*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[open365]

sideshowtim just got served

 

[silentstriker]

In any case, I think its an inane comparison anyway. There are three basic positions you come from:

1. He chucks.
2. He doesn't chuck.
3. He chucks some of his deliveries.

I am #3 BTW. But people just need to admit that when they argue against him, its because of his action and very little to do with the type of player he is.

 

[Anil]

I feel like a complete fool for asking this question, but who is it in the avatar Manan?

michael holding

 

[open365]

Wondering why you think he chucks some but not all of his deliveries Manan, i'm guessing you think he chucks when he bowls the doosra?

I don't really see that myself, i think to bowling a doosra with an 'orthodox' action is difficult to do without chucking it, but the way Murali bowls it i don't think he has to bend his arm anymore than he normaly does to make it go the other way.

I don't really want to discuss his action because i think it's a bit of a moot point, however, my view (and this is not going to be changed by random ex pro cricketers' opinions) is that Murali gets his power in delivery through his should action.

Due to a physical deformity, Murali's shoulder is kind of dislocated when he bowls which means he has a far greater range of movement at his joint than normal bowlers do. His arm, although being bent, does not acctualy straigthen significantly if it all in delivery which is what needs to happen to be classified as a chuck.

The way he bowls does bring about a lot of suspicion, but i think the picture you get from watching on TV is a misleading one. Imo he gets his power and revs on the ball through his shoulder joint and wrist (he can quite easily touch his left forearm with his left hand) without straightening his elbow in delivery.

 

[silentstriker]

Wondering why you think he chucks some but not all of his deliveries Manan, i'm guessing you think he chucks when he bowls the doosra?

I don't really see that myself, i think to bowling a doosra with an 'orthodox' action is difficult to do without chucking it, but the way Murali bowls it i don't think he has to bend his arm anymore than he normaly does to make it go the other way.

I don't really want to discuss his action because i think it's a bit of a moot point, however, my view (and this is not going to be changed by random ex pro cricketers' opinions) is that Murali gets his power in delivery through his should action.

Due to a physical deformity, Murali's shoulder is kind of dislocated when he bowls which means he has a far greater range of movement at his joint than normal bowlers do. His arm, although being bent, does not acctualy straigthen significantly if it all in delivery which is what needs to happen to be classified as a chuck.

The way he bowls does bring about a lot of suspicion, but i think the picture you get from watching on TV is a misleading one. Imo he gets his power and revs on the ball through his shoulder joint and wrist (he can quite easily touch his left forearm with his left hand) without straightening his elbow in delivery.

Yes. The experts say that it is an optical illusion (experts from Australia BTW), and not being a bio-mechanical expert, I am willing to accept that. But even they admitted that the amount of bend from the doosra under controlled condition was around 14-14.5 degrees. And even with the optical illusion, I do see more of a bend when they show the doosra in slow motion. I could, of course, be mistaken.

Same thing with guys like Bhajji, who, with the right angle, you can easily tell that the doosra is being bowled simply due to the bend in his elbow...I haven't come across a doosra where I don't see a noticeable increase in bend. I don't have the instrument to measure the exact bend of course, to see if it violates 15 degrees, but it seems pretty incriminating. So I don't really like the doosra as a delivery..but I accept their records until someone definitively shows one way or another. Or if we figure out a way to measure the bend in a game situation.

 

[Ikki]

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.

That stat is more damning to Murali actually. As Murali generally has the opportunity to bowl to upper-order batsmen, Warne has not, yet Murali still relies so much on lower-order batsmen.

And before you rant about him not doing as well when McGrath wasn't there, how many tests is that sample and in what period? Because in Ashes 05 he was doing it superbly.

Anyway, don't want to make this a Warne V Murali thread, but Murali, at least to me, is not even the best spinner of his era, let alone being the Modern Bradman.

 

[Beleg]

Muralitharan is the best bowler to have played international cricket for a substantial period of time.

 

[silentstriker]

That stat is more damning to Murali actually. As Murali generally has the opportunity to bowl to upper-order batsmen, Warne has not, yet Murali still relies so much on lower-order batsmen.

Wait, what? Murali has the opportunity to bowl to more upper order batsman, and takes more upper order wickets as a result of that, and takes less lower order wickets as a result...and he relies on it more than Warne?

What?

 

[Ikki]

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.

Okay, you did bring it up.

Does this answer it?:

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.

 

[Ikki]

Wait, what? Murali has the opportunity to bowl to more upper order batsman, and takes more upper order wickets as a result of that, and takes less lower order wickets as a result...and he relies on it more than Warne?

What?

