This retirement will be as big as bradmans was 50 years ago.

Its kind of a shock, I am not even an aussie supporter but I had always assumed that Warne will only quit when his ability to bamboozle the opposition starts to diminish, but to retire at this moment makes me feel quite sad, and maybe the sadness is not due to his departure but due to my unfulfilled dream of seeing him being thrashed all around, but I guess its a dream of every champion to call it quits when they are on top.

Although Warne has much more to offer , I think this will be ideal time for him to retire. On a very very high note. May be a 5-0 . What else can he wish for ????

I think English cricket followers can't quite believe that the nightmare might be coming to an end. From our armchairs we can just about understand how the English batsmen can keep out McGrath, Lee and co. But this guy ? The thing about Warne is that he always looks as though he knows how to get someone out. When he gets hit for four, or has a bad spell, it all looks just part of the plan !

It could be premature to say that this increases England's chances in 2009, but it will not do them any harm at all. Audtralia will have to find someone else to do the 4th & 5th day damage that Warne is so expert at .. .. and although Australia's pace stocks look reasonably healthy, i can't see any deadly spinners on the horizon .. ..

I think as Poms we couldn't see why he couldn't carry on indefinitely .. . so this news, I have to say, softens the Ashes blow a little. And before you accuse me of hastening the departure of one of the world's greatest ever bowlers, just imagine how painful it was 1989 - 2005 to see England's batsmen on the end of Warne's string. I personally can't wait for Warneless Ashes tests !!

I'm surprised to hear that the two of them are retiring all of a sudden - if they retire, of course. Because I thought they still got some cricket left in them. But then it's up to them to decide in the end, and it'll be better to go off in style than hang around until you're sent off.

Murali will probably overtake Warne's record, and I think he deserves that too 'cos he's taken almost the same amount of wickets as Warne has, but with much less number of matches.

But still Warne will be remembered as one of the all time greats. So will be McGrath.

The retirements of Warne and Mcgrath should offer some solace to the English side who can now try to regain the ashes in 2009. With their absence, England have a whiff of a chance

Oh! What a shock...Warne and McGrath are one of the most potent & dangerous bowlers ever in the history of cricket. If indeed both of them decide that its time to call off a day then they should tell us beforehand, so they are given the farewell they deserve rather than choosing the obscurity of Martyn. Also, although they are larger than this; it would be approprieate if the retirement comes at different time for these two 'greats'. If they both retire in the same game, it would be difficult for us to choose what we miss most; between Warne's flippers or McGrath's line. But whatever they decide, there is no doubt Australia and cricket fans all round will miss them. Adios!

finally, he is worn out

A legend like none other, except perhaps the Don! irreplaceable...Cricket will be much poorer after he leaves the field...and if and when Brian Lara too calls it a day - probably after the WOrld Cup - that will be the end of another golden era of cricket...alas, watching cricket will never be the same again...

WELL....WELL...WELL.....THE OL' WARNEY IS ALL SET TO GO.
I PERSONALLY THINK IT'S THE RIGHT TIME TO QUIT,ESPECIALLY AFTER WINNNING THE ASHES BACK.....

WHT DO U THINK GUYS...AIN'T I RIGHT???

True. I believe Warne thinks he has achieved enough.
There is not a single great milestone that Australia have not achieved, and Warne has seen it all.
I am disappointed. Next year India is due to visit Down Under. Would have loved to see another tussle between the Indian Batsmen & Warne. And of course, we can keep watching Warnie bowl like watching a Magician.

From an Australian point of view, if Warne & Mcgrath quit, it will be a HUGE void to fill.. probably an unfillable one !! its not easy to get both the best seam bowler & the Greatest spinner ever - to be part of the bowling attack. this has been the foundation of Australian Test wins for years.

imagine how many he would have taken if he had played in an australian team without so many good bowlers (one with over 600 wickets and a caravan for a house springs to mind) - 100? don't let figures fool you, muralitharan will probably overtake him, and at a better average, but warne was (is for two more torrid tests from england's point of view) on another level.

Its just not a right timing for both the legends to retire. At least McGrath must play the 2007 WC. I am really unable to find a reason why these two would retire at this time when still they have at least another 2 years to play for. Its going to be a big loss for cricket loving spectators.

I must qualify myself before uttering cricketing blasphemy - I do not come from Sri Lanka, have never been there and not planning to visit/move there.

If Warne is great (which he is, obviously), then how great is Murali? If Bradman was great with a score of 10 (out of 10, it better be!!), then I guess Warne, Richards, Sobers and Lara come in at 8. There better not be anyone at 9 or The Don will crigne in his grave. McGrath comes in at 6 or 7, so does Ponting, but where does Murali belong. I am absolutely stunned at how many wickets he takes, the man is a wicket-eating machine. Taking more than 6 wickets a game compared to Warne's 4.9 and averaging better than Warne both in terms of runs/wicket and strike rate, Murali is definitely making a strong case for greatness.

I know the throwing controversy that Murali's bowling action has generated will always undermine his reputation, but for Pete's sake, just look at how many wickets he devours! He has almost SIXTY 5-wicket hauls compared to the next best 36 (Warne and Hadlee). And he has played in 30 less tests than Warne. I always thought that Warne was the greater spinner because he was a winner, but I must admit that Murali has won Sri Lanka as many matches on the last 2 days of a test than Warne had by his 110th test. Murali has NINETEEN 10-wicket hauls, has not bowled badly agaisnt ANY team, NONE!! Murali has NO demons to date, not in the last 6 years, we all know Warne's biggest demon continues to be India in India.

So let's give it a thought, what score does Murali deserve? A 7, an 8? Or maybe a 9?

I think one thing we should remember about all the sportsmen and sportswomen we look up to, is that they are human. They aren't machines. They have just as many failings as the rest of us.

For Warney to do what he has done in the face of some unrelenting pressure from many sides is just darned amazing. I doubt any of us cricket fans could do what he has done if our own personal lives and failures were constantly trumpeted for all the world to see. It takes an extraordinarily strong person to do what he or any other professional sportsperson does.

I don't like his excessive appeals (in my view), but what he has done is amazing. I will be watching pretty much every over of his bowling on the telly these last two tests.

Good on him.

Warne is the greatest leg spinner world has ever seen simply because he had the mental strength to sustain his energy at adverse moments in the field & outside and also he constantly read the mind of Batsman and varied his strategies. He has achieved everything in Cricket and no so long, the decending cycle would start, if he remains on the field. He has a challenge in regaining his own family life. Also Murali will erase his record within a year. If he waits, he would retire as the second best spinner. He had made the decision at the right time. Good Luck for his future endeavours.

Its a real shame for him to leave the game now, but i guess if he feels its the best thing then he should hes a legend of this game and we will miss him alot!

You cannot compare Murali and Warne in my opinion. Warne is on a different plain. He has took those wickets bowling in the same team as McGrath, Fleming, Gillespie and Mcgill. If he bowled with te same bowlers Muralli did he would be up there in the 800's. Also he has more charisma than any cricketer ever.
I say that not to denigrate Murali but to celebrate Shane.

Very nicely said Jay. I agree. Murali is the world's best off spinner and Shane Warne is the world's best leg spinner. I'm bit sad that Warne and Mcgrath are leaving. I always enjoyed watching them.

At the end of the day, Warnie being the legend he is, it is a shame to see him go. However, these last couple of tests, he's started to lose that aura of invincibility. Surely it is a good thing that he goes out while he is still near the peak of his powers, and that the man we remember is one who is a superstar, rather than let him bowl on until he is a mere mortal and we only remember the has-been he once was.

