Sachin, Warne or Murli: Whose the Best Modern Era Cricketer?

[Dr Khan]

Of the three who do you think has had the most significant influence on the game, who is/was more influential in the success of their team and who would you pick for your team? (Please dont say all of them)

[zaid65]

Sachin Tendulkar is by far the best cricketer of any era.

[pakcrickfan]

Sachin Tendulkar is by far the best cricketer of any era.

this is to irritate pakistani and afridi fans here? I wont agree with this. as a pakistani fan, IMHO he was exceptional during 90s. but if he had played like that in the last decade as well, I would have said he was the best ever. except 2003 world cup game against us and other few innings, he has been more like dravid in the last decade. nothing exceptional. I used to like his batting during 90s. I watched a lot of India games in 90s just for Sachin.

[Dr Khan]

this is to irritate pakistani and afridi fans here? I wont agree with this. as a pakistani fan, IMHO he was exceptional during 90s. but if he had played like that in the last decade as well, I would have said he was the best ever. except 2003 world cup game against us and other few innings, he has been more like dravid in the last decade. nothing exceptional. I used to like his batting during 90s. I watched a lot of India games in 90s just for Sachin.

So is it Murli? or Warne?

[veeray]

Murli...

[Liverpool_Faizan]

sachin

by a distance too

[pakcrickfan]

So is it Murli? or Warne?

Warne for me. he never changed his game. he was awesome throughout his career. he did not have good records in india. thats the only bad thing. thats mainly because his peak was clashed with Sachin's peak and shewag / sidhu are some of the best players of spin bowling.

[ali85]

of the 3 choice...Sachin

[Countzero]

Kallis in my honest opinion is the best cricketer of all time..

[Sandeep99]

Murali is very underrated in PP I see...I mean look at Lankan performances post-Murali! Same

can't be said about Sachin(2000s) or Warne as they had several other good cricketers around!

[justbetter]

murali.... bowlers more influential than batsman. murali's time at sri lanka has given them a better test record than sachins time at india. I know sri lanka probably had more games vs minnows but sachin had way more decent players around him.

I believe Murali at sri lanka 133 games and 54 wins. carried the team.

Sachins india 184 games and only 63 wins. Playing with the 2nd highest run scorer of all time... +sehwag +laxman +kumble yeah... you need better bowlers to win.

murali > warne > 2 more bowlers > best opener or number 3 > then any batsman available 50+average

[Love Pakistan]

Without Sachin, India can win!
Without Warne, Australia can win!

But without Murli SL can't win!

[par]

In tests only bowlers can be match winners. A batsman can shine here and there. But a bowler can single handedly win a match. He needs only 10 balls to finish an innings. So it is unfair to compare Sachin with Warne and Murali.

Of the 3, I would pick Murali in tests and Sachin in ODIs.

[tanzeel]

Warne, hands down. Murali chucked and Tendulkar was never clearly better than his contemporaries. I don't buy this Indian theory that more runs = greatness. It's how you get them and if you're averaging 56 in tests, you're clearly not 'in a different league' to the rest. There's ten others who do exactly what you do, just as well as you do. Longevity is overrated. One of our very own has around 7000 runs and 340 wickets at 22 and 34 respectively. It doesn't make him a great all rounder, just a very fit one who was lucky to debut early an play a lot of games. Ditto for Tendulkar.

[MVP26]

why no mention of mcgrath?

[Bouncer]

Sachin Tendulkar is by far the best cricketer of any era.

I disagree with Sachin, but I also believe that question can't be answered without defining
1 modern era.
2 Is author asking about test cricket or ODI or both?

[ShehryarK]

Warne, hands down. Murali chucked and Tendulkar was never clearly better than his contemporaries. I don't buy this Indian theory that more runs = greatness. It's how you get them and if you're averaging 56 in tests, you're clearly not 'in a different league' to the rest. There's ten others who do exactly what you do, just as well as you do. Longevity is overrated. One of our very own has around 7000 runs and 340 wickets at 22 and 34 respectively. It doesn't make him a great all rounder, just a very fit one who was lucky to debut early an play a lot of games. Ditto for Tendulkar.

Hard to disagree with much of that.

Warnie it is, really.


Not that its definitive, but he's the only post-1990 debuting player who was one of the five Wisden Cricketers of the 20th Century (the other four being Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs and The King).

[kingusama92]

I will answer this question based on the points requested by the OP.