He takes almost a third of his wickets at the tail. Warne, who takes a slightly bigger proportion of that does so because he is usually faced with the tail. So when the argument comes that Warne relies on the tail, it's really all that he is left with, yet he has only such a slightly bigger proportion of lower-order wickets than Murali who is faces more batsmen.

BTW, I'm not much of a stat guru guy, how do you get the stats for wickets in relation to batting order?

 

[silentstriker]

He takes almost a third of his wickets at the tail. Warne, who takes a slightly bigger proportion of that does so because he is usually faced with the tail. So when the argument comes that Warne relies on the tail, it's really all that he is left with, yet he has only such a slightly bigger proportion of lower-order wickets than Murali who is faces more batsmen.

BTW, I'm not much of a stat guru guy, how do you get the stats for wickets in relation to batting order?

I used Howstat for that. And that's all conjecture. You are blaming a guy for taking more top order wickets and less bottom order wickets than Warne because the difference isn't as big as you've arbitrarily decided it should be?

 

[Ikki]

I used Howstat for that. And that's all conjecture. You are blaming a guy for taking more top order wickets and less bottom order wickets than Warne because the difference isn't as big as you've arbitrarily decided it should be?

What? His bowling partnerships are so poor that he not only gets to bowl earlier on, but he gets to clean up the tail. I haven't arbitrarily decided it should be at all, and your point regarding Warne without McGrath is conjecture too, to say the least.

So when I hear that Warne takes so many lower-order wickets I have to laugh, there is a bit of a reason why is left with those wickets but there isn't much of a reason why Murali is.

 

[silentstriker]

So when I hear that Warne takes so many lower-order wickets I have to laugh, there is a bit of a reason why is left with those wickets but there isn't much of a reason why Murali is.

But didn't you just admit there is no one else in the team? So wouldn't he have to take the lower order wickets just like he has to take the top order wickets?

and your point regarding Warne without McGrath is conjecture too, to say the least.

His performances without Warne are a matter of record, not conjecture. You can argue that it is not a representative sample, which is a different argument than conjecture.

 

[Sanz]

I haven't arbitrarily decided it should be at all, and your point regarding Warne without McGrath is conjecture too, to say the least.

Warne has played close to 50 games without Mcgrath and that should be a big enough sample.

 

[JBH001]

That's 7 wickets a Test...wow

Indeed. This should especially be seen the light of the fact that especially in the early and middle part (more relevant given the filter) of his career, Sri Lanka would often lose by an innings or a substantial number of wickets (especially overseas). This puts his fantastic wicket taking ability into even clearer perspective.

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.

Maybe, however, the fact that Murali still has a great avge would mean that lack of quality support is perhaps not a major demarcating factor. Furthermore, as a bowler mate of mine once told me, he still has to take the wickets (something that quality support usually tends to make easier). Simply having the opportunity to take wickets does not necessarily mean the achievement of taking wickets, especially at the rate that Murali does. This is where the other 'point' about Murali's long spells also becomes suspect - sure he bowls long spells, but again he still has to take wickets (plenty of other bowlers bowl long spells with little reward) as its not like test quality batsmen think "oh well, hes bowled 15 overs, time to give up my wicket". If anything, as a number of top batsmen have attested, the longer one is at the crease against Murali, the easier it gets. And yet, he still takes wickets. This also ignores the fact that long spells (especially the length that Murali sometimes bowls) can be fatiguing and lead to a deterioration in bowling which should make it harder to pick up wickets. Yet Murali keeps chugging away, taking wicket after wicket.

3 - 4 years ago I used to think that Warne was marginally the better bowler (despite my being a Sri Lankan and a Tamil by birth) due mainly to Warne's mental fortitude on the field and cricketing brain (qualities where I think Murali stills lacks comparatively). However, as time has gone on and Murali has gotten better and better and more evidence accumulate in his favour, I have moved the other way. To my mind, he is simply the greater spinner, and probably the best of all time.

But, is Murali the Bradman of bowling? No, he is not.

 

[silentstriker]

But, is Murali the Bradman of bowling? No, he is not.

I agree with that.

 

[Richard]

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

SA had been Test-standard for a fair time by the time Bradman made his debut, TBH.

 

[Richard]

But, is Murali the Bradman of bowling? No, he is not.

Only one person has ever come close to that IMO (and even then it's only a came-close, not a reached) and that's SF Barnes.

 

[open365]

Blimey i never realised Barnes' record was as good as that, averaging 16.5 with the ball is Bradman-esque indeed.

 

[Richard]

And just imagine if he'd been treated more sensitively (as those with rare talent perhaps, IMO, deserve to be) and played not only proper county cricket but also all the Tests he might have done.