*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Richard]

I am not making a judgement about who is better with that post you quoted. I do know that Lohmann was an 1876-1900 bowler, Barnes 1900-1914 and Murali 1993-current and each period has it's own charecteristics which some one would have to analyse to make a judgement call.

The point I'm making, though, is that the 19th-century is probably more different to everything else than anything else is to anything else. Pitch-preparation improved out of sight in the time around 1900-1901-1902, more than it's ever improved at any other time. Also, changes in convention were pretty much finished by then.

 

[Richard]

Warne's record against India is pretty bad, both in Australia and in India. He averages 62 in Australia and 43 in India, with an overall average of 47 from 14 Tests. That to me is a pretty good sample..14 Tests are a lot to play against one team and that's a pattern.

To me, there are no excuses. Either you're fit enough to play, or you're not. Murali sucks in Australia and its a blight on his career. Botham sucked against West Indies and its a blight on his career. And Ponting sucks in India and its a blight on his career too.

If you play, it's fair game as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think it's that simple TBH. People play when they shouldn't sometimes, for any variety of reasons, and IMO an assessment of the player is best carried-out by ignoring these cases. This includes Atherton in 1998\99, it includes Warne in 2000\01, and countless others.

That said, Warne has been ineffective against India multiple times, yes, but it's simplistic to suggest it's as bad as some do. For starters, the first of those series was when he was just poor against everyone, then there's the time when he was injured which Burgey's just mentioned. Even excluding this, his record's still poor but it's nowhere near as bad as some would make-out.

 

[Richard]

At least there are still tracks around the world that favour the spinners, there are very few which quicks enjoy bowling on these days. England is the best maybe, but these days flat tracks are the norm.

Disagree, TBH, spin-friendly decks have been every bit as rare as seam-friendly ones of late. In England, between 2002 and 2006, batting was about as easy as it was anywhere in The World.

 

[Richard]

so now it is McGrath Vs Murali????


I don't like the idea of comparing fast bowlers and spinners... I honestly don't. They have different roles to perform, they need differing types of conditions to be at their best and the expectations from them are different, the way the batsmen play them are different. It is like comparing openers and middle order players... It just is not very feasible, IMHO.

I don't like it either, TBH, but I would say that the best seamers are invariably better than the best spinners, and likewise the very-good seamers are invariably better than the very-good spinners.

 

[Prince EWS]

Disagree, TBH, spin-friendly decks have been every bit as rare as seam-friendly ones of late. In England, between 2002 and 2006, batting was about as easy as it was anywhere in The World.

`As far as pitches go, I'd agree, but the increased likelihood of overhead conditions condusive to swing bowling in England is something that groundsmen can never change. I think the pitches in England circa 2007 have been as flat as in previous years, but the overhead conditions have made the cricket more evenly balanced.

 

[Richard]

That's the thing, though, the overhead conditions have barely mattered. I've lost count of the number of times we've turned-up with perfect swing-bowler's conditions and the ball's barely moved because the balls we were using from 2001 to last season were so pathetic. Fortunately, this year they seem to be back to the 2000-circa balls that high-quality swing-bowlers can get to move under clear skies and heavy ones.

Seriously, it's annoyed me no end. Even Matthew Hoggard, who has probably developed into near enough as good a swing bowler as you could wish for has struggled any number of times in recent years; Jonathan Lewis, new ball or old, skies clear or cloudy, did not swing so much as a single ball I can remember on his Test debut.

If I had a quid (or a buck if you prefer) for every time a commentator has said "we've not seen the swing you'd expect for a day like today" since 2002 (it happened in 2001 too, but there was mostly something in the pitches that year so most people didn't notice - myself included - until after the fact and only picked-up through hindsight) I'd be a seriously, seriously rich kid.

Actually, though, that reminds me of something I must post in the Grinds thread...

 

[Pratters]

The point I'm making, though, is that the 19th-century is probably more different to everything else than anything else is to anything else. Pitch-preparation improved out of sight in the time around 1900-1901-1902, more than it's ever improved at any other time. Also, changes in convention were pretty much finished by then.

