Murali vs. Warne

[Ram]

I wonder why Murali got so much under the skin of the Aussie cricket fans.

That is because Murali was the closest anyone ever came/has come/will come with respect to challenging Warne's claim to be the best spinner, ever. As Murali racked up one breath-taking performance after another, the threat just grew. If this challenge had to be sullied , the opponent had to tarnished, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. The chucker tag was the most obvious and convenient weapon. If cricketing ethics and rules of fair play were applied unbiasedly to all , then Warne's 'Mom-gave-me-pill' antic , his contacts with bookies should have been equally slammed by the media. Were they ? I hold the english media equally responsible for demonising murali. They simply couldnt digest the fact the best all time spinner ever could be brown guy. Now, if someone thinks thats just wishful thinking, i say to to them - Its time for you to have a reality check .

[The Outsider]

Nothing that I can really disagree with in the above post, Marris but why were Tendulkar and Lara so well received in Australia when they were competing with first Steve Waugh and then Ponting for the position of the best batsman in modern cricket and possibly the post war era.

[Ram]

Australia DO have a tremendous sporting culture , that applauds excellent performances by all , but its a little different with Warne-Murali. And responding to your query on Sachin, Lara being in competition with Steve Waugh or Ponting , I think we have to get some facts clear here. I dont think Steve Waugh was ever in competion with Lara to be the best batsman of this era. Then where is the need to put down Lara ? If at all they tried it, they would have looked stupid. Its like Bangladesh trying to question Sachin to prop up Ashraful. The same goes with Sachin-Ponting too. Ponting's best has kinda co-incided with Sachin's fall. There was no need to put him down. Besides , the whole world knows who the best batsman ever was -- Don Bradman. The murali-Warne is different in the sense that , here were two spinners , going literally neck and neck in terms of records and wickets. When it became obvious that , left to its own , Murali would easily over-take Warne , some things had to be done. And something did happen. Now , if someone thinks i just thought up the biggest conspiracy theory that never existed , i can understand that. Yet , i strongly believe all the media-slandering of murali had atleast SOMETHING to do with his rivalry with Warne.

[Donny]

The scant respect that Australian crowds have shown for a legend like Murali is disappointing to say the least. Shouting "No Ball" every time the guy ran in to bowl even after he was cleared by all tests is rather unlike the Aussie crowds when faced with a true legend from the opposition. The kind of admiration Tendulkar and Lara have received on cricket grounds in Australia is phenomenal. It took a tough character in Murali to survive that but he could never showcase his best in Australia which was ultimately a loss for the spectators there. On the other hand' date=' having watched the '04 SL-Aus series in SL where Warne was making his comeback after the drug ban, there were never slogans of "Druggie" or the likes. I wonder why Murali got so much under the skin of the Aussie cricket fans.[/quote'] Did you not read my last post or just not comprehend it ? This continuing reference to 'Australian crowds' as if they don't consist of individuals who have differing opinions is sad.

However ' date=' would you not agree with me if i say Murali has been treated badly by the Aussie media and public and general ?[/quote'] Obviously, I don't agree. It's a perception, yes. Doesn't make it true. As I've already stated, the media will write whatever they want but when you refer to the 'Aussie public', you are making the same mistake as our friend, above.

[Ram]

Obviously, I don't agree. It's a perception, yes. Doesn't make it true. As I've already stated, the media will write whatever they want but when you refer to the 'Aussie public', you are making the same mistake as our friend, above.

Thousands of spectators shouting "no ball" everytime a bowler delivered the ball constitute a "small section of the crowd" ? And have you ever thought why there has been so much hype about ONLY Murali's action ? Why wasnt Shoaib Akhtar booed when he bowled in Australia ? After all , he had a kinky action too.

[The Outsider]

Did you not read my last post or just not comprehend it ? This continuing reference to 'Australian crowds' as if they don't consist of individuals who have differing opinions is sad.

Ofcourse, individuals exist in Australia. Happen to know quite a few of them personally. Would be pretty surprised if they didn't and did not have varying opinions. I am talking about a mass booing of a legend on a cricket field. I hope you comprehend what I am saying. If not, ask me and I'll try again.

[gator]

Sriram, i aint an aussie... i will shout NO BALL, everytime this javelin thrower chucks with his face/ wrist/ shoulders/elbows all over the place and contorted.... i give a rat's behind, if ICC legalized his bowling by changing the law and also looking only at the amount of straightening and not the amount of bend... the entire cricket field looks like bihar - totally lawless wenever this chucker operates.... when has ICC done anything properly... those guys give into pressure from some board or the other.... let me ask u straight question... will u stop calling akhtor and Asif as cheats and druggies cos ICC let em go scotfree???

[The Outsider]

ICC had no jurisdiction over Akhtar and Asif and have never let them go free. We've been through this before, gator. You think that the bend and not straightening should be the criteria for chucking. Fine, that's your point of view but according to the rules which rely on straightening and not the bent, Murali is as legal as they come. But throughout the history of cricket it has been the straightening and not the bent which constituted chucking.

