'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by Larry de Silv » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:11:39


http://www.island.lk/

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne
By Rex Clementine
Star Australian cricketer Shane Warne believes Sri Lanka's ace spinner
Muttiah Muralitharan will end up with 800 test wickets when he hangs up his
boots.

So far, Muralitharan has got 430 wickets and stands as the strongest
contender in the game today to surpass the world record of 537 test scalps
held by the West Indies' Courtney Walsh.

"Look, he bowls half the overs for Sri Lanka in Test Matches. How old is he?
Only 30 and he has got another good five to six years ahead of him. If he
can play the way he does avoiding injuries and picking up around 60 wickets
a year, he'll end up with 800 wickets," said Warne speaking to "The Island"
yesterday.

Warne is 33 years of age and has got 20 more wickets than Muralitharan in
tests. His overall tally stands at 450. Warne was the first slow bowler to
cross the 400-wicket mark. Early this year Muralitharan followed Warne to
the elite 400-wicket club by becoming the youngest cricketer to have
achieved the feet.

When asked about the tally of wickets he would like to have in front of his
name when he retires, Warne said, "I don't set targets. It's all about
enjoying your cricket. If you enjoy what you are doing, you carry on
playing. If you don't , you hang up your boots and say good bye. I haven't
set a particular target as some other guys like McGrath or Murali. I just
love playing," Warne said.

Warne repeatedly said he believes Muralitharan could go pass 800-wicket mark
and said that the sky is the limit for the bowler if he could improve on a
few things. "He's a wonderful bowler and has had a terrific time in
international cricket. If he bowls more than half the overs he normally does
for his side and if he continues a bit longer than five or six years, I won'
t be surprised even if he gets closer to 1000 wickets or even go beyond
that," added Warne.

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by Womba » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:36:36



Quote:
> http://www.island.lk/

> 'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne
> By Rex Clementine
> Star Australian cricketer Shane Warne believes Sri Lanka's ace spinner
> Muttiah Muralitharan will end up with 800 test wickets when he hangs up
his
> boots.

> So far, Muralitharan has got 430 wickets and stands as the strongest
> contender in the game today to surpass the world record of 537 test scalps
> held by the West Indies' Courtney Walsh.

What is it with the Sri Lankan counting system?

Asoka can't count to six, Larry wins a poll with no votes and now Walsh
suddenly has 537 wickets.

I'm surprised Murali hasn't already got 800 wickets!

Wombat

--

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by Paul Baile » Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:04:13

Chuck one, chuck two, chuck three...chuck 800....

CHEAT!!!

And I'd bet the Aussies would love to play Zimbabwe & Bangladesh every
week...SRI LANKAN GUTLESS PUSSIES...


Quote:


> > http://www.island.lk/

> > 'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne
> > By Rex Clementine
> > Star Australian cricketer Shane Warne believes Sri Lanka's ace spinner
> > Muttiah Muralitharan will end up with 800 test wickets when he hangs up
> his
> > boots.

> > So far, Muralitharan has got 430 wickets and stands as the strongest
> > contender in the game today to surpass the world record of 537 test
scalps
> > held by the West Indies' Courtney Walsh.

> What is it with the Sri Lankan counting system?

> Asoka can't count to six, Larry wins a poll with no votes and now Walsh
> suddenly has 537 wickets.

> I'm surprised Murali hasn't already got 800 wickets!

> Wombat

> --


 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by Scott Michael Bli » Mon, 16 Sep 2002 21:49:44

Quote:

> Chuck one, chuck two, chuck three...chuck 800....

> CHEAT!!!

Look, I'm as much of a fan of the Australian team as anyone, but let's
be intellectually honest here, shall we? It is quite clear that
Muralitharan is NOT a cheat. ICC has investigated and SPECIFICALLY
cleared his action. Murali, because of a childhood deformity, is
unable to completely straighten his arm. And there's no need for him
to for his deliveries to be legal. As long as his arm is bent upon the
start of the delivery and -remains that way- for the entire delivery,
he's within the bounds of the Laws. It's if he WAS to straighten his
arm mid-delivery that he would be chucking. And I have not seen him do
that, and apparently neither did the ICC investigators.