Why though? I don't see how it encompasses a reply to my post.

 

[Richard]

The point was that Barnes' Test cricket was different to Lohmann's Test cricket, in a way that no-one else with phenominally low averages was.

My point, essentially, is that I don't really like 19th-century bowlers even being talked of in the same breath as 20th-century ones, and you mentioned Lohmann when I mentioned Barnes.

That was the connection I was thinking of.

 

[Pratters]

The point was that Barnes' Test cricket was different to Lohmann's Test cricket, in a way that no-one else with phenominally low averages was.

My point, essentially, is that I don't really like 19th-century bowlers even being talked of in the same breath as 20th-century ones, and you mentioned Lohmann when I mentioned Barnes.

That was the connection I was thinking of.

You mentioning Barnes does not give you a copyright over Barnes. I did not quote you, was not even replying to you and was looking at a completely different point like I said here - what percentage difference they have to their contemporaries. I don't see why you should have a problem in players being mentioned in the same sentence in such a scenario even when you have whatever views you do of 1876-1900 cricket being vastly different from 1900-1914 cricket and every thing else which went on after it.

 

[adharcric]

IMO it's very foolish to try to make any point about a bowler based on the attack around him. Having a weak attack around you can be both a help and hindrance and often is both simualtaneously.

Disagree. Once you consider the correct set of statistics, a weak attack becomes purely a hindrance IMO. Before I get into that, can you tell me how it can be a help?

 

[sideshowtim]

Disagree. Once you consider the correct set of statistics, a weak attack becomes purely a hindrance IMO. Before I get into that, can you tell me how it can be a help?

A weak attack is only a hindrance in terms of an actual game. In winning and losing a game, a weak attack is a huge hindrance. However, when it comes to personal statistics, it's a huge, huge help. There are more wickets available for you to take.

I believe if Murali was to have played for Australia there is no way in the world he'd take over 6 wickets a match with the likes of Gillespie and McGrath bowling around him.

 

[silentstriker]

A weak attack is only a hindrance in terms of an actual game. In winning and losing a game, a weak attack is a huge hindrance. However, when it comes to personal statistics, it's a huge, huge help. There are more wickets available for you to take.

I believe if Murali was to have played for Australia there is no way in the world he'd take over 6 wickets a match with the likes of Gillespie and McGrath bowling around him.

But a weak attack is a huge hinderence on your statistics because on the days you are unhelpful, the captain can't take you out of the attack. You have to stay on and do your best because there is no one else.

You take more wickets, but at a lesser average. So Warne's average would be more, but he would have more wickets, while Murali would have less wickets but at a better average.

How many times have you heard the term 'hunting in packs?' It helps you get wickets if your partner at the other end can keep it tight and maybe take wickets. You'll take less wickets overall but your average will be much better. If they know they can block you and socre runs off the other end, it becomes much more difficult to take wickets. That's a huge reason why Warne has done worse without McGrath. Much less support at the other end. And incidently, that's a reason why I rate McGrath so highly. Even when he didn't have help, he did amazingly well.

 

[sideshowtim]

You stay on, but that gives you more of a chance of taking wickets yeah? And your average is levelled out after you clean up the tail for next to nothing which Murali is more than capable of. As I said earlier, you can go from 3/100 to 7/100 in no time if you clean up the tail and that looks like a magnificent bowling performance on the surface and really helps your average.

 

[silentstriker]

You stay on, but that gives you more of a chance of taking wickets yeah? And your average is levelled out after you clean up the tail for next to nothing which Murali is more than capable of. As I said earlier, you can go from 3/100 to 7/100 in no time if you clean up the tail and that looks like a magnificent bowling performance on the surface and really helps your average.

You keep saying clean up the tail, but you can clearly see that Warne's average benefitted more from tail ender wickets than Murali because the tail end wickets are a larger percentage of his total wickets than Murali. So yea, Warne would go from 1/100 to 4/100, and Murali would go from 3/100 to 6/100. Who benefitted more?