1)" Most Significant influence on the game"

For this, I would say Sachin Tendulkar. There is no doubting the prowess of the other two men, Murali and Warne, but Sachin has had the most "influence". Sachin invigorated the largest (by far) fan base in the cricketing world. His influence on the sport is ahead of the other two listed men simply for what he's done for the sport, financially.

2) "Most influential on the success of his team"

Murali. This is not even close. Warne was playing in a team of legends, take him out and they would still fare well due to Macgill being there. Take Sachin out of the Indian batting order and they might struggle a bit, but the never ending supply of batsmen would solve itself. Now, Murali wins this because of how much he meant to Sri Lanka. They relied on him in all situations, he was their man with the ball. He took them to some improbable victories due to his sheer prowess with the red cherry in hand. Look at SL now, it just goes to show what he was for that team and it's success.

3) "Who would you pick for your team?"

Shane Warne. He revived the art of leg spin after Abdul Qadir. Sheer class is what you can use to describe him. Sachin and Murali are legends, but Shane Warne takes the pick for me due to his personality, entertainment factor, and just the knack for producing "wow" moments from nothing.

---------------

It seems to nicely balance out based on those three points.

Rounding up all the factors, I would go with Shane Warne.

[kungfu90]

I will answer this question based on the points requested by the OP.

1)" Most Significant influence on the game"

For this, I would say Sachin Tendulkar. There is no doubting the prowess of the other two men, Murali and Warne, but Sachin has had the most "influence". Sachin invigorated the largest (by far) fan base in the cricketing world. His influence on the sport is ahead of the other two listed men simply for what he's done for the sport, financially.

2) "Most influential on the success of his team"

Murali. This is not even close. Warne was playing in a team of legends, take him out and they would still fare well due to Macgill being there. Take Sachin out of the Indian batting order and they might struggle a bit, but the never ending supply of batsmen would solve itself. Now, Murali wins this because of how much he meant to Sri Lanka. They relied on him in all situations, he was their man with the ball. He took them to some improbable victories due to his sheer prowess with the red cherry in hand. Look at SL now, it just goes to show what he was for that team and it's success.

3) "Who would you pick for your team?"

Shane Warne. He revived the art of leg spin after Abdul Qadir. Sheer class is what you can use to describe him. Sachin and Murali are legends, but Shane Warne takes the pick for me due to his personality, entertainment factor, and just the knack for producing "wow" moments from nothing.

---------------

It seems to nicely balance out based on those three points.

Rounding up all the factors, I would go with Shane Warne.

excellent post. Agree with each point of this.

[Shahzebayub]

Sachin+sachin

[Mobashir]

I don' t like the fact that the best player of era has to be chosen from this 3.
Wasim, Kallis, Lara and McGrath surely deserve to be mentionned and maybe other great players too.

[Mobashir]

I don' t like the fact that the best player of era has to be chosen from this 3.
Wasim, Kallis, Lara and McGrath surely deserve to be mentionned and maybe other great players too.

[Zamee]

Warne and sachin for me!

[chaiwala]

he has been more like dravid in the last decade. nothing exceptional.

Dravid is not exceptional? You have high standards.

[Ray]

Of the three who do you think has had the most significant influence on the game, who is/was more influential in the success of their team and who would you pick for your team? (Please dont say all of them)

Sachin is a legend but when it comes to batsman any great batsman wud do.... like pointing, ganguly, inzi, Amla, De Villars, Anwar, Lara nd so forth

But Bowlers r game changers (match winners more often) so id go for Warne

[kkmix]

Non of them standout. There were always times when they were outperformed by their contemporaries. But if I really had to pick one then I'd go for Murli. This man single-handedly took his team to new heights, made them one of the top sides, made sure they were competitive, and won them countless matches. And since his departure, his team hasn't won a single game.

[Saqs]

Warne.

In an era beseiged by batting friendly conditions - this man was head and shoulders above everyone else.

As tanzeel stated - Sachin has never been head and shoulders above his contemporaries. He has always had others in each era he has played that have been either better or thereabouts.

Murali will always be controversial but probably helped his team to more victories than any others. But Lanka never dominated.

Warne was the main reason behind Australias dominance imo. More than McGrath. More than Ponting.

[Saqs]

Non of them standout. There were always times when they were outperformed by their contemporaries. But if I really had to pick one then I'd go for Murli. This man single-handedly took his team to new heights, made them one of the top sides, made sure they were competitive, and won them countless matches. And since his departure, his team hasn't won a single game.

Fair point but he never helped Lanka dominate like Warne did.

[SOSami]

Murali.

Put Murali in the Bangladesh side and they'd win tests.

The same cannot be said for the other two in my opinion.