Good on him for having the courage to stand aside while he is on top, I say.

Cheers for the insights right through the Ashes, Gideon. Been tops mate - keep up the good work!

More time for texting?

Jay, what were murali's records in Australia, England and South Africa?

as a bowler he has changed the way the game is played and that will be his greatest monument, he is a legend of the game.

But as S Rajesh says in his "The Numbers Game" column, "numbers never do reveal the full story". We can argue back and forth that Murali is better thanks to a lower average and higher wicket tally... and we can argue equally vociferously that Warney is better because he had quality bowlers at the other end etc etc etc ad nauseum.

Murali will probably end up with the most wickets, but by other standards he is not at the top of the list. He doesn't figure remotely close to the most economical bowler... he's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list. He doesn't have the best average (George Lohmann at 10.75 is light years ahead, sorry). He's not near the top of the list of best strike rates (Lohmann again at 34.1). He's not even the top of the current bowlers in those categories.

So looking at stats, Murali isn't as great as anyone makes out. So for Murali's sake, lets leave numbers out of it, and examine less measurable qualities. It works for other cricketers, WG Grace is the best example - his numbers are nothing fantastic yet he is revered has having a phenomenal impact on the game itself.

So lets look at Murali and Warne from that perspective...

Murali is a top bowler. He takes loads of wickets, quite economically. He wins matches. He's probably a top bloke - modest and generous. He's probably even good to his Mum.

But Warney strides through the cricketing world like a Colossus. He smites his enemies; he wages (and wins) war; he strikes terror into those who oppose him; he casts thunderbolts about with abandon, and rampant carnage sometimes destroys that which ought not be destroyed (marriages, 12 month bans, and so on).

Shane Warne will long be remembered as a Great (with a capital G). Muttiah Muralitharan will be remembered as a prolific bowler.

we will never see his ilk again.

if I wasn't a poor uni student i'd be scrapping through ebay, or whatever it takes for tickets to the last 2 tests..

Murali better than Warne?? Jay, you must be kidding!

I guess, according to your little ratings, Murali has earned an 8. But you seem to be basing that purely on statistics, and there's SO much more to being a great than that!

Look at someone like Anil Kumble, the fourth highest wicket taker ever, and nowhere near the legend that Dennis Lillee or Hadlee were, with 355 and 431 wickets under their belts, respectively.

Warney commands attention and admiration wherever he goes. He was (and still is) admired by fans from all over the globe, in similar fashion to Lara, Botham or Viv Richards, because of his presence, attitude, agression and winning spirit. These qualities can't be summed up in a bunch of numbers.

So put away the calculator, and let's judge the greats by the impact they have on the game, more so than where they sit on the lists.

To Sachintha & all the other Murali proponents: the only reason Murali has taken more wickets than Shane Warne in less matches is for a very simple reason; Shane Warne has bowled his whole career with quality bowlers sharing the wickets with him. Chaminda Vaas in a test match career spanning 12yrs & 96 tests has only claimed 313 victims!! These are two players are the only Sri Lankan bowlers to have taken more 100 test wickets!! Compare than to bowlers Warne has bowled with: McGrath (555 victims), Lee (219), Gillespie (259), Kasprowicz (113), MacGill (198), & McDermott (291) & Hughes (212) early in his career. Murali has had no one to take wickets from him other than a few from Vaas, plain & simple. Murali is by all accounts a lovely guy, sadly however he is reclusive & has brought little of himself to the game. The "Murali show" is nothing compared to the overall genius, cunning, guile, magnetism & complete theatre that is Shane Warne. Shane Warne is also one of the best slippers Australia has had in recent times & is a very handy lower order batsman, neither things Muralitharan can claim. Far more the complete cricketer opposed to the very one-dimensional Murali. To all sub-continent fans, this is no sleight on Murali. However, there is no way Murali can ever claim to being the best spinner ever- that title will belong to Warne. Murali may take more wickets (especially B-grade test wickets, i.e. 87 test wickets against Zimbabwe & 50 against Bangladesh- compare that to a total of 6 Zim wickets for Warne, it puts a bit of a different slant on Murali's 669 test wickets). Warne & Murali comparisons don't really stack up anyway as one player is the sole focus of their team (i.e. not Warne). It's like comparing apples & oranges. But, I know which apple I have paid to watch ply his craft anywhere in the world & which orange just leaves me cold......

To Sachintha & all the other Murali proponents: the only reason Murali has taken more wickets than Shane Warne in less matches is for a very simple reason; Shane Warne has bowled his whole career with quality bowlers sharing the wickets with him. Chaminda Vaas in a test match career spanning 12yrs & 96 tests has only claimed 313 victims!! These two players are the only Sri Lankan bowlers to have taken more 100 test wickets!! Compare than to bowlers Warne has bowled with: McGrath (555 victims), Lee (219), Gillespie (259), Kasprowicz (113), MacGill (198), & McDermott (291) & Hughes (212) early in his career. Murali has had no one to take wickets from him other than a few from Vaas, plain & simple. Murali is by all accounts a lovely guy, sadly however he is reclusive & has brought little of himself to the game. The "Murali show" is nothing compared to the overall genius, cunning, guile, magnetism & complete theatre that is Shane Warne. Shane Warne is also one of the best slippers Australia has had in recent times & is a very handy lower order batsman, neither things Muralitharan can claim. Far more the complete cricketer opposed to the very one-dimensional Murali. To all sub-continent fans, this is no sleight on Murali. However, there is no way Murali can ever claim to being the best spinner ever- that title will belong to Warne. Murali may take more wickets (especially B-grade test wickets, i.e. 87 test wickets against Zimbabwe & 50 against Bangladesh- compare that to a total of 6 Zim wickets for Warne, it puts a bit of a different slant on Murali's 669 test wickets). Warne & Murali comparisons don't really stack up anyway as one player is the sole focus of their team (i.e. not Warne). It's like comparing apples & oranges. But, I know which apple I have paid to watch ply his craft anywhere in the world & which orange just leaves me cold......

sorry Jay, but you cannot say Murali is better than Warne just because of number of wickets and averages. Remember Warne has had to share the wickets with McGrath, Lee, Gillespie etc, whereas who else in Sri Lanka ever takes any wickets ???
Warne is the greatest by far !

Good to see legends (Warne, McGrath) going out on or near the top of their game. There is nothing worse than having to give a champion a tap on the shoulder. Langer and Hayden should be taking note of all this. Warnie is the best bowler I have ever seen and to take so many wickets in a team with so many super bowlers is a fine effort indeed.

Jay, you talk of the number of wickets Murali has taken compared to Warne, and the 5-fors and 10-fors but you need to look at where Murali has played most of his cricket.

If Warne had played as many times against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as Murali has, he'd be gunning for his 900th wicket in Melbourne on Boxing Day!

The Murali vs Warne debate will rage in the weeks and months ahead. For mine, Warne will always prevail for the following reasons:
1) Murali is virtually the only bowler in the Sri Lankan team. While many will argue this would be a hindrance, it does give him more opportunities to bowl
2) He has many more wickets against lower quality opposition such as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. His average against Australia isn't so good.
3) Unfortunately his action is so controversial, most purists can't take to him
But Murali is a damn fine bloke and a great cricketer, just a shame he has double joints that allow him to bowl with a bent arm.
I'm sad that Warnie is retiring. The cricket world will be a little duller and a little poorer without him. Quite simply, a legend.