As a fan of Australia, I for one find it quite sad that we will
probably miss getting to watch this summer one of the most unique,
fascinating and effective bowlers ever to play the game because he
quite rightly doesn't want to take the bullshit of a small group of
whingers and umpires who need to brush up on their knowledge of the
Laws and do what the *** ICC -tells- them to do rather than carry out
their misguided personal agendas.

Quote:
> And I'd bet the Aussies would love to play Zimbabwe & Bangladesh every
> week...SRI LANKAN GUTLESS PUSSIES...

So what? I don't remember a newsflash stating that there are more
wickets suddenly available in an innings in matches against Zim or Ban
as opposed to South Afr, India or Pak. Unlike a master batsman, who
could run up huge scores against these teams' relatively weak attacks,
there are still only 10 wickets available in an innings to the Sri
Lankan bowlers against the weak sisters of cricket. And I would think
that, against those weaker teams, the OTHER Sri Lankan bowlers would
take a HIGHER percentage of wickets than against the good teams, since
it doesn't take bowlers of the class of Murali to dismiss the
Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean batsmen.

--Scott

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by Larry de Silv » Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:17:23




Quote:
> > Chuck one, chuck two, chuck three...chuck 800....

> > CHEAT!!!

> Look, I'm as much of a fan of the Australian team as anyone, but let's
> be intellectually honest here, shall we? It is quite clear that
> Muralitharan is NOT a cheat. ICC has investigated and SPECIFICALLY
> cleared his action. Murali, because of a childhood deformity, is
> unable to completely straighten his arm. And there's no need for him
> to for his deliveries to be legal. As long as his arm is bent upon the
> start of the delivery and -remains that way- for the entire delivery,
> he's within the bounds of the Laws. It's if he WAS to straighten his
> arm mid-delivery that he would be chucking. And I have not seen him do
> that, and apparently neither did the ICC investigators.

> As a fan of Australia, I for one find it quite sad that we will
> probably miss getting to watch this summer one of the most unique,
> fascinating and effective bowlers ever to play the game because he
> quite rightly doesn't want to take the bullshit of a small group of
> whingers and umpires who need to brush up on their knowledge of the
> Laws and do what the *** ICC -tells- them to do rather than carry out
> their misguided personal agendas.

> > And I'd bet the Aussies would love to play Zimbabwe & Bangladesh every
> > week...SRI LANKAN GUTLESS PUSSIES...

> So what? I don't remember a newsflash stating that there are more
> wickets suddenly available in an innings in matches against Zim or Ban
> as opposed to South Afr, India or Pak. Unlike a master batsman, who
> could run up huge scores against these teams' relatively weak attacks,
> there are still only 10 wickets available in an innings to the Sri
> Lankan bowlers against the weak sisters of cricket. And I would think
> that, against those weaker teams, the OTHER Sri Lankan bowlers would
> take a HIGHER percentage of wickets than against the good teams, since
> it doesn't take bowlers of the class of Murali to dismiss the
> Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean batsmen.

Brilliant post dude but I wouldn't take this jerk seriously, he is a well
known troll. It is indeed a ***y pity that the Aussie media will NOT rate
Murali & write provocative articles (especially Craddock) to incite the
morons in the outer to call no ball after every Murali delivery. This is the
height of bad sportsmanship. Like you so eloquently said, Murali has been
tested & cleared by the ICC so why do some umpires like Hair want to play
God? The other regret I have is that long after Murali breaks the world
record, his achievements will still be questioned & not appropriated the
rightful respect by some writers & fans, possibly with ulterior motives or
hidden agendas. Sad. Murali fully deserves respect.

Larrikin

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> --Scott

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by linu » Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:07:32

Quote:





>> > Chuck one, chuck two, chuck three...chuck 800....

>> > CHEAT!!!

