Muralitharan or Warne? Not counting bias who was really better?

I live in New Jersey nowadays and cricket discussion is on the hotel tv which is unusual over here. A sports commentator just said that the Sri Lankan has to be considered better because in fewer test matches he took almost 100 more wickets with a better average, a better strike rate, almost twice as many 5 wicket hauls and over twice as many 10 wicket hauls. He also played during the same era and had to bowl against the best team Australia wheras Warne did not, he had to bowl against the lesser nations of the era.
Warne or Muralitharan for you?

Murali averaged over 100 playing Tests in Australia for Sri Lanka.

Warne had to spend half his career bowling on those pitches and averaged about 26.

On the other hand, Murali took nearly 500 wickets at less than 20 in Sri Lanka, where Warne averaged just over 20.

The 2004 series in SL when SL were a strong team. Warne outbowled him (though it was close). End of story.*

Muralitharan's record v Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is infinitely superior.

Is disregarding Chuck because he chucked being biased?

Warne 'never could bowl in India' and averaged 60, which is bad. Murali never fired a shot in Oz and averaged 100, which is diabolical.

For me that's enough to end the discussion.

Bradman wrote:The 2004 series in SL when SL were a strong team.  Warne outbowled him (though it was close).  End of story.*

Also Warne outbowled him cold off a 12 month break, and Shane usually took a series to find form after time out of the side.

Good times.

whitburn wrote:I live in New Jersey nowadays and cricket discussion is on the hotel tv which is unusual over here. A sports commentator just said that the Sri Lankan has to be considered better because in fewer test matches he took almost 100 more wickets with a better average, a better strike rate, almost twice as many 5 wicket hauls and over twice as many 10 wicket hauls. He also played during the same era and had to bowl against the best team Australia wheras Warne did not, he had to bowl against the lesser nations of the era.
Warne or Muralitharan for you?

Lights blue touch paper and retires.

Exactly.

skully wrote:Is disregarding Chuck because he chucked being biased?

no.

If you ignore his cheating then he has the better record, but then I would have a better record than both of them if I was allowed to bowl from 10 yards.

But bowling from 10 yards would be cheating and whatever records I might amass bowling from ten yards wouldn't be relevant to actual test cricket where rules are supposed to be enforced.

Grimmett.