Let me, in the midst of all these adulatory effusions and hagiographies about Shane Warne contribute a few heretical thoughts.

No doubt, Warne is an extraordinary bowler and an exceptionally imposing cricketer. No doubt, when Warne plays he brings a remarkable competitive pitch, a dramatic intensity, a technical brilliance and a wonderful strategic incisiveness to the game - but despite this, I have never been quite able to understand the almost indecent haste and zeal with which journalists have been want to heap praise upon him. Almost from the outset, there has occurred in respect of Warne this desire to attribute to him every conceivable cricketing virtue and to solely credit him for triumphs to which he was only one contributer among others. The recent test in Adelaide is a case in point. England's frailties of attitude in the second innings, so obviously a function of many contributing elements, were suddenly, and with a disproportionate retrospective enthusiasm, ascribed wholly and solely to Warne's genius. In this rush of adulation is there not just a suspicion of a popular yielding to the 'great man theory of history' temptation, where every palpitation of an opponent is traced to Warne, every accident of fate is interpreted as further confirmation of his magic, and every defeated adversary is portrayed as bowing to the might of his will. Spare us. Let us beware of such effusions, however evocatively they are rendered. Let us not be tempted by the poetry of pomp and inflation. Let us make our assessments accurate.

No doubt, Warne in the years between 93 and 95 was about as unplayable as a bowler can be. No doubt, too, his resurgence in recent years, the way in which his mastery has become so comprehensive and his cricket so complete, deserves much of the acclaim he is presently receiving. However, the sense of disproportion, of people striving madly to outdo eachother in the extravagance of their praise, of other cricketers not receivng their due in consequence of an exclusive fascination with the merits of Warne, is inescapable.

Why is it when, in the late 90's, McGrath was clearly the most influential bowler for series after series, it was still Warne who received the plaudits; why, when for a year or so during that period, MacGill was the more effective and successful legspinner, this was never acknowledged; why, when during the recent Adelaide test Stuart Clark was just as effective in contributing to England's timid acquiescence and eventaul capitualtion, we heard only of Warne.

Why, too, do we hear so little of Murlitharan? Is it the uncertainties surrounding his technique? Is it his lack of Warne's theatrical bravado and showmanship? Bradman's technique was also questioned, even after his monumental performances in the early thirties. Have a look at Warne's and Muralitharan's respective records, not least their performances in current series. Warne 13 wickets at 40 in 3 tests, Murali about 20 wickets at 11 in 2. Assuredly, different pitches and different teams. But why are the astonshing performances of one passed over in relative silence and the other exalted into transcendent realms? Statistics can deceive. They are not the only or even the final measure. Warne has exerted an influence on this series in manner which statistics belie. Yet we are happy to measure Bradman's achievement purely in terms of statistics - even though many of his runs were scored against relatively weak bowling attacks and on pitches conducive to high scoring. If Warne's statistics are spectacular, Murali's are significantly more so. If Murali were an Australian, would the queries about his bowling action be quieted? Would his statistical achievement be given the acknowledgement it deserves? Would he be called, as arguably he ought to be, the Bradman of bowlers?

Comparing Warne and Murali is silly.

1. Murali has played more than half his tests on sub continental pitches doctored to suit his bowling.
2. He may have played less tests, but they have bowled almost an equal amount of overs in Test cricket. Warne had a bloke at the other end devouring 550 wickets as well!

What about giving Warney a farewell with THE AUSTRALIAN CAPTAINCY for the Sydney Test?

THE AUSTRALIAN CAPTAINCY???

THE AUSTRALIAN CAPTAINCY???

THE AUSTRALIAN CAPTAINCY???

THE AUSTRALIAN CAPTAINCY???

THE AUSTRALIAN CAPTAINCY???

get people talking ...

Warne says the time is right, and after the final two of his 145 tests and however many wickets he takes at Melbourne and Sydney, I think he will be vindicated in that decision.

The ABC's website has been in meltdown since the press conference began! Fortunately the streaming server was still broadcasting the radio!

For me Warne is the greater bowler of the two (comparing him to either Murali or McGrath!) - it is possible that Warne might well have taken many more wickets in a weaker Australian team without eminently talented bowlers such as McGrath, and to a lesser degree Gillespie, Lee and MacGill. There is no doubt Murali is a great bowler and will deservedly recapture the record after Warne's retirement, but over his career he has really only had strong competition from Vaas amongst Sri Lanka's bowlers in terms of taking the ten wickets in an innings.

I'm with Mark on this one.

Angus, for the record, Murali has played 6 games in England, 48 wickets at 19.21, and 6 games in South Africa, 35 wickets at 26.03. And sure, he may not have done well in Australia, but he's only played 3 matches, 2 of those very early in his career. The proof of the pudding's in the eating, and so far Murali's barely had a bite.

And for those saying that he takes so many wickets because there's no one at the other end, you may be on to something- if Murali had a higher strike rate. As it happens, Murali's is very low (at 54) which means that he'd take a high number of wickets no matter who he played with. And if we want to talk about easy wickets, what would you call England during the mid-90's?

And Tim, Murali may not be at the very top of the lists in terms of stats, but he IS at the top of the list for off-spinners. Check it out for yourself; only Laker has an average approaching his, and Hugh Tayfield has the next highest wicket/match ratio at 4.7, compared to Murali's 6.1. Warne, on the other hand, isn't at the top of ANY statistical lists among leg-spinners.

Let me back off a little bit, not in concession but in an effort to explain what citing a few statistics meant.

My intention is to spark the Warne-Murali debate which deserves a spot on intellectually stimulating cricket blogs, like this one. Someone, and preferrably an authority on cricket like a Benaud or Boycott, needs to clarify exactly where Murali stands compared to Warne and why.

Warne should consider it a compliment that we're trying to compare Murali to him and not the other way around. Elevating Murali to the rank of a legened will not strip Warne of his legendary status, simply because international cricket is a century-old game that can house one more spinner in its hall of fame.

Also, since when is taking a lot of wickets against Ban or Zim such a bad thing? My analysis on Murali yielded a "great" result not because of the weak opposition he has faced, but despite of it. And as far as revolutionizing the game is concerned, Murali really is the kind of player who comes around once every generation (20-25 years?). Maybe Warne is a once-every-100-years player, but can we all agree on giving Murali a 8 out of 10 on the greatness scale? Come on, Murali is a better offspinner than McGrath is a quickie, right?

I don't know whether anybody remembers how Murali bowled all his variety of deliveries with a brace, which did not allow him to bend his arm a millimetre. This UK Channel 4 demonstration was never shown on Australian TV channels. May be Cricket giants did not want that footage be seen by Australian public, as they would not like to see someone above legendary Warne. Western or Australian public believe scientific figures on global warming, space technological research ect...ect... without any questions. When it comes to scientific testing on Murali's arm action, still they ask questions. Is it because he is from a small nation challenging big nations ? Murali comes to ball when batsmen are settled and other bowlers can't get them out. So he is in a more disadvantaged position than Warne.

I just want to make one comment on Shane Warne. As a young boy growing up he inspired me to play cricket, and if we are measuring greatness this is surely an area that needs to be addressed. How many young boys and girls are out there playing cricket trying to emulate the great Shane Warne? I would say hundreds and thousands - and not just in Australia but all over the world, especially India.

