who is better? warne or murali?

l believe warne was a better match winner and bowled well against every1. murali has more wickets in less test matches and can easily rip out any opponent. they are both two legendary spinners. but l would say shane warne was better

Here is the way l see it.


If ur looking for who has will take more wickets, then Muttiah Murlitharan will do that, he has a better record than Warne, he has decieved more batsmen than Warne, & his record is almost untouchable.

BUT

If ur looking for a bowler, who can not only get a hat-full of wickets, but also can be relied upon, to just come up & bowl a superb spell than Warne is ur man. Think of all the occasions when Australia were struggling & then Warne came on & changed everything. l believe he is the most reliable cricketer who ever lived (except Bradman) If u needed a wicket then u could rely on Warne. Infact he could change the teams momentum in a matter of seconds.

Warne is also a great 1st slip, & a good lower-order batsmen, & he has a superb cricket brain, he can help any captain in a bad situation

Overall- Warne is a better option for the TEAM, Murali is more of a wicket-taking machine

3 reasons why Warne is better than Murali

Warne got only 17 wickets against Bang & Zim
Murali has got 163.

Kookee talked about how Warne could be turned to whenever you're in trouble.

The main reason is:

Who has Murali had to bowl after that is very good. For most of his career, only Vaas (Recently Malinga & even he is hit & miss)

Warne had to bowl after (at various points in his career)

McGrath
Lee
Gillespie
Kasprowicz
Bichel
Clark
and so on

Warne still got all these wickets despite the opposition often being 5 down before he got on because of the strength of the seam attack.

Too hard to separate.

You can argue this both ways. Richie Benaud rates Warne the best bowler he has ever seen. Kevin Pietersen says Murali is harder to play.

l grew up watching Warne destroy teams and Murali has not performed well by his standards in Australia - and Warne did not fare so well in India - so in my biased point of view l am a Warne man.

Dont be fooled by longevity or records.

Warne was the most dangerous, feared bowler at any stage in any test of all bowlers in history.

He single handedly changed matches.

He was without doubt, the most exceptional bowler ever. That will not change regardless of how many wickets Murali takes.

For those who believe that Murali is a chucker, there will never be any comparison anyway. Warne single-handedly revived a dying art while holding down a spot in the best (and most competitive) team in the world. Murali got into a happy-go-lucky Sri Lankan team that needed wicket-takers, & there is no conclusive proof that he even did it with a legal bowling action.

It is hard to compare home-and-away stats from the two because of the fact that Murali played home games on spinning tracks, while Warne is home games were mostly on pace-friendly wickets. Indeed, Murali had an average in home games of 19.36 but an away average of 26.28. Warne had a home average of 26.39, & an away average of 24.61. Similarly, both had an average of about 30 in games their team lost, but a far lower average in games won by SL or Australia. So on a statistical basis one really cannot make a decision.

At the end, the comparisons made by KooKee & GKing92 r the most valid ones, but l feel that the controversy regarding Murali is action will always give weight to Warne is claim as the better of the two, since Warne was never controversial for bowling action reasons (of course, he was controversial for pretty much everything else).

Warnie because he was a bowler. He did not have the rules changed specifically for him, like the ICC did for Murali.


Everything around you
Whats it coming to
God knows as your dog knows
Bog blast all of you
Sabbath bloody sabbath
Nothing more to do
Living just for dying
Dying just for you

As bowlers there is probably very little to separate them but Murali like Hadlee has a chance at the ten batsman is wickets. Warne had to compete with McGrath, Dizzy and co for wickets. From memory they got about 1,500 between them. The same can be said of Garner, Croft and Marshall.

As a cricketer Warne wins hands down because he could bowl, bat and captain, he lives and breaths cricket. As a person Murali streets it in!

Murali is the BEST..that is the easiest
the world record of the number of wickets simply say so,..
and there are lot of aspects,..which really prove Magician murali is better than shame worne~
cheers

The argument that Warne had to be content with what McGrath and the other quickies left for him is contestable. Is it not an advantage, in some sense, that when you come to bowl your opponent is under more pressure or some other bowler too creates pressure from the other end?

There have been so many ‘chuckers’: why none else could pose problems as he has been managing?

Mr Warne for me, the majorty of his wickets were taken against the bigger cricketing nations, where as murali over 170 playing against the minnows, banga is and zimbabwe, you can only take wickets against who you are playing but warnes wickets wre against better palying nations.

plus he could bat pretty good, and caught well in slips, murali is a terrible fielder and batter.

thanks and peace to all

Almost all the points between these two great bowlers have been mentioned,so l don,t want to repeat.There is very little to choose betwen them,so l found one criteria. l think from 400 wickets to 500 wickets mark,Murali just flew past playing series against Bangladesh and Zimbave and getting wickets in heaps. Hence Warne is better.

warne