I don't understand, Murali is a much better spinner and if he plays as many games as Warne has he would reach 850 wickets easily. he has played like 100 tests and already has something like 600 wickets compared to Warne's 699 in 134 tests.
2006-12-17 20:09:24 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Cricket
its because the people are crazy. murali is a far far better bowler. the sheer technique is better than warney's. i m not saying that warne is not good. he is very good. but murali is better.
and if you pay a bit media attention, the world is still white dominated. and the team which warne belongs too wins most matches. so he is more in the limelight than murali.
look at the background murali has... warne had everything going for him, but murali has fought a bitter battle with his country's situation and his talent/technique being challenged all the time.
2006-12-17 20:42:00 · answer #1 · answered by Gia 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Shane Warne is without a doubt the BEST of all time.Murali's wickets are questionable because of his action.AND even you could take wickets against lesser teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.Warne is a proven match winner against the better teams in the world on ANY ground.And murali has proved a "failure" on australian pictures.
PS According to reliable sources Shane Warne expected to announce his RETIREMENT Thursday 21/12/2006.This means he will retire as the GREATEST ever
2006-12-17 23:30:47 · answer #2 · answered by jb1 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Shane Warne is a better fighter than Murali is because he's still concentrating on his bowling despite the ups and downs in his life, the numerous scandals and divorce with his wife.
Whereas, I agree with you that Murali is a better bowler.
Main thing is, Murali has taken 60% of his wickets on the spinning sub-continental wickets whereas Warne has amassed his huge tally of wickets on the buncy wickets of Australia.
2006-12-17 20:56:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I fully agree with your views. I also consider Muralitharan as the best bowler as compared to Warne because of the following reasons:
1) Warne has taken 699 wickets from 143 Test Matches,
whereas Muralitharan has taken 674 wickets from
110 matches. Muralitharan has played 33 tests less
than Warne. Even if he takes one wicket in each of
the 33 tests, he would have got 707 wickets by now.
2) Muralitharan has got the economy rate of 2.39 whereas
economy rate of Warne is 2.65
3) Muralitharan has taken 425 wickets in One day Cricket
friom 282 matches, whereas Warne has taken only
293 wickets from 194 matches with economy of 4.25
as against the economy rate of 3.89 of Muralitharan.
Considering the above statistics, Muralitharan is better bowler than Warne beyond any doubt.
2006-12-17 22:18:26 · answer #4 · answered by vakayil k 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
well lets see, was murali named one of Wisden's five cricketers of the CENTURY??? NO! warne was despite playing only half of his outstanding career in the qualification period up to year 2000.
1. he bowled the "ball of the century"
2. he single handedly won the 1999 world cup, being man of the match in the semi final and the final.
3. murali bowls on doctored pitches in sri lanka, and also has taken 137 of those wickets against bangladesh and zimbabwe in 20 tests against them. warne has played only THREE matches against these crap sides, if he had played TWENTY matches aagainst them he would have 800 wickets by now.
4. murali is a chucker they had to change the rules to keep him in the game
need i say more...
2006-12-17 22:14:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Murli gets so many wickets cuz no other Sri Lankan gets any.
Warne has picked up 700 wickets despite bowling after McGrath, McDermott, Reiffel and Blee have knocked the top order off.
2006-12-17 20:14:57 · answer #6 · answered by umangu 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
action project is out dated yet asian gamers have continually project in the recognition poles. Murali isn't no longer tremendously much as good as Warne at any fee yet white human beings indirectly attraction to us- some human beings very truthfully. think if Sachin Tendulkar became Australian or English participant? He could have been extra useful than Sir Bradman. suitable?
2016-10-15 04:06:16 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
shane warne was a major breaktrough and he is more popular due to various reasons.
1. he came in at a time when thr was no other good spinner
2. he was first of its kind bowler.disturbing, unsetteling the batsmen.
3. he disturbed england very badly in ashes in his debut, and got major media highlight.
4. has allways been in media atttention for reasons other than cricket also.
5. he plays for australia and murali for sri lanka, that makes a diff. too.
he gets more coverage.
2006-12-17 21:27:54 · answer #8 · answered by AMIT G 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yea i agree...murali is the best bowler ever.....and probably the 2nd greatest cricketer of all time after don bradman!!!! warne gets alot of attention cause he is a showboat....he has the style and talk and all that!!!! ppl therefore hear more about warne than murali!!!! and its all aussies building up the hype for warne....warne is over hyped....from aussies commentators like bill lawry and richie benaud!!!! murali's record is far superior to that of warne!!!!
2006-12-17 21:35:40 · answer #9 · answered by glen 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
what you say is correct that murali is the best bowler.but there are reasons why people consider warne as the best.the first is his form.he is 37 years old and is still in very good form.he is still
hungry for wickets.he is so very determined to cricket.
2006-12-17 21:11:14 · answer #10 · answered by Jyothir G 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