Also on the muppet who called Murali the Don Bradman of bowling, that is just an absolute joke. Our great Don averaged 30 more runs an innings that the next best bloke. Murali averages 20.......there is a bloke by the name of George Lohmann who took 118 wickets at a fairly impressive average of 10.75 (this included 3 hauls of 8 for). From these stats I dont think that Murali is any closer to being the Don Bradman of bowling than our Great Shane Warne is.

See Murali's record for youself, the worst he has managed is against India, averaging 32. 32, that's about as much as Harmison averages. And against India, the one country that has mastered the art of playing spin.

Copy and paste in your browser in case you're unfamiliar with Cricinfo's StatsGuru feature. This is one of those important nuggets of information every cricket lover must be in the know of.

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=2041;class=testplayer;filter=basic;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;season=0;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;startdefault=1992-08-28;start=1992-08-28;enddefault=2006-12-18;end=2006-12-18;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduledovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;result=0;followon=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;viewtype=aro_summary;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

Mark, give the guy a break
Clark, MaGill and Muralitharan are not about to retire. When they eventually retire, they will have their chance for accolades and pats on the back. Now it is Warne's time. As for Muralitharan, he has got most of his wickets on woeful quality subcontinental pitches which only
suit slow bowlers, plus Sri Lanka has no other quality bowlers to compete with him for wickets ( unlike Australia which has McGrath, Lee, taking wickets at the same time as Warne ) and against high quality ( NOT ) opposition such as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. If Warne played in a team of no-hopers, he would have taken all the wickets and be over 1000 by now !

Hagiographies?
I think I remember Rowan Atkinson confusing Robby Coltrane with that word on an episode of Blackadder.

The other day Gideon had a story about Adam Gilchrist (and Rudi Koertzen). And there was much debate about who the greatest wicketkeeper of all time is. We seem to be having the same conversation again. My thoughts (as posted) about keepers is that we shouldn't look at the stats, but should look at who changed the way a player's role is viewed. In the same spirit, I think we should look at Warne, and even the exceptional Murali. I remember, back around 92/93, every kid in Australia started bowling legspin - didn't matter if they were any good at spin, or even if they were brilliant pace bowlers, everyone had a go. Where, the previous year, most had forgotten what it was. We look at the approach Warne has taken to cricket, and no spinner in history has been the same. He is his hero, Dennis Lillee, bowling, just a heap slower, and with more movement through the air and off the pitch. Even in one day cricket, where spinners were meant to spear the ball in at the stumps and dry up the runs, Warne changed the game. He attacked, and was more economical than any had dreamed possible when bowling with loop and flight. Warne moved the game to the next plane - it's just a matter of whether anyone can truly follow him. Murali, on the other hand, whilst I do not in any way deny him as a fantastic bowler, has had the advantages listed above (little internal competition for wickets, more opportunities against minnows, pitches prepared more for him where Warne's pitches were prepared for McGrath), and isn't really that much different to quite a number of other subcontinental offies. During Murali's reign as the world's premier offspinner, we've heard the praises of Saqlain Mushtaq, Harbajahn Singh (sic), etc. They tend to bowl in a very similar manner - Murali is the king, no doubt, he has generally more subtlety than the others and has maintained his form so well for so long, where the others have faded. But, at the end of the day, there are several to compare him to. There hasn't been another legspinner like Warne. Kumble has played a similar time and taken many wickets, but, as a product of his environment, doesn't seem as effective as Warne. Certainly not in Australia! Kumble bowls more in the manner of the old, pre-Warne one-day spinner. The only leggie who could rival Warne is McGill, and, unfortunately for him, there generally hasn't been room for both in the one team.

So, to my mind, Warne is a colussus of the game - he's dramatically changed the role of the spinner in everyone's minds, as Gilchrist did the keeper (even if Kaluwitharana was the one who initiated that change), as Lillee did for Australian fast bowling in the '70's (from what I can gather - I'm not that old!), and as Bradman and others of his era did for batsmen in the 30's. And what makes these players stand out, beyond their redefining of the game, is the way that they maintained their standards over the length of their careers.

On the point of whether Murali's nationality (if he were an Australian...) has played any role in his status, undoubtedly it has. If Murali played in Australia, his action would be different, and he would bowl in a different way (different lines, flight, etc - everything). Not necessarily as effectively, but he'd be different. That's a given. Everyone is a product of their environment. Before the ICC revised the "chucking" laws, Murali was far from alone in being queried about his action. And that's no surprise - at that point, it was about Murali's doorsa, and that's no surprise - it's very hard for anyone to bowl that delivery in that manner without bending their arm, if not impossible! So that's no slight on Murali. Most bowlers being examined at that time were spinners from the subcontinent, although I will readily admit we do have a bowler being examined in Australia at the moment. However, he's not in the national squad. Something Ian Chappell said back when the controversy was last at its peak is pertinent - he said that, in Australia, because of it's decent coaching clinics, good resources available to coaches at all levels, good tv coverage, etc (all coming from having a decent quality of life - something not necessarily common in the subcontinent), someone would've picked up a suspect action before the person played for their country. And, if there was a problem, it would've been rectified. My thoughts about Murali are these – he’s a great cricketer, but he hasn’t changed much. A subcontinental finger spinner is still a subcontinental finger spinner – the theories haven’t changed. Therefore, although his stats are exceptional, he hasn’t changed the game more than Warne.

Please don't be offended that I've only listed Australians - every nation has their heroes who have changed the way the game is played in their nation. Think of Sobers, Viv Richards, Gavaskar, Kapil Dev (an Indian fast bowler? No one had thought of that before), Dr W.G. Grace, Greig, Botham, the Pollocks, yes, Murali, Ranatunga... All of them have made a huge impact in their countries, and to cricket in general. Some have better records than others. But all have left a legacy. The true greatness of Warne, Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, and Viv Richards – Wisden’s five cricketers of 1900 – 2000 – is that they not only turned the game in their own countries, but all over the world.

There was a time when Chappell, Marsh and a reduced Lillie left Aus cricket all at the same time, an exodus that sent Aus cricket plunging into a dark decade...Institutes, coaches, new attitudes were ordained in an organizational revolution that sent Aus spiralling to the dizzing heights it finds itself in now...the depth of Aus cricket will be tested over the next year in this new exodus..but tellingly i don't fear it will be anywhere as bad as then..there will be a rebuilding period, but new stars will emerge, old stayers will rise up to the mantle..warne was once a crap bowler too, but luckily he showed as much inteerst to learn his art, as he did to babes, booze and hodogs..given the occasion, given the need, I'm sure we'll be cheering for new characters soon..

I think India will win Test series against SA.

I have always been a great fan of the attitude Warne showed on the field, always showing a cunning smile, always trying something new to dominate the opposition and playing mind games and most often winning them. I was once impressed to see him bowling at the pair of Lara and Bravo. He would bowl quicker deliveries with a side-on action with little spin to Bravo and perfectly slow legspinners with maximum spin to Lara. He seemed to bowl the same thing for hours, but his deliveries have always been different from each other. A batsman could never afford to relax against him, and this is what he looked for, the moment a batsmand relaxed aganinst him, he would get the better of him. Whenever I watch his bal of the century, I am amazed at how the ball first swung in the air into the batsman and then spun viciously and Gatting was left bewildered as were all the viewers. He was a true champion and unfortunately, some newsmongers were always looking to make a scandal of him. His personal life was unfairly brought into the limelight, and the saga culminated in his separation with his wife. Sin is universal and all commit it, but when it comes to branding others sinners, people forget their own sins.