[kkmix]

Fair point but he never helped Lanka dominate like Warne did.

That's true, but Australian domination was because of at least 9 greats playing in the same team, while Murali had maybe de Silva and Vaas? I guess he did what you could ask one man to do for his team.

[Random Aussie]

Murali was more important to his team that the other two.

The op asks for cricketers though.

[Romali_rotti]

SRT ofcourse the top DAWG here, greatest batsmen ever to play the game...

[Lara400]

Murali was more important to his team that the other two.

The op asks for cricketers though.

Well Sachin and Warne can't be that bad can they?

[Saqs]

That's true, but Australian domination was because of at least 9 greats playing in the same team, while Murali had maybe de Silva and Vaas? I guess he did what you could ask one man to do for his team.

Yeah I guess so - but im a big believer that a good bowling attack is what wins you Test matches. And Warne was the spearhead of the most dominant team since the Windies.

I reckon there were three irreplaceable players in their side - Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist.

[Saqs]

Murali.

Put Murali in the Bangladesh side and they'd win tests.

The same cannot be said for the other two in my opinion.

As good as that sounds when said - I doubt that would be the case. Bang need a lot more than just one savior bowler for them to be able to win tests regularly.

[The_Real_Deal]

i'd have to say warne.

on every kind of surface, he's produced the goods, winning numerous tests on his own for aus. that ball to gatting - one of the best ever spin ball you'll ever see!

true legend of the game!

[Namak_Halaal]

SRT is science, Warne was art.

Warne for me!

[leatherface58]

sehwag is (if not the best) atleast the most impactful modern era cricketer. people watch test matches due to that guy. he makes test cricket as much fun as t20 cricket if he is in full flow.

i dont care if he is found out on tougher pitches(due to his own horrible shots mostly). he has changed the face of opening batting in test matches(along with hayden, etc.)

ask any casual cricket fan about watching tests and he will mostly talk about how "boring" tests can be but when you say sehwag is batting, he will put on the channel and start watching.

[Jo_Don]

Most of the names mentioned have played in both the 90s (still part of the bowler's era) and 2000s (the batsman's era).

For me it is about being better than your peers in any particular era, i.e. a batsman who averaged 55+ in the bowler's era, or a bowler who averages less than 25 in the batsman's era.

For that reason I'd have to choose Steyn - averaging 23 when everybody else is averaging 30+, with the second best strike rate in history, in an era where every batsman and his dog is averaging 50+. He's so far ahead of his peers that I'd have to pick him - would have loved to see him bowl in the 80s and 90s.

[Itachi]

i'd have to say warne.

on every kind of surface, he's produced the goods, winning numerous tests on his own for aus. that ball to gatting - one of the best ever spin ball you'll ever see!

true legend of the game!

indians won't agree. He was rubbish in india.... I will chose murli above him.

But tendu all the way.... The don.... The little bradman.

[VTEC]

SRT gets my Vote

although Murali has won the most games for his Team than both Warne and SRT

[Easa]

Murali was more important to his team that the other two.

The op asks for cricketers though.
Concisely put. :91:

[Blitz]

If Murali didn't have a dodgy action, a lot of people would choose him.


So.....we should. 3 World cup finals. 1 T20 final. 1 World cup win. Took his team to 2nd in test and ODI rankings. Most 5'fers. Most 10'fers. Most wickets in ODI's. Most wickets in Test matches.

Played for a much weaker team then Aus and Ind. Got payed a lot less. All that in the batsmen era!!

He took a team that was a minnow when he debuted. He left it near the top of the world.


Nuff' said. Forget his action people.

[James]

Warne all the way.

[ads101]

indians won't agree. He was rubbish in india.... I will chose murli above him.

But tendu all the way.... The don.... The little bradman.
Warne might have been the more skilled spinner and better to watch, but always felt murali was the more effective.

Seen KP, a great player of spin play Warne fairly well, but look out all of sorts playing murali.

[ads101]

The thing is clearly warne didn't have as much influence to the team as the other two. With or without Warne, Australia would have been no.1. Their team was just too good.

[James]

I don't deny some of the good points above regarding Murali's importance, but my personal view is that his action will always be a bit of a tiebreaker in these very close debates.

[James]

seen kp look out all of sorts playing murali.

2006

[PaPaPak]

Afridi

[Love Pakistan]

Afridi

Ok.... Lets close this thread now!