>> Look, I'm as much of a fan of the Australian team as anyone, but let's
>> be intellectually honest here, shall we? It is quite clear that
>> Muralitharan is NOT a cheat. ICC has investigated and SPECIFICALLY
>> cleared his action. Murali, because of a childhood deformity, is
>> unable to completely straighten his arm. And there's no need for him
>> to for his deliveries to be legal. As long as his arm is bent upon the
>> start of the delivery and -remains that way- for the entire delivery,
>> he's within the bounds of the Laws. It's if he WAS to straighten his
>> arm mid-delivery that he would be chucking. And I have not seen him do
>> that, and apparently neither did the ICC investigators.

>> As a fan of Australia, I for one find it quite sad that we will
>> probably miss getting to watch this summer one of the most unique,
>> fascinating and effective bowlers ever to play the game because he
>> quite rightly doesn't want to take the bullshit of a small group of
>> whingers and umpires who need to brush up on their knowledge of the
>> Laws and do what the *** ICC -tells- them to do rather than carry out
>> their misguided personal agendas.

>> > And I'd bet the Aussies would love to play Zimbabwe & Bangladesh every
>> > week...SRI LANKAN GUTLESS PUSSIES...

>> So what? I don't remember a newsflash stating that there are more
>> wickets suddenly available in an innings in matches against Zim or Ban
>> as opposed to South Afr, India or Pak. Unlike a master batsman, who
>> could run up huge scores against these teams' relatively weak attacks,
>> there are still only 10 wickets available in an innings to the Sri
>> Lankan bowlers against the weak sisters of cricket. And I would think
>> that, against those weaker teams, the OTHER Sri Lankan bowlers would
>> take a HIGHER percentage of wickets than against the good teams, since
>> it doesn't take bowlers of the class of Murali to dismiss the
>> Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean batsmen.

>Brilliant post dude but I wouldn't take this jerk seriously, he is a well
>known troll. It is indeed a ***y pity that the Aussie media will NOT rate
>Murali & write provocative articles (especially Craddock) to incite the
>morons in the outer to call no ball after every Murali delivery. This is
the
>height of bad sportsmanship. Like you so eloquently said, Murali has been
>tested & cleared by the ICC so why do some umpires like Hair want to play
>God? The other regret I have is that long after Murali breaks the world
>record, his achievements will still be questioned & not appropriated the
>rightful respect by some writers & fans, possibly with ulterior motives or
>hidden agendas. Sad. Murali fully deserves respect.

>Larrikin

>> --Scott

It looks very likely that SL will meet Australia in one of the semi-finals.
This should bring out all the Murali hating loony ausies out of the
woodworks!
 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by Paul Baile » Tue, 17 Sep 2002 20:34:38




Quote:
> > Chuck one, chuck two, chuck three...chuck 800....

> > CHEAT!!!

> Look, I'm as much of a fan of the Australian team as anyone, but let's
> be intellectually honest here, shall we? It is quite clear that
> Muralitharan is NOT a cheat. ICC has investigated and SPECIFICALLY
> cleared his action. Murali, because of a childhood deformity, is
> unable to completely straighten his arm. And there's no need for him
> to for his deliveries to be legal. As long as his arm is bent upon the
> start of the delivery and -remains that way- for the entire delivery,
> he's within the bounds of the Laws. It's if he WAS to straighten his
> arm mid-delivery that he would be chucking. And I have not seen him do
> that, and apparently neither did the ICC investigators.

> As a fan of Australia, I for one find it quite sad that we will
> probably miss getting to watch this summer one of the most unique,
> fascinating and effective bowlers ever to play the game because he
> quite rightly doesn't want to take the bullshit of a small group of
> whingers and umpires who need to brush up on their knowledge of the
> Laws and do what the *** ICC -tells- them to do rather than carry out
> their misguided personal agendas.

> > And I'd bet the Aussies would love to play Zimbabwe & Bangladesh every
> > week...SRI LANKAN GUTLESS PUSSIES...