The question that haunts the minds is: Is it the beggining of a mass exodus from the Aussie team? We were still not out of the shock of Martyn's exit when Warne has announced his retirement and McGrath is also expected to say farewell in the near future. The question to ponder is what is going to be the future of Australian Cricket. Of course Australia has wonderful cricketers waiting in the wings, with the likes of Mitchell Johnson and Dan Cullan, but the question remains: can they emulate these outgoing champions who floored all sides in their time and are leaving at the peak of their skills, if not age? With the exit of such wonderful players, cricket will definitely be left poorer and emptier.

dear mark,
i hate to bring this up, but to answer your question, if murali were an australian, he would of been sent to the a.i.s. as a teenager and had is action 'fixed'. if that failed hed now be playing grade cricket - maybe...
in future years, it must be reported when talking of his amazing feats that THE LAWS OF THE GAME WERE CHANGED TO ACCOMMODATE HIS ACTION.
i feel for him and all cricket lovers, but the icc are spineless. and is there a theme of bending over for the asian countries were there is so much cricket wealth?

I have to agree with Jay and others that, as a bowler, Murali is better than Warne - indeed IMO by far the best bowler in the world, and probably one of the best handful of all time.

The fact that Murali has had to play against Australia (which Warne hasn't), and that he has notably lacked quality bowling support, makes this conclusion even more emphatic.

Think about it: Murali has to bowl a lot more overs than Warne - he *has to*, whether he feels like it or not, whether tired or not, whether he is in-form or not. Then remember that despite all this he still has a *lower* average than Warne - as well as 6 wickets per match instead of Warne's 4.9.

(A merely good bowler who lacked support might take a larger share of wickets per match, but would certainly do so at a very poor average.)

Warne's 4.9 wickets per match is superb, Murali's 6 is simply astonishing over the long stretch and number of test matches Murali has played all over the world.

There is no way out of it - Murali is better as a bowler than Warne. Indeed, I only know of the Englishman SF Barnes who achieved more than this (7 wickets per match, and at an average of about 16) but over a much shorter run of matches - and he is often considered the best bowler ever.

But cricket is entertainment, and it would be hard to beat Warne as an entertaining bowler. As a total package, he is incomparable.

Interestingly, the very best bowlers are probaly spinners: SF Barnes, Australia's O'Reilly, Murali, Warne - but most spinners have quite mediocre statistics compared with seamers, even some very famous spinners. It is what the statisticians call 'a bimodal distribution'.

But having one of these rare super-spinners in your side is worth more, IMO, than having ANY other kind of player. As Australia will soon find out.

And then there is McGrath, apparently about to go. Having two such players as Warne and McGrath in one side over a long time happens very seldom, and makes a very big difference indeed. I estimate that they are equivalent to about 100 or more extra runs per match above even good quality bowlers in opposition (such as Hoggard and Panesar).

Mark,

I agree with some of your rant, but you slip away a bit at the end.

I'll admit that originally, when I insisted that 'greats' be judged by impact on the game, rather than merely statistics, I did pause to consider the seemingly contradicting Bradman.

However, I realised two things:

1. Although not an extrovert/ character/ imposing figure like Warne, he created an absolute sensation in the media around the world due to his freakish ability. All batsmen since have been compared to him since then, surely a sign of having a huge impact on cricket.

2. Secondly, his stats are leagues above even the second best batsmen, in terms of average, conversion rate and double hundreds. Surely the magnitude of this statistical domination warrants the label 'greatest', even without considering other factors. It's the phenomenal gap between him and second best which is cause for this title.

Murali's figures are spectacular, there's no doubting that, but he lacks the bravado, domination, agression and character to be regarded a 'great' in terms of impact on the game, and his stats aren't so dominant that he can wear the 'great' label on figures alone (Bradman is the only one).

Warney the best ever spin bowler, Bradman the best ever batsman, McGrath one of the best pacemen!

Murali a very good, not a great!

Murali and Warne are both in the absolute top class of bowlers by any measure. If you have had the privelege of watching Murali on song (a privelege that may well be denied Australia in future due to his thin skin and the incesant and frankly juvenile yelling of no-ball in the crowd when he plays here)you will know that he can be just as compelling as warne, ripping the ball both ways, getting dip, swerve and bounce through shear force of will. But he is not Shane Warne and he will never be as famous. Warne's legend is to do with his whole persona, from his died hair to his philandering to his sledging. Murali's glare and humility can't compete. Murali is a great cricketer, but Warne is that AND a great spectacle - you don't even have to like cricket to be enthralled.

hey jana you sound hot when you get heated..can i have your email!!!

Shane Warne is an very good bowler but not an great bowler. It is just pure theatre.

Most of the time he took just cheap wickets. Mcgrath is an far superior bowler who targeted the best batsman in opposition team. Warne then just used the pressure and took wickets.

See Warne's record against India and it is just pathetic. His bowling average against India is 47.18. Indian batsmen have taken him apart in Suncontinent where the pitches help spinners the most

No wonder he is retiring before India tours Australia.

Murali is an far superior bowler to Shane warne. His record against India is better and he does not resort to theatrics to get wickets.

While many other spinners were just as dangerous when the ball was spinning square, no bowler has ever been more threatening against good opposition on a flat deck. Australia had rarely drawn a Test while Warne has played. My favorite memories of Warnie will be bowling over after over of swerving toppies at Old Trafford in 1997, two stellar matchwinning efforts at Capetown, a long spell when he and McGrath rendered Dravid and Tendulkar strokeless at Adelaide in 1999, and two staggering mind-over-matter efforts to win 'lost' World Cup semis. Will Hampton High ever forgive him for taking that sporting scholarship to Mentone Grammar ? Maybe.

I think they are both great spinners, comparing them is useless. Imagine comparing Lara to Tendulkar, they are very different players and they've both played some magnificient innings. My only contibution to this argument is that Sri Lanka often wins at least one test match in a series when Murali bags ten or more wickets. Shane Warne often contributes, as has been noted earlier, alongwith McGrath, Lee, etc.... They are both greats and any comparison between them should simply yield that they are both great. Any other result simply implies that there was a large amount of subjective analysis involved.

Well, there is a long debet going on here on who is the best - Murali or Shane?
Taking only bowling into account, Murali has better stats. But it's not only about the stats, nor about taking more wickets against the weakest teams, and more precisely not about controversies. It's about the contribution of a player towards the Game of Cricket in his own country as well as all around the globe. And I think Warne is admired, desired to watch, more cheered up than Murali. Murali can turn the red cherry even on a glass sheet, but Warne's greatness lies in his attitude. And when Ausies have some pace bowling greats like McGrath (>550 wickets) playing along with him, it always becomes difficult that you would be getting chance to bowl some marathon spells. If Warne were to play without McGrath, Lee and Gillespie, I am sure he would have already taken 1000 test wickets. Personally the way I am feeling right now, I won't feel after Murali's retirement.
Both of are treat to watch, but the charisma lies with Warne and he steals the show.

To Mark,

Murali, the Bradman of bowlers?
What are you talking about?
How can that even be said?
I would consider a bowling average of 20-25 the equivalent of 53/54-60 in batting, what's Murali's average again?

Then there are all the other factors that need to be considered that were mentioned in the post above...So there is no way that he can be considered 'the Bradman of bowling'. What about McGrath? He averages 21, is he the Bradman of bowling? Statistics are not everything.

Murali is not even 'the Warne' of bowling (heh heh). Murali played against opposition which, generally should not even play tests, he has taken something like 100+ wickets (conservative estimate) against the minnows of Bangladesh and Zim. Warne has taken 6.

