*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[nightprowler10]

The expense factor is an interesting way to look at things and would have some validity. The above sample is interesting, but it would also be interesting to see a more comprehensive survey before drawing definite conclusions, although obviously its very labour intensive to do no doubt.

My only question is if Warne never dismissed anyone who scored more than 50, unlike Murali, can that not go both ways to an extent, in that Murali remains more dangerous to players who have got on top of the bowling and conditions, whereas Warne sometimes could look somewhat out of answers when somebody really got going. Put it another way - at least Murali DID get the wickets of those who had kicked on, albeit at some cost, whereas Australia had to rely on other bowlers to dislodge those who scored a half century or better. To accurately judge wheter this is the case, the top couple of scorers and who got them out in each innings would be a good addition to the analysis above.

Absolutely. This is why these debates go on forever and evermore because the two spinners are as great as each other (or at least as great as a spinner can be ) and its obviously quite pointless to debate about the issue.

 

[Craig]

Agreed this issue has been done to death so many times. I think it is fair to say mention, Warne & Muralitharan and Ponting, Dravid & Hayden and generally all hell breaks loss.

 

[Richard]

Though there've been minimal thread-closures since the departure of C_C.

 

[Ikki]

The expense factor is an interesting way to look at things and would have some validity. The above sample is interesting, but it would also be interesting to see a more comprehensive survey before drawing definite conclusions, although obviously its very labour intensive to do no doubt.

My only question is if Warne never dismissed anyone who scored more than 50, unlike Murali, can that not go both ways to an extent, in that Murali remains more dangerous to players who have got on top of the bowling and conditions, whereas Warne sometimes could look somewhat out of answers when somebody really got going. Put it another way - at least Murali DID get the wickets of those who had kicked on, albeit at some cost, whereas Australia had to rely on other bowlers to dislodge those who scored a half century or better. To accurately judge wheter this is the case, the top couple of scorers and who got them out in each innings would be a good addition to the analysis above.

Matt your comments are valid and I was not making a general comment basing them on these statistics. But in this series those conclusions certainly hold. And in my own opinion, I think generally that Warne was the better wicket-taker, in great respect to the need of the situation.

 

[Ikki]

Cut it out guys, please.

Yes sir, I was just replying in kind.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not trying to cause a ruckus over these two again. I made a statement that Murali has largely been hit around by the Aussies and the analysed series is probably his best. His record against Australia isn't great and I thought that is why Murali wouldn't get #1. Jason thought that was the talk of a Thick individual. I thought I'd just get into it a bit deeper and show some truth. I, for one, couldn't believe anyone would say Warne wasn't the better performer in that series. Not only was he so statistically, but in a real way.

 

[JBH001]

The tailenders bit tbh is not something I remembered, straight from the mouth of Ponting in a recent interview.
But I do recall the series and I got the impression that Murali did not look hugely threatening to the Australian top order (particularly Lehmann who was one of the better players of spin you'll see and Martyn who clearly had a very well thought out gameplan against him), never said he was "not threatening", just that the batsman hardly looked like muppets against him ala Harbhajan in 2001.

And I agree completely with Kaz on the notion that because he bowled so many overs, and due to the inferior quality of other bowlers on his team therefore lesser chance of them sharing the spoils, he took perhaps more wickets than might have been the case, thats the point I was getting at in my original post. He was getting the Australian middle order out, sure, but they were generally not walking to the wicket and being bamboozled straight up, they were coming in, playing him very well and making big contributions then getting out to him eventually because a)He was bowling about half the deliveries they faced b)Nobody else was going to get them out c)He's a very good bowler.
Whereas Warne on the other hand seemed to have the wood on the Sri Lankan batsman to a far greater extent, they did not look comfortable against him at all and he seemed to get far more dismisals early in a batsmans innings as Kaz mentioned. Put that down to Australia's batting being better if you like, but I watched the whole series and thats what I saw, I'm not using this to suggest Warne was a superior bowler to Murali or anything as IMO you can't really split the two, but Warne outbowled him in this series.

Thats a pretty good way of putting it. I would say, as you have suggested, that the distinguishing mark is that Murali was bowling to a better standard of batsmen (taken overall) than was Warne. Aussie batsmen are underrated players of spin, especially since the 2001 India series, they have become much better players of spin.

Also, dare I say it, the more recent crop of Sri Lankan batsmen are not as good players of spin bowling, imo, than say the crop who represented Sri Lanka in the 80's and 90's. However, they did have the advantage of playing on home ground, and Warne really did bowl brilliantly in that series. I would concur that he did indeed outbowl Murali.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, not too sure about that TBH.