 

[Days of Grace]

No brainer really, isn't it?

 

[adharcric]

A weak attack is only a hindrance in terms of an actual game. In winning and losing a game, a weak attack is a huge hindrance. However, when it comes to personal statistics, it's a huge, huge help. There are more wickets available for you to take.

I believe if Murali was to have played for Australia there is no way in the world he'd take over 6 wickets a match with the likes of Gillespie and McGrath bowling around him.

Exactly why I have always maintained (especially in "certain" debates) that wickets per test is not a very meaningful statistic because it can be severely boosted by the (lack of) quality in the attack. Once you remove that statistic and focus on the important ones - average and strike rate - a weak attack is nothing but a hindrance. That massively simplifies comparisons. Do you agree?

Suppose player A has a weak attack and player B has a strong attack. If player A somehow still has a superior strike rate AND average, that says something. Actually, that says everything.

 

[roseboy64]

Good point that last one.

 

[Ikki]

Exactly why I have always maintained (especially in "certain" debates) that wickets per test is not a very meaningful statistic because it can be severely boosted by the (lack of) quality in the attack. Once you remove that statistic and focus on the important ones - average and strike rate - a weak attack is nothing but a hindrance. That massively simplifies comparisons. Do you agree?

Suppose player A has a weak attack and player B has a strong attack. If player A somehow still has a superior strike rate AND average, that says something. Actually, that says everything.

Not really, they are just ratios. Whilst Murali will always be set for bowling a large amount and taking wickets. Warne's bowling is divided between the tests he plays - the fact that Murali has almost bowled as many as Warne in 32 less tests is testament to this. It factors in when you acknowledge something that isn't statistically appreciated: momentum.

Also, imagine an innings where Warne comes in, 4 wickets down, McGrath with a few, Warne bowling great, Kaspa takes 2 more, Warne still going great, Dizzy takes 2 and Lee finishes with one and Warne finishing the one left. Leaving Warne with 16-17 overs, let's say concedes 32 runs and the day looks poor. Australia have demolished the opposition and Warne, although bowling great, shows little dividends. Not far from reality in some cases, and then Warne starts the next match, anew, and might do well. You tally the balls bowled in both games and they equal 1 match for Murali. Not much in terms of strike-rate or average, huh?

Usually however, Warne is great and Warne has a pressing influence in his side winning. It's something stats won't totally acknowledge if you look at it in terms of comparing a Warne 4/60 with Muralis 7/60. Francis has spoken at lengths about this.

As for Murali, there will be plenty of times when his stats can be great, but the effect he has had on the match will be unhelpful to the team, and more to him. He bowls roughly 60 overs a match, takes half the wickets with a great average and strike rate, and do you think the rest are that poor to not win? It's simply not the case that batsmen can just wait out his overs, he bowls too many of them. Maybe on the cover it looks good, but then again you have a bowler who comes in taking maybe 2 wickets in 30 overs, has conceded about 80 runs and then in the 31st over finishes off the tail with another 3 wickets and that leaves him with figures:

5 wickets, avg.16, SR of 37.2.

You keep saying clean up the tail, but you can clearly see that Warne's average benefitted more from tail ender wickets than Murali because the tail end wickets are a larger percentage of his total wickets than Murali. So yea, Warne would go from 1/100 to 4/100, and Murali would go from 3/100 to 6/100. Who benefitted more?

Which was the point made earlier in the thread: of course Warne will have a higher proportion of wickets at the tail, that's mostly what he faces, he usually comes in when 3-4 wickets are already knocked out - largely thanks to McGrath.

Yet Murali, who bowls so much of his team's balls has a comparable proportion of tail-enders, where it shows he really has a reliance on them to boost his figures.

Warne wouldn't be 1/100 down because Warne wouldn't have bowled for that long to have accumulated those runs against him. Murali would.