People point to Warne's record against India in India. What is Murali's against Australia? Overall his average is verging on 32, even this so called 'Bradman of bowling' really struggles against certain teams. I wonder what his average would be if he played more than 2 games in Aus? Remember the 0/99 he got carted for last year in 10 overs in the ODI series here in Aus?

Murali is, as was said above, a very good, not a great. Warne is a great. The coverage of his retirements and the debates that have ensued prove this
Warnes influence on the game and what he has done for cricket the world over, not to mention his statistical feats on the pitch, automatically place him in the elite in history, his selection as a cricketer of the century merely legitimize the claim.

I just hope that if Pidgeon retires he gets the kudos he deserves as he is one of the all time greats also.

Two wonderful legends and it is sad to see them go. I'm just glad I got to see them play.

I see a lot of people putting Murali behind Warne while the others do the contrary.
But the fact remains that he has taken more wickets in less number of matches than Warne.

As a reply to the fact that he has bowled more:
Yes he has, but he had to get those wicket all alone most of the time.
He rarely got a good support from the other end. So it makes it even harder.
Plus, warne always had good scores to defend - their batting lineup rarely let the bowlers down.
But Murali always had to defend rather difficult tasks.

I saw that Skid said here Murali's good, but not great.
I'll say he is great, and greater than any other bowler ever lived!!!
Just think, if we compare a 5 wicket haul to a 100 by a batsman, and a 10 wicket haul to a 200, Murali's got 57 hundreds and 19 double hundreds!!!

Steve Waugh didn't say that Murali is the "Bradman of Bowlers" for nothing.

I can forecast from this Ashes to the end of 2008 10 Australian cricketers will probably retire from International cricket, They are:

1. Damien Martin, 35 retired
2. Shane Warne, 37 retiring after Ashes
3. Glenn Mcgrath, 36 retiring soon
4. Justin Langer, 36
5. Matthew Hayden, 35
6. Adam Gilchrist, 35
7. Stuart Macgill, 35
8 Michael Kasprowicz, 35 soon
9. Brad Hogg, 36 soon
10. Jason Gillepsie, 31, injuries

Most of them are gone by the end of world cup.

You can imagine Australian bowling without McGrath
Gillepsie, Kasprowicz, Warne, MacGil and Hogg.

And their batting without Gilchrist, Langer, Hayden, Martin.

And the other players are in their 30's, not many promising players in their 20's, if they wont take action their cricket team will be like West Indies in Later 80's and 90's.

When Dennis Lillee retired I cried.

For the last 24hrs I haven't been able to function.

We will miss you Shane.

"It's not about stats" "Stats don't reveal the true story" - this is the kind of stuff they would have you believe. Of course stats don't tell the whole story or Sehwag would be better than Richards (better average in tests). Sehwag is clearly not better than Sir Viv Richards, but his average does suggest that he is better than Matthew Sinclair or some other kid like Hasim Amla or someone.

Follow my logic and you'll undertand where I'm coming from:

Murali's numbers make him better than Warne - a 10 for Murali (and Barnes and Lohmann) and a 9 for Warne - this is purely statistical ranking.

However, Murali gets a -1 for suspect action and a -1 for taking too many wickets against weak opposition. Puts him at 8.
He gets another -1 for not sharing his wickets with any other worldclass bowler.
But add back on a +1 for murali, since he often has to operate against batsmen that are scoring freely off Malinga on the other end or not being troubled by Vaas.
Murali ends up with an 8.

Warne gets a -1 for having failed to produce anything of note in India time after time despite conditions suited ideally to spin bowling. Let's face it, he got outdone by better batsmen (Tendulkar, Dravid and co.) and don't blame it on the heat or dust because Kasprowicz and Gillespie have bowled admirably despite the conditions and their sapping runups.
Warne gets another -1 for often having to bowl to batsmen who are already low on confidence after being hit by a scorching Lee delivery or playing and missing at McGrath's yo-yo'ing variation.
Now add +1 back onto Warne and make him an 8 (better than Murali) for revolutionizing the game of cricket, making legbreak sexy and providing the sort of entertainment Murali has never even promised. He has left an indelible mark on the game of cricket and almost deserved +2 for that.

So the argument leads to: murali has a solid 8 and Warne has a solid 8 and a discretionary 9. I would say 8.5.

To me Warne and Murali _both_ belong in cricket's hall of fame, not just the spinner's hall of fame.

Chew over it, you'll appreciate my subjectively objective (or vice versa) analysis.

Snalahs, I disagree.
Australia's greatest asset is it's 1st class competition at both forms of the game. There is a list of waiting players to come through the ranks.
Who are they? Well you'll find out soon enough.

Jay & Sachintha are living in dream worlds.

Murali is not in the same class as Warne (or McGrath, for that matter). Warne & McGrath have perfectly refined & beautiful copybook actions that typify what both forms of bowling (i.e. wrist spin & seam) should be all about. Muralitharan, due to congenital malformations can never hope to achieve their level of aesthetic purity in his bowling action. In a way Murali is a freak, he has been given a so-called physical imperfection (i.e. a non-straightening elbow & "double jointed wrists") that allow him some almost unnatural purchase on the ball. From a classical point of view, Murali is most definitely far from pretty to watch. On top of which, he lacks the charismatic charm required to win over opposition fans (like Monnty is doing right now in Australia). He does not dominate batsmen. There is no menace. He grinds batsmen out. There is no 'show'. Some people may like his softly softly approach. To me, it smacks of someone who got away with something, who doesn't want to draw any unnecessary attention to themselves.

If you look at Warne & Murali when its Aus. v SL, the amount of balls bowled is almost perfectly identical. However, Murali has bowled 49 less maidens than Warne, claimed 9 less wickets & gone for 6 more runs per wicket. If Murali had of played more cricket against the big teams (he has never dominated Australia or India), in big series (& longer series, i.e. 4-6 tests) would his figures have been as good & would he have been as injury-free? Answer: very, very highly unlikely. Taking 137 test wickets against Zimbabwe & Bangladesh is not a crime, but those wickets need to be put in context. Zimbabwe & Bangladesh would be comprehensively beaten in every form of the game by every state side in Australia. Sri Lanka is not yet in the upper echelon of the major eight test playing nations & as a result they have to play the two minnow nations (i.e. Zimbabwe & Bangladesh) more frequently in abbreviated series. Such is the politics of world cricket.

Cricket is a highly political game, & I sense in another age Murali would not have been allowed to continue (think Ian Meckiff). However, technology, big money & the strength of cricket in the subcontinent has allowed Murali a reprieve. Murali has given Sri Lankan cricket a real bite & has allowed S.L to pull themselves up in the world standing to a point where they can (on their day) match it with the best, & for that I welcome his presence. However, from a 'pure' cricket perspective Murali is not in the same league as Warne or McGrath, ever. He may be lauded in the subcontinent because he has given fight to the Asian game & been a potent weapon for Sri Lanka, but elsewhere his game is not held in the same esteem. Do not get me wrong, I admire & respect Murali for all he has endured & done in the game within the now-altered parameters of bowling, but has anyone else had the rules changed for them recently....?

Hey Sachintha,

This is a quote from Steve Waugh.

Steve Waugh
"It's very hard to judge across eras but Warne would sit pretty comfortably as the second best player ever. He has been responsible for winning more Test matches than anyone else I have seen or played with."

Now, i'm just guessin, but I think he's implying DG Bradman is the best.

