taking 12/246 in the match.

Now, that is pretty much a perfect series, I don't see how he could have been better, at all - but Australia still lost the series. There are many reasons for that, but the most obvious and surely most telling is this - no McGrath. He was th vital cog of Australian success, much moreso than Warne, and I think that series showed that, even with Warne playing the best series of his career (by a long way), it wasn't enough - and the two Tests Australia lost were the Tests McGrath missed. So my question is to you now Nostromo - how can Warne be a "match winner" more than Murali? I don't even know what the difference is between taking as many wickets for as few runs as possible and being a "match winner" is supposed to be. To be honest (though this is a little harsh, but if you wanna bring up undefinable terms like "match winner" I have no choice), that series is the EXACT kind of player that can rack up stats but not "win matches". I don't believe this match winner thing exists though, and this is no fault of Warne's, he was unbelievable.

There may be no stat in any sport as closely affiliated with "winning" than 10WM for bowlers - the chances of winning the Test match are astronomically high when a bowler takes 10 wickets, it's really, really hard. In 20 10WM that Murali has had, Sri Lanka's win/loss/draw record is 15/3/2. Muralitharan single handedly (as much as any individual cricketer can) has won 15 Test matches. How is he not a matchwinner?