*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Perm]

Before 1998, he was pretty average though what does he average against test standard teams 1998 onwards?

No point taking out a part of his career when he wasn't very good IMO, unless you are trying to prove something about a players peak.

 

[Perm]

So? Bradman made runs against sub-standard NZ and SA sides.

Still averaged over 80 against England and the West Indies though.

 

[Prince EWS]

So? Bradman made runs against sub-standard NZ and SA sides.

Yes, but he still has a ridiculously superior average to every other player when you remove those matches. Murali does not.

 

[Pratters]

No point taking out a part of his career when he wasn't very good IMO, unless you are trying to prove something about a players peak.

I do think leaving the initial few years gives more perspective on how Murali has been almost all through his career but I can understand you feeling otherwise. That part of his career will get further negligible as he plays more thankfully.

Any way, can some one dig up stats of him 1998 onwards versus all teams except Zimbabwe and Bangladesh?

 

[Pratters]

with all due respect to Pratyush.

Yes, it is perfectly fine mate. I am just looking at opinions and exploring here.

 

[Prince EWS]

I do think leaving the initial few years gives more perspective on how Murali has been almost all through his career but I can understand you feeling otherwise. That part of his career will get further negligible as he plays more thankfully.

Any way, can some one dig up stats of him 1998 onwards versus all teams except Zimbabwe and Bangladesh?

419 wickets in 60 tests @ 20.79

 

[silentstriker]

419 wickets in 60 tests @ 20.79

That's 7 wickets a Test...wow.

 

[James]

That's 7 wickets a Test...wow.

Is that solely down to the fact of the lack of other quality bowlers in the Sri Lankan team? Chaminda Vass, the other consideration doesn't have a very good Test record with only 11 five wicket bags from 98 Tests.

When you look at the great Australian and West Indies teams, there were consistently 2 or 3 quality bowlers meaning the wickets got shared around more.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Is that solely down to the fact of the lack of other quality bowlers in the Sri Lankan team? Chaminda Vass, the other consideration doesn't have a very good Test record with only 11 five wicket bags from 98 Tests.

When you look at the great Australian and West Indies teams, there were consistently 2 or 3 quality bowlers meaning the wickets got shared around more.

That's certainly a factor, beut he does have people like Malinga to get the wickets as well. I'm certain that he wouldn't have got as many wickets should he be an Aussie bowler.

 

[Prince EWS]

Is that solely down to the fact of the lack of other quality bowlers in the Sri Lankan team? Chaminda Vass, the other consideration doesn't have a very good Test record with only 11 five wicket bags from 98 Tests.

When you look at the great Australian and West Indies teams, there were consistently 2 or 3 quality bowlers meaning the wickets got shared around more.

Yeah, there is certainly something to that - although the fact that averaged just a tick over 20 suggests he didn't just take so many wickets because everyone else was dire.

 

[sideshowtim]

Imagine how many wickets Warne would have if not playing with your McGraths, Gillespies and MacGills....Murali is a good bowler but his record looks magnificent due to how poor the bowling around him has always been.

Most of the time Warne came in with the top 3 or 4 batsman well and truly gone due to magnificent fast bowlers in Australia. I dare say when Murali begins his spell the opposition is generally still 0, 1 or 2 down...

Murali isn't even the best spinner of the modern-era, let alone a modern day Bradman. I assure you that most cricket experts would place Warne in their World XI ahead of Murali...Unless they're from the subcontinent probably.

 

[sideshowtim]

Yeah, there is certainly something to that - although the fact that averaged just a tick over 20 suggests he didn't just take so many wickets because everyone else was dire.

Cleaning up the tail is always good for your average. And Murali is always fantastic at mopping up the tail.

Look, he can go from 2/70, clean up the tail and have figures of 6/75...very misleading sometimes.

 

[silentstriker]

Imagine how many wickets Warne would have if not playing with your McGraths, Gillespies and MacGills....Murali is a good bowler but his record looks magnificent due to how poor the bowling around him has always been.