As I tried to say - Hayden and Lehmann have been acknowledged for ages as top-notch players of spin (Lehmann pretty well all career really). Martyn and Katich were initially very weak against spin (unsurprisingly for WAns) but have both improved out-of-sight and were equally good by said Lanka tour.

Langer (not that he was ever dismissed by Murali that series), Ponting (same), Symonds and Gilchrist, however, are certainly not proven as outstanding players of spin. Whereas I'd challenge you to argue that Atapattu, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene, Dilshan and Sangakkara aren't.

 

[JBH001]

The expense factor is an interesting way to look at things and would have some validity. The above sample is interesting, but it would also be interesting to see a more comprehensive survey before drawing definite conclusions, although obviously its very labour intensive to do no doubt.

My only question is if Warne never dismissed anyone who scored more than 50, unlike Murali, can that not go both ways to an extent, in that Murali remains more dangerous to players who have got on top of the bowling and conditions, whereas Warne sometimes could look somewhat out of answers when somebody really got going. Put it another way - at least Murali DID get the wickets of those who had kicked on, albeit at some cost, whereas Australia had to rely on other bowlers to dislodge those who scored a half century or better. To accurately judge wheter this is the case, the top couple of scorers and who got them out in each innings would be a good addition to the analysis above.

Interesting point. But, in a sense, it runs counter to what some top batsmen have said about Murali - namely, the longer you bat against him, the easier it gets.

This brings to mind the other, oft used, counter to Murali's wicket taking ability. Namely, that he bowls long spells and therefore will eventually take wickets. This runs counter to:

1. The longer you face him, the easier it gets (as above)
2. The longer he bowls, the more tired he gets and the more his bowling drops off
3. However long he bowls he still has to take wickets, since test batsmen (overcome by a fit of compassion for poor struggling Murali) are unlikely to gift him them.

Its ironic (in a counter-intuitive sense) that Hadlee made that comment about long spells and taking wickets (his SR iirc was just above the 50 mark and better than Lillee's) because, quite simply, he was Hadlee (one of the top 5 pacers of all time) and had to be good enough to take wickets, however long he bowled for. The same applies to Murali as there are plenty of bowlers who bowl long spells without a prayer of a wicket. Far from being a point against him, I think his ability to bowl long spells, usually with little support, often tie up an end, and continue to take wickets is a big point in his favour.

Anyway, enough of this - I just wanted to clarify those points which I hear so often.

Now, can we get back to talk about Lillee and Hayden (and Imran, if we must?)

 

[JBH001]

Hmm, not too sure about that TBH.

As I tried to say - Hayden and Lehmann have been acknowledged for ages as top-notch players of spin (Lehmann pretty well all career really). Martyn and Katich were initially very weak against spin (unsurprisingly for WAns) but have both improved out-of-sight and were equally good by said Lanka tour.

Langer (not that he was ever dismissed by Murali that series), Ponting (same), Symonds and Gilchrist, however, are certainly not proven as outstanding players of spin. Whereas I'd challenge you to argue that Atapattu, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene, Dilshan and Sangakkara aren't.

Hmmm, interesting points. I would say that most of the Australian top 7 are very good to outstanding players of spin - with the exception of Symonds and Langer (especially post 2001 India). To be perfectly honest, I doubt that many of Sri Lanka's younger crop of bats are equally as good (though they may be perfectly competent, have no doubt). I guess, my main point is that overall the Australian top 7 (perhaps even the tailenders) are man for man, better bats than the SL top 7, though, as I said, the home ground advantage counter-balances that to an extent.

Now, back to my Uni essay!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The tailenders bit tbh is not something I remembered, straight from the mouth of Ponting in a recent interview.
But I do recall the series and I got the impression that Murali did not look hugely threatening to the Australian top order (particularly Lehmann who was one of the better players of spin you'll see and Martyn who clearly had a very well thought out gameplan against him), never said he was "not threatening", just that the batsman hardly looked like muppets against him ala Harbhajan in 2001.

And I agree completely with Kaz on the notion that because he bowled so many overs, and due to the inferior quality of other bowlers on his team therefore lesser chance of them sharing the spoils, he took perhaps more wickets than might have been the case, thats the point I was getting at in my original post. He was getting the Australian middle order out, sure, but they were generally not walking to the wicket and being bamboozled straight up, they were coming in, playing him very well and making big contributions then getting out to him eventually because a)He was bowling about half the deliveries they faced b)Nobody else was going to get them out c)He's a very good bowler.
Whereas Warne on the other hand seemed to have the wood on the Sri Lankan batsman to a far greater extent, they did not look comfortable against him at all and he seemed to get far more dismisals early in a batsmans innings as Kaz mentioned. Put that down to Australia's batting being better if you like, but I watched the whole series and thats what I saw, I'm not using this to suggest Warne was a superior bowler to Murali or anything as IMO you can't really split the two, but Warne outbowled him in this series.