> So what? I don't remember a newsflash stating that there are more
> wickets suddenly available in an innings in matches against Zim or Ban
> as opposed to South Afr, India or Pak. Unlike a master batsman, who
> could run up huge scores against these teams' relatively weak attacks,
> there are still only 10 wickets available in an innings to the Sri
> Lankan bowlers against the weak sisters of cricket. And I would think
> that, against those weaker teams, the OTHER Sri Lankan bowlers would
> take a HIGHER percentage of wickets than against the good teams, since
> it doesn't take bowlers of the class of Murali to dismiss the
> Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean batsmen.

You idiot.  Now I know why I have an IQ of 131.  Imbeciclies like you lower
the overall average.

Have you ever noticed that the Aussies rarely get bowled out twice.  Quite
often they win test matches with only 12 or 13 wickets falling.  How often
do you think teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh achieve this feat.  Rarely.

Not only does Murali have the benefit of playing against teams REGULARLY who
usually lose their twenty wickets, he also plays in a weak bowling side
(unlike Shane Warne) and does the majority of the bowling from one end.  He
bowls far more overs per test match than Shane Warne (who has to compete
with the likes of McGrath, Lee & Gillespie to get the ball in his hands),
and usually bowls against sides who give away their entire twenty wickets.
If he played more often against sides like Australia, rather than hiding
from them, his average number of wickets per test match would be much the
poorer.

This really is a moron NG.  I think I'll go back to my University Forums
where logic is the rule rather than the unfortunate exception on this (by
and large) brainless NG.

Paul Bailey
IQ 131

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> --Scott

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by alve » Tue, 17 Sep 2002 20:58:58


snippo

Quote:
> You idiot.  Now I know why I have an IQ of 131.  Imbeciclies like you
lower
> the overall average.

> Have you ever noticed that the Aussies rarely get bowled out twice.  Quite
> often they win test matches with only 12 or 13 wickets falling.  How often
> do you think teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh achieve this feat.
Rarely.

> Not only does Murali have the benefit of playing against teams REGULARLY
who
> usually lose their twenty wickets, he also plays in a weak bowling side
> (unlike Shane Warne) and does the majority of the bowling from one end.
He
> bowls far more overs per test match than Shane Warne (who has to compete
> with the likes of McGrath, Lee & Gillespie to get the ball in his hands),
> and usually bowls against sides who give away their entire twenty wickets.
> If he played more often against sides like Australia, rather than hiding
> from them, his average number of wickets per test match would be much the
> poorer.

> This really is a moron NG.  I think I'll go back to my University Forums
> where logic is the rule rather than the unfortunate exception on this (by
> and large) brainless NG.

Try the med forum. You could pick up some expert opinions there on how to
extract your head from your arse.

Alvey
In Brisbane, yesterday i coodn't even spel Imbeciclies, now i are Paul
Bailey.

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by Paul Baile » Tue, 17 Sep 2002 21:27:49

Truth hurt girlie.

PS I don't always waste my time checking TYPO's.


Quote:



> snippo

> > You idiot.  Now I know why I have an IQ of 131.  Imbeciclies like you
> lower
> > the overall average.

> > Have you ever noticed that the Aussies rarely get bowled out twice.
Quite
> > often they win test matches with only 12 or 13 wickets falling.  How
often
> > do you think teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh achieve this feat.
> Rarely.

> > Not only does Murali have the benefit of playing against teams REGULARLY
> who
> > usually lose their twenty wickets, he also plays in a weak bowling side
> > (unlike Shane Warne) and does the majority of the bowling from one end.
> He
> > bowls far more overs per test match than Shane Warne (who has to compete
> > with the likes of McGrath, Lee & Gillespie to get the ball in his
hands),
> > and usually bowls against sides who give away their entire twenty
wickets.
> > If he played more often against sides like Australia, rather than hiding
> > from them, his average number of wickets per test match would be much
the
> > poorer.

> > This really is a moron NG.  I think I'll go back to my University Forums
> > where logic is the rule rather than the unfortunate exception on this
(by
> > and large) brainless NG.

> Try the med forum. You could pick up some expert opinions there on how to
> extract your head from your arse.

> Alvey
> In Brisbane, yesterday i coodn't even spel Imbeciclies, now i are Paul
> Bailey.