So if you're using Steve Waugh as an ally in saying Murali's better than Warne, think again!

There has been a lot of debate about whether Murali or Warne is the better bowler.
I think both of them are excellent bowlers and it’s our good fortune that we got to see them both operating in our lifetime.
You don’t get to see all time greats all the time. But if you compare the two, Murali is clearly ahead of Warne as a bowler.

Morgan, you say statistics aren’t everything, yet you use statistics to prove your point.
What do we use to compare two all time greats?
The charisma of Warne? I don’t say someone’s better than the other just because he looks good.
Or Warne’s attitude in the middle? I think he likes to show off a lot.
That’s what he does in the middle whereas Murali goes quietly about his business.

So I think stats are the best way we can compare two greats, though it’s not 100% perfect.
Nobody’s perfect!

Since you(Morgan) say that Warne’s record against India is irrelevant and compare Murali’s record against Aussies (Stats again), let see it.
Warne takes 43 wickets in 14 Tests against India at an avg of 47.18.
Murali takes 55 wickets in 11 Tests against Australia at an avg of 31.41 (source : cricinfo)
Now which is the better record?
If you add the fact that Aussies have a more formidable batting lineup than India has, you’ll clearly see the point I’m trying to make.

Then let’s consider the fact that Murali takes great number of wickets against minnows like Zim and Bangaladesh.
He does, but it’s not his fault that they are weaker teams.
Had Warne played against them more often wouldn’t he have taken large number of wickets as well?
Now how do we compare this.
Take their records excluding minnows.
Murali takes 537 wickets in 90 Tests at a better Average, Econ and Strike rate than Warne does.
Warne has 682 in 140.

Now there’s another fact nobody has mentioned but I’d like to.
Not out of any disrespect for the Englishmen, but all know how poor the England team is against the spinners.
Warne gets to play 5 Tests against them every year whereas Murali gets only 2 or 3 every few years.
Now had Murali played more matches against them (or had Warne played lesser number of matches, for that matter) how would their records have looked?
For everyone’s information, Murali has 93 in 13 at an avg of 19.74 against England.
Warne has 186 in 34 at an avg of 23.43 (source: cricinfo)

Now if you move out of stats, there is the fact that Warne played tests with another greats like McGrath and had to share the wickets. True.
But there is also the fact that Murali had to bowl all alone most of the time.
Not meaning any disrespect for good old Vaasi, but the support he gives Murali is nowhere near the support the other Aussie bowlers give Warne.
Also, the Aussies has got a better batting lineup than the Sri Lankans got and Warne can place his trust on them which makes him feel more secure.
But Murali have to live with a not so good batting lineup most of the time.

It’s true that Murali bowls lot of overs, but he still managed to retain a better avg, strike rate and economy rate than Warne. Isn’t that something. A good bowler may take a great share of wickets, but only a great would maintain such high standarts.

Then again the number of matches Murali has won single handedly for Sri Lanka? It’s far greater record than Warne’s.
Warne had the support of the best team in the world.

Then everything he had to go through because of chucking nonsense?
According to the ICC survey in 2004 ICC Champions Trophy, only Sarwan was the legal bowler according to then-rules.
Now who’s the chucker?
It’s completely fair they changed the rules to suit everyone.

So it’s clear that we can’t compare the two greats unless we use statistics.

Therefore my conclusion is:
Is Warne an all time great? YES
Is Murali an all time great? DEFINITELY.
Is Murali greater than Warne as a bowler? BEYOND DOUBT!!!

Oh, Skid I just saw that last post.
I never said Warne is a bad bowler.
He is one of the all time greats.
I'm just trying to say that you guys are so unwilling to give Murali the credit he deserves!!!

Warne has always had more runs to operate with than Murali could even imagine having. Also, doesn't it make sense to admit that winning SL a match is so much more harder than winning one for Australia. Did you all know Murali's first class average is the teens and every time he puts on a county uniform he invariably ends up with a 6-to-7 wickets/match average at the season's end. If taking wickets doesn't make you a matchwinner, what does?

I guess if everything was going to be as subjective as the Murali-Warne debate, then I declare Mike Brearley to the best cricketer ever. Blasphemy, you say, heresy! Yeah, but in my own subjective little planet, captaincy is considered a trillion times more important than run-scoring!

Look, if we're going to make everything so subjective where salespeople would never be assessed by their revenue numbers or athletes by their statistics, no argument will ever have an end. There will no hall of fame, no great, greater or greatest or heroes in sport. Give the man his share, Murali surely belongs in the upper echelon of cricketing socitey.

It is inevitable that we look at the records of Murali and Warne in India as well
Murali - 8 tests - 31 wkts @ 39.58
Warne - 9 tests - 34 wkts @ 43.11
Not much to seperate these two here.
But definitely Warne has a far greater impact on the game

Sachintha's last comment would put everybody on the correct track who takes nonsens about Murali. Murali doesn't deserve that kind of bad treatment. One day historians would write that there was a tiny man form a tiny nation challenged against cricketing giants and won against all odds.

Thanks Janaka.

About my last post: I forgot to mention that in each of the stats provided there, Murali has a better wickets per match ratio than Warne.

It's nice to know that there are some people who could appreciate what Murali has done to the game.
Though a few narrow minded will deny the credit Murali deserves, there are millions of his admirers out there who can see the true greatness of his.
Murali too has inspired millions of people and will continue to do so...