[Donny]

Thousands of spectators shouting "no ball" everytime a bowler delivered the ball constitute a "small section of the crowd" ? And have you ever thought why there has been so much hype about ONLY Murali's action ? Why wasnt Shoaib Akhtar booed when he bowled in Australia ? After all , he had a kinky action too.

The first part is a gross exaggeration. Many other Aussies in the same crowd get embarrassed by such carry on. Shoaib and Brett Lee have both been called 'chuckers' by some fans and media in Oz.

[Ram]

Sriram, i aint an aussie... i will shout NO BALL, everytime this javelin thrower chucks with his face/ wrist/ shoulders/elbows all over the place and contorted.... i give a rat's behind, if ICC legalized his bowling by changing the law and also looking only at the amount of straightening and not the amount of bend... the entire cricket field looks like bihar - totally lawless wenever this chucker operates.... when has ICC done anything properly... those guys give into pressure from some board or the other.... let me ask u straight question... will u stop calling akhtor and Asif as cheats and druggies cos ICC let em go scotfree???

Gator, I respect your opinions and the importance you give to fair play. But the last section of this debate hasnt actually concentrated on whether Murali is actually a chucker or not , but rather -- Why has Murali been singled out for this almost humiliating treatment that has been handed to him by the Aussie-English media nexus ? And Yes , i wouldnt hesitate to call either Akhtar or Asif cheats , if at all they actually took drugs , even if they are cleared by the media. And as some food for thought to you , I might add that the very same laws by which murali was deemed to throw , can at best be called Arcane that needed reform. The bent-arm rule was primarily meant for faster bowlers and not for spinners. I wish i knew more about the bio-mechanics of the arm movement so that i can back my claims with science, but unfortunately i dont. I do hope you get the gist of what i am trying to say.

[The Outsider]

Shoaib and Brett Lee have both been called 'chuckers' by some fans and media in Oz.

I've watched numerous matches played in Australia and never except in the case of Murali have I HEARD the crowd yell "No Ball" or the likes. Feel free to produce some evidence to the contrary. BTW, as I have alluded to in my previous posts as well I don't think the Aussie "crowd" is unappreciative of talent. Tendulkar and Lara are huge counter examples to it. It is only the Murali case where they have been utterly disappointing.

[Donny]

The same ridiculous generalisation goes on and on. Will you please get it through your heads: Australians have many and varied opinions about many subjects.

[King]

The same ridiculous generalisation goes on and on. Will you please get it through your heads: Australians have many and varied opinions about many subjects.

:teeth_smile:

[King]

I've watched numerous matches played in Australia and never except in the case of Murali have I HEARD the crowd yell "No Ball" or the likes. Feel free to produce some evidence to the contrary. BTW, as I have alluded to in my previous posts as well I don't think the Aussie "crowd" is unappreciative of talent. Tendulkar and Lara are huge counter examples to it. It is only the Murali case where they have been utterly disappointing.

There are many good blokes on that side of the ocean Shwetabh. A lot of them are straight shooters though. They have their share of dimwits but a lot of them are a friendly bunch. It's unfortunate a lot of young ones go on a heavy piss in a cricket game and lose their heads. It's in our part of the world too, you will most likely see some idiots riling up the Aussie players when they tour NZ. I've heard some choicest abuses hurled at the Aussie players by some drunkards. McGrath, Katich and Warnie were the most hassled when they last toured NZ.

[SightForTheGods]

Here is the a video clip of the game that started Murali's chucking contreversy:

Sir Bradman's comment on this was "worst example of umpiring that [he had] witnessed, and against everything the game stands for. Clearly Murali does not throw the ball". Ross Emerson and Tony McQuillan, however, did not agree with this view. Here is the clip where the former Sri Lankan captain Ranatunga threatens to call of the game after Emerson calls a no-ball on Murali. http://youtube.com/watch?v=7PFsMqGfdqs

[King]

Similarly Steve Waugh thought Murali is great for the game and is clean.

[CC1981]

However, it must be noted until the ICC changed the flex allowance from 5 to 15 degrees, some of his deliveries - certainly the doosra (found in tests to be 14 degrees) - were clearly illegal.

True. But so was McGraths, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, etc etc. Basically, Murali is being faulted here for not breaking the laws (which by pre 15 degree standard, everyone was flaunting)- its just that he took the rap for it because he 'appeared' more dodgy than the rest. Flaw lies with our eyes, not with Murali's action on this accord.

Warne's claim ?? Fact: Murali has played 21 Tests against the Zimmers & Banglas. Fact: Warne has played 3. Fact: Zim & Bang are rated 9th. & 10th. in a 10 team comp and are way behind 8th. placed West Indies.