I've made several posts on this forum in the past saying more or less exactly this. You can say whatever you like about Warne and Murali, but the fundamental weakness in statistical comparisons between the two is that the playing field has never been level. Issues always come up about Warne playing England so much and Murali playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, Murali playing on Sri Lankan wickets, Warne not facing his own team etc. The closest it ever came to a level playing field was that series IMO, with both bowlers reasonably close to their best, fit and playing in the same conditions, and Warne was clearly the better bowler over those three games, for the reasons you mention.

It certainly doesn't mean that Warne was always a better bowler, but for the Murali fans who argue that Warne doesn't even warrant comparison to Murali, that series would be one to forget.

 

[JASON]

TBH, I'm surprised he hasn't already been mentioned because in regards to picking players who you've played against, Murali has been pretty bad or average anytime he has faced Warne, whether for Sri Lanka or the ICC World XI.

Then the ICC series , Murali took 5 Australian wickets as opposed to Shane taking 6 ICC wickets (in a match where the commitment of ICC batsmen was questioned very widely).

So I think you are being facetious in your comments there.

Anyone who watched that Test can say how effective Shane was ...IIRC his wickets were all tailenders ...(ICC tailenders...which must be the cheapest on the market ... ).

Murali is bound to get a lot of wickets, he bowls the same amount as two regular bowlers combined. His record against Australia in Australia is very poor and overall is at best average. Yes, he took wickets, but at what cost? Bowling that many overs, conceding those runs and then taking those wickets is no great feat.
.

You have obviously changed your tune from what you said here 1 or 2 days back . So you are either a Split personality with each one contradicting what the other said or you have 2 halves of Brain that say different things.... Read the above for yourself ...

Murali is the Hadlee
equivalent in spin-bowling. Just because Murali took 2 more wickets than
Warne does not mean he performed better. In fact, Warne averaged less
and took 6 balls less per wicket to take them. But even that's besides what
actually happened in the game.

As Richard has shown, he only had 2 tailenders more, which given the
strength of his support and his usual coming-in-later when batsmen
have dropped is MORE than understandable.

Let's do this properly: here is Murali's breakdown for his 28 series wickets:
Hayden x3
Lehmann x4
Martyn x3
Katich x2 (the only 2 innings of Katich's in the series)
Symonds x3
Gilchrist x3
Tailenders x10
(I put the good players of spin higher and the lesser ones lower)

And Warne's 26:
Atapattu x1
Jayasuriya x1
Tillakeratne x4
Jayawardene x2
Sangakkara x2
Dilshan x4
Tailenders x12
(All the aforementioned Lankan specialist batsmen being good players of spin)

Form your own conclusions... I don't doubt the different parties will.

Warne took Dilshan 4 times and Tillekeratne 4 times then Mahela, Sang twice each and Atapattu , Jayasuriya once. Murali took Hayden 3 times, Lehmann 4 times, Martyn 3 times, Gilchrist 3 times, Symonds 3 times and Katich twice, Plus he took 2 less tailenders wickets (Australian tailenders).

And you say they are about the same ...I would say Kaza , you are talking a load of Bull..when you read the strength of the batsmen there.

Your split exhibits itself when you say Warne's fingures are understandable given the strength of his support bowlers, but not so for Murali...

Some how you conjure up this ...

After the 1st test Vaas gets heavily involved and can claim to have had as much influence as Murali

Using your own stats provided (see below) its clear Vaas may have claimed a couple of wickets in each innings but he could hardly claim to have as much inflence as Murali.

And as these stats show as I had previously stated "Murali kept SL in the contest till SL's batsmen folded out in the second innings in each Test on the last day."

Murali's economy (despite taking better quality batsmen and more Frontliners than tailenders) is comparable to Warne ...illustrating my point clearly. It only turns significant in the second innings, where partly due to SL losing the Toss and batting last and SL batsmen folding out batting last on Day 5 that the difference is made . I would say If Murali was bowling on the last day even against the quality of the Australian opposition he would have just as good figures if not better...see his record bowling last against most countries.

Australia won the toss in all three Tests and Warne was bowling on Day 5 in all three Tests in SL pitches which on Day 5 are notorious for making even the flattest of spinners look great. Little surprise of Warne's stats being better on the second innings compared to Murali.

