there is a lot of argument over who is a better bowler shane warne or muttiah muralitharan. aussies english saffers and NZ have a majority of warne. india sri lanka and most other countrys would prolly say muralia. so who is better?
i personally think murali as he has a better strike rate average and has a lot more 5fa then anyone.

I think the records itself say that Warne is a much better bowler.Some people say that Warne has got more wickets because he was said to have taken drugs at some point of time whereas some people say that Murali has got many of his wickets by chucking.

Shane Warne said about Murali : "Murali has got most of his wickets against minor teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and I have played only once against Bangladesh."

__________________
Karthik Venkatesan

Has to be Warne

No question, I wont even bother providing proof just trust i'm right

Voted for Warne.
Well, it looks very cheap when great players start hitting at each other. Asked about Sachin in a recent interview, Lara said some very great tings abut Sachin. He even went to the extent of saying that Sachin is the best in the world. Thats the sign of a great player. I am a great fan of Warne the bowler. But he makes himself look like a fool with his off field statements and actions. As far as I remember, Warne hasnt taken too many wickets in whatever cricket he has played against Bangladesh.

Murali is the only person in history to have taken at least 50 wickets against all test nations. Warne on the other hand has taken over 100 wickets against sth africa Windies and the poms. not many against india who play spin the best.
it is really long but look
Look at this... Red is Murali Black is warne

Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
career 140 2958 99 16.61 0 11 685 8/71 25.25 36 120 0
108 1095 67 12.03 0 1 657 9/51 21.96 56 59 0

v India 14 309 86 14.71 0 1 43 6/125 47.18 1 10 0
15 199 67 16.58 0 1 67 8/87 32.47 4 7 0

v Australia 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
11 78 43 8.66 0 0 55 6/59 31.41 5 11 0
v Bangladesh 2 11 6 5.50 0 0 11 5/113 27.27 1 1 0
6 40 24 10.00 0 0 50 6/18 12.52 7 5 0
v England 31 750 90 19.23 0 3 172 8/71 22.30 10 25 0
13 201 38 16.75 0 0 93 9/65 19.74 6 3 0
v New Zealand 20 558 99 32.82 0 5 103 6/31 24.37 3 18 0
10 115 26 11.50 0 0 52 5/30 23.69 4 5 0

v Pakistan 15 275 86 16.17 0 1 90 7/23 20.17 6 13 0

14 152 22 13.81 0 0 79 6/71 23.31 5 6 0
v South Africa 24 460 63 13.93 0 1 130 7/56 24.16 7 19 0
15 111 27 7.40 0 0 104 7/84 22.22 11 8 0
v Sri Lanka 13 193 35 10.72 0 0 59 5/43 25.54 5 15 0
0 - - - - - - - - - - -
v West Indies 19 384 47 13.71 0 0 65 7/52 29.95 3 19 0
10 107 36 11.88 0 0 70 8/46 17.34 8 6 0
v Zimbabwe 1 6 6 6.00 0 0 6 3/68 22.83 0 0 0
14 92 26 10.22 0 0 87 9/51 16.86 6 8 0

Oh and please tell me who has more 5fors than murali in tests.NOT WARNE

Warne has said a lot of good things about Muralitharan, one negative statement doesnt mean he thinks he is better.
Warne has also defended Muralitharans action in the past and said that he will take more wickets than Warne and is a better bowler.

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

Now that I've thought about this further I realise people will just pick their side of the fence along racial lines like has been happening so often recently on here.

Both players are great bowlers but i would just side with Warne seeing as he has done more damage to my team than over the years than Murali has.No racial preference just going on results against England.

in the very recent past muruli's performence has been going downhill. While Warne is as good as ever

__________________

In answering the Murali, Warne question I always ask myself what would have happened if they played in each others' team. I honestly belive that Warne would have had an even better record if he played for the Sri Lankan team and Murali would have actually been quite a bit less successful in Australia's. I have seen Murali have figures of 1-100 or 1-80 on so many occasions. Playing for SL, he just keeps bowling and ends up with figures of 5-130, 6-140. This is good for his average and of course gives him the five for that people alway talk about. If he played for Australia he would have stopped bowling (someone else would have got a bowl or got the wickets) and he would have ended up with 1-100.