I dont think Murali can be faulted for who he plays- the scheduling is not in his hands, its in the ICC and SLCB's. What i think acts in Murali's favour is that he carries the attack all on his own and he doesnt have a McGrath to share the burden with- he only has a Gillespie in Vaas and nobody to do a Fleming, Kaspa,McDermott, lee etc (Malinga is still very new and very raw). As such, i am sure you can appreciate the fact that if you are the sole dangerman of the bowling attack, batsmen will play you far more conservatively, looking to 'play you off and score off the rest', making it more difficult for you to take wickets. Warne does not exert this type of stonewalling because for one, he comes in to bowl at a far favourable scoreline (thanks to McGrath-Gillespie opening combo being far better than Vaas- nobody) and due to the presence of better bowling depth, the opposition batsmen cannot play Warne as conservatively as they can with a one-man attack of Murali. As such, i expect lone horsemen bowlers to take more wickets but at a worse average & strike rate if they are operating solo in a pathetic attack than if they are part of a great attack. Interestingly, Murali minus the minnows is : 90 matches, 537 wickets @ 23.38. This is superior to Warne's career record, as well as Warney minus the minnows. Murali at the opposition's den (minus minnows) is 226 wickets @ 25.10. This is superior to Warne's record in the opposition's backyard. Further, i think it is generally agreed upon that the best benchmark for a spinner is his performance against India as in the last 30-40 years (if not more), Indians have been indisputably the best players of spin than any other. And Murali's performance against India (both IN India and at home) is significantly better than Warney's in both forms of the game. What is also important to note is that while Warney rarely escaped scathing punishment at the hands of Indian batsmen, Murali got 'taken apart completely' far less often against the same opposition. Murali's superiority over Warne is as comprehensive as Bradman's over Hammond. Murali does better than Warne in practically every category- overall, at home, away from home, minus minnows, in a weaker bowling lineup, having less runs to bowl against (no secret that SL batting lineup is significantly weaker than the Aussie one), against the best of the best(ie, players of spin- India), etc etc. I am sure like Hammond, Warne might score over his adversary in a few categories but overall, Murali being the superior bowler is quite a comprehensive gap.

[Donny]

Once again mate, your exaggerations do your argument no good. You are asserting Murali's up to 14 degrees illegality (and therefore fairly obvious) was no worse than the other bowlers you mentioned up to 4 or 5 degrees. Who is saying Murali has any fault when it comes to having played Z & B 18 more times than Warne ? Another smokescreen. You go on to say he carries the attack 'all on his own'. More nonsense. His team mate, Chaminda Vaas, is one of only 11 quicks to have taken more than 300 Test wickets in under 100 Tests. That he is then SL's next best option only means he gets far more opportunity than Warney ever did. In fact 9 more overs per Test.

[CC1981]

You are asserting Murali's up to 14 degrees illegality (and therefore fairly obvious) was no worse than the other bowlers you mentioned up to 4 or 5 degrees.

yes. that is what i am saying. McGrath's flex is aroun 11-12 degrees, Wasim's is around 10, etc etc. Only person to fall below 10 degrees flexion was actually Giles and Sarwan..study had a +/- 2 degree error range.

Who is saying Murali has any fault when it comes to having played Z & B 18 more times than Warne ? Another smokescreen.

Well if we both agree that Murali's record cannot be held in negetive light because he's played more against minnows, why was this issue raised or talked upon in the first place ?

You go on to say he carries the attack 'all on his own'. More nonsense. His team mate, Chaminda Vaas, is one of only 11 quicks to have taken more than 300 Test wickets in under 100 Tests.

Compared to Australian bowling, Murali does carry the bowling very much on his own. Australia in the last 15 years has had McDermott, Gillespie, McGrath, Lee, Fleming, Kaspa etc. to carry the attack apart from Warne. Apart from Murali, the only Sri Lankan to merit equal status to the plethora of Aussie bowlers named is Vaas and he is equivalent of Gillespie. But apart from Malinga in the last two years, SL has had no bowlers whatsoever to match Lee,Fleming, Kaspa etc., let alone McGrath. In other words, Warne has one great bowler, one worldclass one and several competent/decent ones throughout his career. Murali has had one worldclass bowler and nobody else for the rest of his career- except one decent bowler ( Malinga) in the last couple of years. Clearly, compared to the Aussies, Murali does carry the attack all on his own with Vaas at best a supporting act.

That he is then SL's next best option only means he gets far more opportunity than Warney ever did. In fact 9 more overs per Test.

true. but thats not real opportunity- when you are the sole bowler like a Kapil Dev from the mid 80s or a Hadlee or a Murali, you do get stonewalled a LOT more than if you were part of a great attack. So nine overs or ten more overs..its harder for you to take wickets from the get go because the batsmen are far more inclined to play you out and cash in against the lesser bowlers. A strategy they cannot adopt with as much success against Warney because Aussies have several other bowlers to make your life difficult (unlike just one other in SL's case) and you gotto chance your arm against all of them to some degree. But the fact that Murali, despite having less runs to bowl with (weaker batting lineup) and less support from his fellow bowlers, out-does Warney in practically every guage possible- overall, at home, in opposition's lair, against minnows, minus minnows and against the best of the best is quite comprehensive in my eyes of his superiority over Warney. It doesnt make Warney a lesser bowler- i think he is the second best spinner ever. But in my eyes, this is the bowling equivalent of a Bradman-Hammond comparison with the gap being narrower but no less comprehensive.

[gator]

man... i find it annoying for u guys to debate about a chucker's greatness... i am out of this thread with this....