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by Moby » Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:00:25


Quote:
> Truth hurt girlie.

> PS I don't always waste my time checking TYPO's.

That's alright Paul.  Not too many people are going to waste their time
reading them.

Moby

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by kalu » Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:24:41

Quote:



>> Chuck one, chuck two, chuck three...chuck 800....

>> CHEAT!!!

> Look, I'm as much of a fan of the Australian team as anyone, but
> let's be intellectually honest here, shall we? It is quite clear
> that Muralitharan is NOT a cheat. ICC has investigated and
> SPECIFICALLY cleared his action. Murali, because of a childhood
> deformity, is unable to completely straighten his arm. And there's
> no need for him to for his deliveries to be legal. As long as his
> arm is bent upon the start of the delivery and -remains that way-
> for the entire delivery, he's within the bounds of the Laws. It's if
> he WAS to straighten his arm mid-delivery that he would be chucking.
> And I have not seen him do that, and apparently neither did the ICC
> investigators.

> As a fan of Australia, I for one find it quite sad that we will
> probably miss getting to watch this summer one of the most unique,
> fascinating and effective bowlers ever to play the game because he
> quite rightly doesn't want to take the bullshit of a small group of
> whingers and umpires who need to brush up on their knowledge of the
> Laws and do what the *** ICC -tells- them to do rather than carry
> out their misguided personal agendas.

>> And I'd bet the Aussies would love to play Zimbabwe & Bangladesh
>> every week...SRI LANKAN GUTLESS PUSSIES...

> So what? I don't remember a newsflash stating that there are more
> wickets suddenly available in an innings in matches against Zim or
> Ban as opposed to South Afr, India or Pak. Unlike a master batsman,
> who could run up huge scores against these teams' relatively weak
> attacks, there are still only 10 wickets available in an innings to
> the Sri Lankan bowlers against the weak sisters of cricket. And I
> would think that, against those weaker teams, the OTHER Sri Lankan
> bowlers would take a HIGHER percentage of wickets than against the
> good teams, since it doesn't take bowlers of the class of Murali to
> dismiss the Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean batsmen.

> --Scott

And to think I had completely given up hope after reading this
newsgroup for almost a year.

Thanks - mostly for showing that not all AUSan allow their ideas to
be formed by the AUS media.

Kalu

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by Paul Baile » Wed, 18 Sep 2002 06:51:58

You did!


Quote:



> > Truth hurt girlie.

> > PS I don't always waste my time checking TYPO's.

> That's alright Paul.  Not too many people are going to waste their time
> reading them.

> Moby

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by alve » Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:13:23


Quote:
> Truth hurt girlie.

> PS I don't always waste my time checking TYPO's.

Indeed. You waste quite enough time already.

*plonk*

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by The Wo » Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:05:10

Quote:
> height of bad sportsmanship. Like you so eloquently said, Murali has been
> tested & cleared by the ICC so why do some umpires like Hair want to play
> God?

Since by your admission DH does not return your correspondence, how do you
presume to know his current intentions? He has never umpired Murali AFTER
his ICC tests (which were commissioned as a consequence of DH calling him).
Yet you put around this myth that
a) DH flouted an ICC ruling, and
b) DH, at his next opportunity, would call Murali.

On what is this based?

Wog

 
 
 

'Murali will go pass 800 wickets' - Warne

Post by Larry de Silv » Sat, 21 Sep 2002 00:14:27


Quote:
> > height of bad sportsmanship. Like you so eloquently said, Murali has
been
> > tested & cleared by the ICC so why do some umpires like Hair want to
play
> > God?

> Since by your admission DH does not return your correspondence, how do you
> presume to know his current intentions? He has never umpired Murali AFTER
> his ICC tests (which were commissioned as a consequence of DH calling
him).
> Yet you put around this myth that
> a) DH flouted an ICC ruling, and
> b) DH, at his next opportunity, would call Murali.

> On what is this based?

Previous proven history of his egotistical & arrogant umpiring.

Larrikin

Quote:

> Wog