Most of the time Warne came in with the top 3 or 4 batsman well and truly gone due to magnificent fast bowlers in Australia. I dare say when Murali begins his spell the opposition is generally still 0, 1 or 2 down...

Murali isn't even the best spinner of the modern-era, let alone a modern day Bradman. I assure you that most cricket experts would place Warne in their World XI ahead of Murali...Unless they're from the subcontinent probably.

Yea, Warne has been able to bowl to lower middle and lower order many more times than Murali. So I think Warne's figures would be worse without McGrath (and they are, if you look at Tests played without McGrath).

 

[silentstriker]

Cleaning up the tail is always good for your average. And Murali is always fantastic at mopping up the tail.

Look, he can go from 2/70, clean up the tail and have figures of 6/75...very misleading sometimes.

Oh really? Please do some research:

Murali: 31.9% of wickets in the lower order.
Warne: 37.9% of wickets in the lower order.

So yes, you are right...one of them is an expert at cleaning up the tail, and thus great at improving his average. In any case, too many ridiculous threads on this quite inane topic. No side will convince the other. I vary between who I think is better personally, as I don't like the doosra...but too many people saying too many misleading things about the other side in this debate. Gets annoying.

 

[sideshowtim]

Oh really? Please do some research:

Murali: 31.9% of wickets in the lower order.
Warne: 37.9% of wickets in the lower order.

So yes, you are right...one of them is an expert at cleaning up the tail, and thus great at improving his average.

Have you ever considered that Warne rarely got a chance to take top order wickets due to Australia's brilliant pace battallion over the last 15 years? Obviously not. Murali has nearly always had 10 wickets on offer to him nearly all the time when he comes into the attack. Warne never had this luxury, usually coming in with several wickets already down.

 

[silentstriker]

Have you ever considered that Warne rarely got a chance to take top order wickets due to Australia's brilliant pace battallion over the last 15 years? Obviously not. Murali has nearly always had 10 wickets on offer to him nearly all the time when he comes into the attack. Warne never had this luxury, usually coming in with several wickets already down.

I've considered it, and when Warne has had that luxury, ie. when McGrath has not been around...his average drops quite badly.

And you are calling it a luxury that Warne has had to bowl to less top order players? A second ago, you were just talking about how cleaning the tail is Murali's forte. Obviously, it is not unless you are disputing the figures I posted.

 

[open365]

Bradman was in my book the greatest sportsman there's ever been or ever will be, to seriously compare anyone to him in like-for-like terms is out of the question.

However, i do think that Murali is so prolific that he deserves to be counted in the top 3 cricketers of all time, and, in my opinion, the best bowler of the modern era.

 

[sideshowtim]

I've considered it, and when Warne has had that luxury, ie. when McGrath has not been around...his average drops quite badly.

And you are calling it a luxury that Warne has had to bowl to less top order players? A second ago, you were just talking about how cleaning the tail is Murali's forte. Obviously, it is not unless you are disputing the figures I posted.

Cleaning the tail is Murali's forte. It's just that Murali takes more TOP ORDER wickets because he gets more OPPORTUNITIES to take top order wickets than Warne did. And that is why his percentage of tail-end wickets is lower than Warne's. Would be interesting to see just how many tail-end wickets they have each taken comparably. Can you post those stats please?

And Warne hasn't played enough tests without McGrath for us to be able to make a reasonable judgement based upon those figures, especially considering most of the figures you are talking of come from earlier in Warne's career without McGrath in the team. And we all know Warne had a slow start to his career.

 

[Pratters]

However, i do think that Murali is so prolific that he deserves to be counted in the top 3 cricketers of all time, and, in my opinion, the best bowler of the modern era.

I was thinking the same. Probably completing the elite trio with Bradman and Sobers...

 

[sideshowtim]

Cricket is more than numbers people. If it weren't, Ponting would be generally considered the best batsman in the modern era.