Ok, I'm a couple of days late (it's Christmas!). I feel there are a few points to be made here.
Firstly, to say that it will be said, "there was a tiny man form a tiny nation challenged against cricketing giants and won against all odds" is inaccurate. A tiny man - Murali's no giant, but he's no Lilliputian, either. And a tiny nation? Sri Lanka's population is almost identical to Australia's. A "tiny nation" challenging the giants can only be New Zealand (4 million, most of whom love Rugby), West Indies (which happened - under 10 million, from what I can see), or Zimbabwe (about 12 million). Australia and Sri Lanka are next in line, and Australia's profitable organization removes us from being considered a small nation. If Australia's not a small nation, then neither is Sri Lanka. None of the Asian countries in the elite level of the ICC are under-populated enough to be considered small, and, if considered by population, and therefore their theoretical talent pool... The results should be better. The excuse of poverty can be used, but balanced against population... The dominance of the West Indies was a massive achievement, as is the dominance of the Australians, although perhaps not quite to the same extent, given the larger talent pool (although it's heavily drained by other sports - I'm not sure of the competition cricket receives in the West Indies, or even in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, etc, but here we have three major professional football codes, etc.). Ian Chappell's right - Australia's dominance, as much as we enjoy it down here (400 runs is too tight a test win for my liking!), is an indictment on the rest of the world. As was the West Indies' dominance. As much is as it a credit to those two nations/regions.
There has been talk in this thread and similar ones comparing Warne and Murali (also from Mr Haigh) concerning Murali's action - some saying he's a chucker, some pointing out that he can bowl all his deliveries with a steel sleeve on his arm. This is being used to elevate/denigrate Murali. This is pointless - every delivery is different to every other one. Even McGrath and Shaun Pollock, at their absolute peaks, couldn't produce two identical deliveries - from run-up to arm movement to follow through to line to length to bounce. Just because a bowler can do enough to get through a session with the ICC's watchdog, doesn't mean they will bowl exactly that way every delivery. Murali can bowl a doorsa with his arm in a steel sleeve - extremely impressive, with no sarcasm intended. Take the sleeve away, and the arm's natural tendency is still to bend, and, with the restriction of the sleeve removed, there's nothing to stop that happening. Therefore, any umpire should still have the option of calling any bowler at any time. Am I saying that Murali's achievements should be diminshed by this? Thankfully, that's not for me to decide. But, for those who say that Murali's 100% clean, have a think about it. And think about operating within the guidelines of the law, compared to operating in the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is that you should try to keep your arm straight, the guideline is don't move it more than this much (because we can't easily enforce anything closer than this). People who complain about Australia's appealing "technique" should consider this. They are within the guidelines of the law as much as Murali's action. You shouldn't criticise one and not the other. And, for those who say Murali's a chucker, well, honestly, anyone can be a chucker on any given delivery. What I will say is that Warne's action, due to his lack of unusual physical conditions, is more traditional, purer, if you will. And I find his style of bowling - a little slower, with more variation - more entertaining to watch. Honestly, I actually prefer watching Vettori to Murali - Murali's more lauded, but Vettori's just more the style of finger spinner I prefer - looping, drifting one way, spinning the other, a more looping, less rushed approach to the wicket, etc. But I grew up in Australia...
Talking about who took more wickets against whom, who Murali and Warne had to compete for wickets against, whether there was anyone at the other end building up pressure, whether the wickets they got were top batsmen or bunnies, and the pitches they bowled on is very hard to balance. There are many who say that Murali's achievements are greater, because he has had much less help at the other end, where the contrasting view point is that those applying pressure at the other end to Warne take wickets off him. At the end of the day, I personally feel that all those factors lean in Murali's favour, not Warne's - Murali has more suitable home pitches (he doesn't have an equivalent to the WACA!), he's had more chances against minnows, and gets top order batsmen because he sees them earlier than Warne. Warne wanted his 700th victim yesterday, but didn't get the ball until the 41st over. Has that ever happened to Murali? That's why Murali probably has more wickets against top order batsmen than Warne - he's the only bowler in the team that likely to get them out. Warne also consistently has taken a lot of top order batsmen - his "bunnies" include top order players Richie Richardson, Cullinan, etc. Batsmen who made good runs against many other teams. And he often got them when they were set - you can't score 50 off McGrath and co and not have your eye in! No one scores that many through the slips! I expect that top names like Atherton would also have been added to the list, if it weren't for McGrath consistently knocking them over before they faced Warne. Even Lara could've appeared more in Warne's list, if McGrath didn't pick him up so often. But, if you get to 50 against Sri Lanka, you've most likely made it in against Murali, and should be able to counter him.
All the talk of Warne's figures in India should be mentioned. Playing in India, for Warne, is not like playing in Australia for Murali. If Murali comes to Australia, he's got the advantage of extra bounce on Aussie wickets. And Murali playing in India, well, it's very similar to playing at home. Warne, on the other hand, in going to India, loses bounce, and isn't otherwise accustomed to the conditions (which Murali is). And, unlike pacemen, his style of bowling isn't very common, so he can't just ask the average bowling coach for tips. Therefore, his average was always going to suffer. His style of bowling - slow leg spin - is much less suited to Indian conditions than Murali's - if that weren't true, Kumble wouldn't bowl so much quicker and with so much more top spin than Warne.
If we look at probably the best non-Indian-in-India player of spin, well, the one everyone out here is saying has beaten Warne, and one who has played both in the last year, we need to look at Kevin Pietersen. Not a bad thing - Pietersen has excellent footwork, and is tall. So he can either leave the crease, or reach a long way out of his ground, making it hard to bowl a good length to him. If we look at overall career averages, against Murali, he's been dismissed 4 times at 50.5. Against Warne, overall (home and away) it's 4 at 23.25, in England only, it's 3 times at 30.33. I could be misreading the Statsguru numbers... Regardless, his average against Sri Lanka is fully 20 runs higher than his average against Australia! And, in 3 matches against Sri Lanka, he has 2 100's, compared to 2 100's in 8 tests against Australia - 1 at home in 5 tests, compared to 2 at home in 3 tests. Pietersen hasn't been stumped (although he should've been yesterday), Murali had him LBW twice, Warne's bowled him twice. Unfortunately, I couldn't find strike or scoring rates - would've been interesting.
It was mentioned that Warne had the advantage that he didn't have to play against Australia... I reckon the odds are that he would've run through Australia quicker than Murali ever did! Whereas I think the Sri Lankans would have very few problems with facing Murali - there are more similar to Murali than there are similar to Warne. That doesn't mean that Leggies are new in Australia - we have a tradition, from Grimmett and O'Reilly through Benaud to Hohns then Warne and MacGill. But there hasn't been anyone who has changed our (Australian) perception of spin more than Warne.
At the end of the day, as Vishnu said, cricket is a highly political game. I appreciate the reference to poor Meckiff. Murali has been critical for cricket in Asia. And the ICC is pretty close to being run by the Asian nations now (don't crucify me, just do the math!), so of course they will do everything possible to develop the game in their territory. And fair enough!!! Another way of saying that cricket is highly political is to say it's highly nationalistic. Slightly off topic, but if Pietersen were playing for South Africa, instead of England, anything he said about quotas would be received differently - I imagine he'd be disciplined internally. Since he's playing for England, they're complaining to the ICC - the only way they can access him. In fact it's almost a throw back to the D'Oliviera (sic) scandal! My point is that cricket - like all sport - is nationalistic. An Australian will basically never agree that Murali's a better spinner than Warne, and to expect a Sri Lankan to say Warne rates higher than Murali would be similarly ludicrous. It's even unlikely to get an Indian, Bangladeshi or Pakistani to rate Warne more highly than Murali. In contrast, I'd never expect a Kiwi to side with Australia (even though I'll readily praise them when appropriate - where are Fleming and Vettori again..?)! At the end of the day, it doesn't seem that Australia has too many "friends" in world cricket - everyone wants to see them beaten! I guess that's what happens when you're the dominant side in the game for a long period...
And, finally, at the end of the day, this column was about the end of Warne's career - let's celebrate his career, not write him off as hype!
Please accept my apologies for the length of this rant! :-)

I’m really disappointed to see the topic of Murali’s action being dragged in again. It is ridiculous to say that Murali may bowl the ‘doosra’ bending more than he’s allowed. Yes, he did bowl exceeding then-allowed amount of 5 degrees, but then all the others (except Sarwan) did so. This is according to an ICC survey and it was conducted during the 2004 ICC Champions Trophy tournament – not just a test session. So it is fair to say that his action is clear. If his is not – certainly the others’ aren’t too. So the only logical solution for the ICC was to change the rules. There’s no point accusing ICC for it.

And for Warne’s performance in India, Tadhg says it’s because he doesn’t get the amount of bounce he’s used to. Now, a world class bowler looses his form just because he’s in alien conditions? Just because he doesn’t get the amount of bounce he’d like? Please!...... Then I can say the same against Murali. There are green pitches, less cracks in Australia and England etc…..

And comparing their records against just one batsman is also a very poor way of assessing two bowlers. Then, I ask you to recall the time where Warne got thrashed by Sachin Tendulkar. Then that should diminish Warne’s greatness. But does it? NO. Just because one batsman wins a battle against a spinner, it doesn’t mean anything. It goes true for Warne, who’s one of the all time greats and a legend, and so is for Murali – another all time great and a legend in Cricket.

So I find it pointless to continue this discussion with the sort of people who are reluctant to give someone the credit he deserves just because he’s not one of their own. Therefore I will stop posting on this blog hereafter.