Warne has needlessly raised the issue. Perhaps he craves to lose a few inches of lofty standing. The point was triggered off with intent reminiscent of launching a missile that seeks its designated target and signals the beginning of a war. It must have been as delicious a taunt to the itching tongue of Shane as it was useless to his knowledgeable admirers who check out on such stats for themselves while rating the two - Shane Warne and the intended target of his gibe, Muttiah Muralitharan.

In the process Warne conveniently forgot the flip side of it. A look at the direct comparison provided in the above link tells the story. After Warne's salvo there will always be enough Murali supporters eager to rattle off a number of key areas where Warne has been found short of Murali’s achievements.

It is somewhat like Sachin Tendulkar calling a press conference to point out that Brian Charles Lara gets to bat in more innings owing to his team’s batting collapses and hence gets to cross Border’s tally first while he (Sachin) owns the better figures in the ‘100s’ and ‘batting average’ columns! Controversy thy not-so-new name is Shane Keith Warne.

The timing of the comment is equally inappropriate, as Murali has once again trapped 16 Indian wickets in 2½ Test matches (with inconsequential support from his fast bowlers barring Vaas) to gift himself some genuinely honourable figures for any spinner against the Indians. How we wish that as a practitioner of the same trade Warne had come out with generous applause, for no one would appreciate the magnitude of such collections against that opposition more than him.

Dishing out stats at the fag end of careers is an affliction hitherto known to be common only in the sub-continent. The 36-year-old leg-spinner has to sit back and come to terms with certain facts. Muralitharan has some shortcomings in his record, and those are almost as numerous as Warne’s own. Warne may even find himself smiling wryly if he realises the delicious irony of the two careers. Two hugely different sets of circumstances, combined with the remarkable adaptation of two prodigiously talented but radically different spinners to those circumstances, are contributing handsomely to their ever-swelling tallies.

Murali sometimes collects cheap wickets from the minnows, while Warne once enjoyed the periodical free lunch of long-established yet mediocre middle-rung teams left half-dead by the best batsmen and greatest fast bowlers in the world, not to mention vulnerability against spin.

Murali has the demon of suspicious action to contend with, and yet Australian fast bowlers cannot be faulted if they secretly vote out their old pal in favour of having Murali in the team if they are allowed the option ahead of a series against India.

Murali is lucky enough to bowl unchanged from one end, just as Warne is blessed with bowling back up that allows him to come back fresher with renewed rip in spell after lethal spell several times a day. In short, Murali gets to take home more wickets per Test by virtue of bowling more overs whereas Warne stays well preserved to play Test cricket far longer.

Exploring another angle on the above issue, Murali scalps some extra batsmen that would have otherwise gone to the other end if Sri Lanka had sustained decency in bowling there, while Warne snares a few such when strangulated batsmen see him – a bowler with 650 wickets – as their only hope of getting among the runs after McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz keep the scoreboard frozen for ages. The aforesaid irony is complete in this case as exactly opposite team circumstances are producing similar results for the two individuals!

All in all a real wrong 'un it was from Shane Warne, and irrespective of whether it is deposited at its rightful place outside the playing arena we can only hope that Shane is shaking his head on his walk back to the bowling mark, just as we are used to seeing after one slides off the back of his palm. Shane Warne is a champion with no parallel, and more than his or some other bloke’s final wicket tally that should be enough for all of us.

Not to put a too fine point on it, but I wonder how many wickets Shane accumulated through shocking decisions made by awe-struck Aussie Umpires who wanted so much to be "Shane's Mate". Add to that the steady stream of moronic umpires who couldn't tell a leg break from a leg of lamb- Rudi Koertzen and Billy Bowden come to mind, but naturally escapes Shane Warne's mind. Richie Benaud staying silent on this matter says it all, he can't defend his boy all the time.
Shane Warne, first class bowler, second class human being.

Never have I liked Ranatunga so much after reading his comments! Australian I may be, but I do not appreciate Warne's numerous antics off the field; indeed I thought he should have been banned for life in 2003. But I have enormous respect for Murali, he has shown quiet dignity in the face of so much controversy, and did much for Sri Lanka after the tsunami hit. I only hope he keeps that same dignity when dealing with the jealous pot-shots of a man utterly beneath him.

He didn't specifically say he was referring to Murali, did he? I am not a fan of most of the things Warnie has to say when he's off the field (he has a tendency, and a stong one at that, to come up with some really stupid lines), but I would still hesitate to try and paint of a picture where it would seem Warne is disrespectful of Murali. Sure, the timing and tone ('some blokes') isn't exactly polite and doesn't give you much confidence, but I'm sure it doesn't mean Warnie doesn't have respect for Murali. I was under the impression that Warnie and Murali were good mates now. Especially after the Tsunami disaster. Warne was really helpful and travelled all the way to Sri Lanka just to help out Murali with his individual relief efforts. May be he was Warnie was just speaking generally.

Shane WAS referring to the fact that Murali has 89 wickets against Zimbabwe, the most by any bowler, and he will have a few against Bangladesh before his career ends, and since it is very doubtful that the Aussies will play Bangladesh often, then the implication is obvious.
The writer of the article or the interviewer had no doubt that Shane was referring to Murali, you should read the interview/article in question before defending someone.

The genial fellow even goes on to acknowledge Warne's contribution to Tsunami relief*; he obviously recognizes that the good work on that front by the blonde leg-spinner far outweighs the recent indiscretion he has shown in having at go at Murali's achievements. Some people are more elegant in their ways than others - can't help it, I guess.

*http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/muralis-making-things-turn-for-the-better/2005/12/26/1135445529107.html

Oh please, it is one thing responding to another's request(Shane Warne) and another actually making an effort to START helping others(Steve Waugh)Give me a break about Tsunami Relief, Angshuman, "man's actions are often predicated by the benefits of self-interest, man's words cannot hide their true and basic nature"

Zainub,
Yes, Warnie was political enough not to take names. However, let's not lose perspective. Badmouthing does not have a place in a sport as regal as cricket. Let's only go as far as sledging but let's not allow players to slander other players.
As far as the "addressing" issue goes, if I was to address this post to "The young Pakistani female blogger on Cricinfo's Different Strokes" instead of "Zainub", you wouldn't need to be an Einstein to know who I was talking to.