Anyway, as said in this thread, it's debatable - IMO, not so much - that he is the greatest spinner of the era, let alone the greatest bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

Not really, they are just ratios. Whilst Murali will always be set for bowling a large amount and taking wickets. Warne's bowling is divided between the tests he plays - the fact that Murali has almost bowled as many as Warne in 32 less tests is testament to this. It factors in when you acknowledge something that isn't statistically appreciated: momentum.

Also, imagine an innings where Warne comes in, 4 wickets down, McGrath with a few, Warne bowling great, Kaspa takes 2 more, Warne still going great, Dizzy takes 2 and Lee finishes with one and Warne finishing the one left. Leaving Warne with 16-17 overs, let's say concedes 32 runs and the day looks poor. Australia have demolished the opposition and Warne, although bowling great, shows little dividends. Not far from reality in some cases, and then Warne starts the next match, anew, and might do well. You tally the balls bowled in both games and they equal 1 match for Murali. Not much in terms of strike-rate or average, huh?

Usually however, Warne is great and Warne has a pressing influence in his side winning. It's something stats won't totally acknowledge if you look at it in terms of comparing a Warne 4/60 with Muralis 7/60. Francis has spoken at lengths about this.

As for Murali, there will be plenty of times when his stats can be great, but the effect he has had on the match will be unhelpful to the team, and more to him. He bowls roughly 60 overs a match, takes half the wickets with a great average and strike rate, and do you think the rest are that poor to not win? It's simply not the case that batsmen can just wait out his overs, he bowls too many of them. Maybe on the cover it looks good, but then again you have a bowler who comes in taking maybe 2 wickets in 30 overs, has conceded about 80 runs and then in the 31st over finishes off the tail with another 3 wickets and that leaves him with figures:

5 wickets, avg.16, SR of 37.2.



Which was the point made earlier in the thread: of course Warne will have a higher proportion of wickets at the tail, that's mostly what he faces, he usually comes in when 3-4 wickets are already knocked out - largely thanks to McGrath.

Yet Murali, who bowls so much of his team's balls has a comparable proportion of tail-enders, where it shows he really has a reliance on them to boost his figures.

Warne wouldn't be 1/100 down because Warne wouldn't have bowled for that long to have accumulated those runs against him. Murali would.

Anyway, as said in this thread, it's debatable - IMO, not so much - that he is the greatest spinner of the era, let alone the greatest bowler.

I will acknowledge both your points reg. Warne, Kazo.... I think it makes a lot of sense and I think you are right to a very great extent.


But what you said about Murali is not right. Even taking the example that you brought up... Let us say Murali did bowl 20 overs for 80 runs and has taken 2 wickets and is obviously bowling below par, at least in terms of results.... Then, as you said, he comes in and bowls out the 3 tailenders in the same over. Are you suggesting that it is bad bowling? He did bowl well enough to get 3 guys (granted, tailenders) out in the same over. How often does that happen? IT is still a very good piece of bowling that has to be acknowledged as such. You talked about Warne bowling well all day and yet the other bowlers get the wickets around him.... I am sure it does happen. But what prevents Warne from getting the wickets when he is bowling well? Going by your example, he has as much chance as a Brett Lee at bowling at the tail and yet he is still not able to get them out. Lee gets them out. It still means Warney lost opportunities of getting wickets, even if he is bowling well.


Again, we boil down to the axiom that a lot of times you can bowl really well and end up with little/no wickets and at other times, you can bowl tripe and end up getting wickets. We can only assume that it equals out over your career. I still think the difference between the two is very marginal and I would actually have Warne over Murali in my all time XI.... NOt that I think Warne is better than Murali, but I think the margin by which I put Murali ahead of Warne is so small that it doesn't matter who I pick and I would just pick Warne for personal preference and because he adds to the drama of the game more than Murali would do. Also, he would (potentially) bat better.

 

[JBMAC]

To a purist of the game just to mention "The Chuckers" name in the same sentence as one including The Don seems sacreligious