[pakcrickfan]

Dravid is not exceptional? You have high standards.

yep nothing exceptional. yes he is a great batsman. one of the main reasons why Sachin has been better than Dravid throughout their career is Sachin scores not only of bad balls, during 90s he used to score of a good ball as well whereas Dravid just wait for the bad balls. Dravid is more like a textbook player, just defend defend defend, if any loose ball on the way then score runs of it. So he depends heavily on the other batsman to move the score card. His contribution would look great if the match is a low scoring game.

batting would look attractive when runs are scored of the good balls. thats why I have always thought sachin's worldcup innings against us in 2003 is the best ODI innings I have ever watched.

[ads101]

2006
Pietersen himself said Murali was the hardest bowler he faced. Averages 25 in sri lanka, one of the main reasons was he really struggled with murali.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/466589.html

As we can see Pietersen didn't do too well against Murali, murali with a bowling average of 28 against him. Pietersen did very well against Warne, and most looked pretty good against him.

Pietersen certainly found warne easier to play than murali.

[Zaz]

I don't deny some of the good points above regarding Murali's importance, but my personal view is that his action will always be a bit of a tiebreaker in these very close debates.

X2

Plus bowling leg spin with the skill and control he did is unheard of

[cricwiz]

Sachin Tendulkar is by far the best cricketer of any era.

Best Modern era cricketer of which format? ODI or Test cricket... ????

If you are talking about ODI cricket, then Sachin is the undisputed KING batsman in ODI cricket only (IMO)

But if you are talking about Test cricket as well, than Tendulkar is not the best Modern era cricketer for me. Even from India, I rank Dravid and Sehwag as better Test cricketers than him.

Am also surprised that the OP didnt include Kallis's name? If we just look at how many times Kallis has won MoM awards in Test cricket, he is definitely at the top with so many match winning performances.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283704.html

Anyway in my honest opinion, Warne has been the best cricketer of this modern era !!!!

[AZ]

neither, its Wasim Akram.

[cricwiz]

neither, its Wasim Akram.

:facepalm: I literally forgot about :wasim

+1 for Wasim Akram.

[Dr Khan]

Best Modern era cricketer of which format? ODI or Test cricket... ????

If you are talking about ODI cricket, then Sachin is the undisputed KING batsman in ODI cricket only (IMO)

But if you are talking about Test cricket as well, than Tendulkar is not the best Modern era cricketer for me. Even from India, I rank Dravid and Sehwag as better Test cricketers than him.

Am also surprised that the OP didnt include Kallis's name? If we just look at how many times Kallis has won MoM awards in Test cricket, he is definitely at the top with so many match winning performances.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283704.html

Anyway in my honest opinion, Warne has been the best cricketer of this modern era !!!!

neither, its Wasim Akram.

Fair point. There are many cricketers who have influenced the modern game with their contributions and skills. What set these three names apart is the fact that Sachin will soon have 100 international centuries while Murli and Warne have more than 1000 international wickets. While Sachin's feast is awesome and legendary, I think what Murli and Warne did was even greater.

[Free Hit]

Sachin Tendulkar is by far the best cricketer of any era.

ofcourse :afridi

[zaid65]

this is to irritate pakistani and afridi fans here? I wont agree with this. as a pakistani fan, IMHO he was exceptional during 90s. but if he had played like that in the last decade as well, I would have said he was the best ever. except 2003 world cup game against us and other few innings, he has been more like dravid in the last decade. nothing exceptional. I used to like his batting during 90s. I watched a lot of India games in 90s just for Sachin.

If Pakistani and Afridi fans are so sensitive and cannot see any other players name being mentioned in any category, they better start start taking some chill pills.

[cricmylife]

:sachin ...He had a wicked googly!

[James]

Pietersen himself said Murali was the hardest bowler he faced. Averages 25 in sri lanka, one of the main reasons was he really struggled with murali.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/466589.html

As we can see Pietersen didn't do too well against Murali, murali with a bowling average of 28 against him. Pietersen did very well against Warne, and most looked pretty good against him.

Pietersen certainly found warne easier to play than murali.

He was better against Warne than Murali, but his batting average against Sri Lanka doesn't tell the full story. He played consecutive innings of 150 and 140 against Murali (and Vaas, and then Malinga), popularising the switch-hit in the process. I doubt many players would be capable of playing Murali as well as he did in those two knocks.

[eradicator]

yep nothing exceptional. yes he is a great batsman. one of the main reasons why Sachin has been better than Dravid throughout their career is Sachin scores not only of bad balls, during 90s he used to score of a good ball as well whereas Dravid just wait for the bad balls. Dravid is more like a textbook player, just defend defend defend, if any loose ball on the way then score runs of it. So he depends heavily on the other batsman to move the score card. His contribution would look great if the match is a low scoring game.

batting would look attractive when runs are scored of the good balls. thats why I have always thought sachin's worldcup innings against us in 2003 is the best ODI innings I have ever watched.

Dravid is an exceptional player but I agree with every word that has been written by you to describe his batting . Tuk Tuk Tuk and keep on waiting for bad ball to be bowled , Dravid would only score from those bad balls whereas with Sachin at the crease you can be assured that he will get runs from both good as well as bad balls , he is always on the lookout for scorings runs no matter if bowlers continue to bowl one good ball after another , now that was Sachin in the 90s - 2003 .

Thats why batsmen like Lara , Sachin , Inzamam , Peitersen , Sehwag , Ponting are exciting to watch compared to likes of Dravid , Trott , Kallis, cook & Samaraweera since the former player are always keen to score runs whereas the later lot go under the shell when good balls are being bowled and play the waiting game .

[IndianWillow]

^^
It is better to classify into three actually.

Players like Sehwag and Lara take high risk while batting, which makes them exceptionally dangerous if you allow them to bat two-three sessions.

Sachin, Ponting etc take medium risk.

Kallis,Trott,Dravid take low risk.

[ads101]

^^
It is better to classify into three actually.

Players like Sehwag and Lara take high risk while batting, which makes them exceptionally dangerous if you allow them to bat two-three sessions.

Sachin, Ponting etc take medium risk.

Kallis,Trott,Dravid take low risk.
Lara really doesn't take high risk. Medium risk more like it. Lara was just very hard to get out once set. Certainly didn't try and take risk in the beginning, more he was just a little scratchy.

Only very few that take high risk. To take high risk you probably have to be playing as a top order/ middle order batsman (not as a guy coming in with a decent total and slogging lower down). Only guys I can think of currently are Sehwag, Yuvraj Singh, Gayle and Umar akmal to some extent.

[Iffitheking]

Shane warne... by far the best.... because he used to bat also.... Murli was stupid with the bat...

[James]

I see Lara as relatively high risk for a top-rated player, which is why he was so good, and feared. Always looked like he'd give you a chance early in the innings, and often did. I'm not sure how you define 'set', but I saw him get out in the 30s plenty of times as well. Then again, he was close to the complete batsman at his peak, and once he got to the ton he could be unshiftable. A brilliant player.

[Blistering Barnacle]

I'd got for Murali or Warne.

Sorry Sachin fans.

He's an awesome batsman, but he doesn't have the kind of impact on a side that Warne or Murali would have.

Of those two, you might as well toss a coin.

My money is with Warne.

[pakcrickfan]

^^
It is better to classify into three actually.

Players like Sehwag and Lara take high risk while batting, which makes them exceptionally dangerous if you allow them to bat two-three sessions.

Sachin, Ponting etc take medium risk.

Kallis,Trott,Dravid take low risk.

I dont agree with the bolded part. Shewag is in different level than Lara/Sachin/Ponting as far as taking risk is concerned. 80+ strike rate in test match with 50+ average, I have not seen any player in the last 2 decade to match that destructiveness in test match. Only India can afford Shewag. If Shewag was playing for any other team, I dont think he would have been allowed to play like he has been playing. After a few failures, he would have been asked to either curb his natural instinct or thrown out of the team. India have a powerful middle order, especially dravid, completely make up his failures. Hence Shewag has been able to play his natural game throughout his career.

Only player who can come close to Shewag is Gilchrist. but Gilchrist did not have same array of strokes that Shewag has. Gilchrist was an allrounder so batting was not his main skill. If he was played just as a batsman, I dont think he would have played as aggressively and did not have technic to play as a proper test batsman, especially for the team like Australia.

[zhivago]

The blonde fat bloke in my avatar.

[Saqs]

SRT is science, Warne was art.

Warne for me!

Nice way of putting it. That would mean Murali was meddling with the Dark Arts.

[Ashraful_Rox]

Lara and :warne for me. Both were good artist

[zzebie]

Like Sachin, but have to go with Warney in this poll.

[adit_sh]

Anytime Warne over anyone except viv Richards as most exciting cricketer.

I like Warne bowling more than SRT batting. Exceptional skills !!

[zia]

Murli took most wickets, sachin scored most runs but by far Shane Warne won the most matches for Australi,
Players can be only rated if the team wins individual performances count for nothing.

[jeetu]

It hard 2 pick among 3. As a Indian i'm biased towards Sachin.