1st match: 1st innings

Murali:

- Takes 6 for 59 off 21.3 overs.
- 4 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Murali obliterates the batting line-up with only Lehmann giving an expense at 63.
- Sri Lanka: Murali the best performer easily:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        12      2     39      1
Dharmasena                  20      4     52      2
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Muralitharan                21.3    5     59      6[/COLOR][/B]
Chandana                    14      1     59      1
Jayasuriya                   1      0      2      0

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 116 off 42.4 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Warne cleans up well with really no expense.
- Australia: Warne with the best performance

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   28      9     61      1
Kasprowicz                  23      3     56      2
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       42.4    9    116      5 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
Symonds                     19      3     68      1
MacGill                     22      4     69      1
Lehmann                      2      0      9      0

1st match: 2nd innings

Murali:

- Takes 5 for 153 off 56 overs.
- 4 Non-Tailenders 1 Tailender.
- Murali gets his wickets but the Aussie line-up had destructed Sri Lanka already with Hayden getting 130, Martyn with 110 and Lehmann with 129.
- Sri Lanka: Murali the best performer:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        27      3     67      0 (2nb)
Dharmasena                  24      1    100      0
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Muralitharan                56      9    153      5[/COLOR][/B]
Dilshan                      6      3      9      0
Jayasuriya                  14.3    2     38      1
Chandana                    24.3    2    102      1

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 43 off 15 overs.
- 4 Non-Tailenders 1 Tailender.
- Warne obliterates the Sri Lankan line-up with little to no expense.
- Australia: Warne with the best performance quite easily, although MacGill is in there

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       15      5     43      5 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
Gillespie                    9      2     20      0 (1w)
Kasprowicz                   5      1     13      1
[I]MacGill                     16.2    2     74      4[/I]

2nd match: 1st innings

Murali:

- Takes 4 for 48 off 15 overs.
- 2 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Australia's 'great' lineup crumble with BIG thanks to Zoysa and Vaas.
- Hayden the only expense at 53.
- Sri Lanka: Vaas, Zoysa and Murali all with claim to being best performer

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
[B][COLOR="Orange"][I]Vaas                        11.2    5     14      2
Zoysa                       16      3     54      4
Muralitharan                15      4     48      4[/I][/COLOR][/B]

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 65 off 20.1 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Kasper and Dizzy collect the first 4 for 28
- Warne comes in with many wickets gone, wraps up the next 3 cheaply.
- Australia: Warne with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   12      4     25      1
Kasprowicz                  24      5     83      4 (2nb)
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       20.1    3     65      5 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
Symonds                      2      1      1      0
MacGill                      5      1     20      0

2nd match: 2nd innings

Murali:

- Takes 5 for 173 off 50.3 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- 2 of Murali's Non-Tailenders come at big expense, considering they'd already done their damage, Gilchrist with 144 and Martyn 161.
- Sri Lanka: Vaas with probably the best performance, Murali not far:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Vaas                        33      6    103      3 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
[I]Muralitharan                50.3    8    173      5[/I]
Zoysa                       33     11    102      2
Lokuarachchi                12      2     33      0
Jayasuriya                   5      0     16      0
Dilshan                      1      0      6      0

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 90 off 21.1 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Australia: Warne with the best figures:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Kasprowicz                  17      1     55      1
Gillespie                   20      1     76      4
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       21.1    2     90      5[/COLOR][/B]
Symonds                      3      0     16      0
MacGill                     12      0     69      0 (1nb)

3rd match: 1st innings

Murali:

- Takes 5 for 123 off 37.1 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Only big Expense is Lehmann with 153.
- Sri Lanka: Murali with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        26      3     93      3 (1nb)
Zoysa                        3.3    1     23      0
Samaraweera                 14.3    1     38      1 (2nb)
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Muralitharan                37.1    6    123      5[/COLOR][/B]
Herath                      23      5     75      0 (1nb)
Jayasuriya                  11      1     27      1

Warne:

- Takes 2 for 115 off 36 overs.
- 2 Tailenders.
- Australia: Lehmann with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   23      3     96      3
Kasprowicz                  22.1    5     58      2 (1nb, 1w)
Williams                    19      5     48      0 (1nb)
Warne                       36      7    115      2
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Lehmann                     19      2     50      3[/COLOR][/B]
Katich                       8      0     29      0

3rd match: 2nd innings

Murali:

- Takes 3 for 93 off 29 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders.
- Only Expense is Katich with 86.
- Sri Lanka: Herath with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        21      3     61      2
Zoysa                       12      0     54      0 (1nb, 3w)
Muralitharan                29      5     93      3 (2nb)
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Herath                      24.2    1     92      4[/COLOR][/B]
Samaraweera                 15      4     40      0 (3nb, 1w)
Jayasuriya                   4      0     13      0
Dilshan                      1      1      0      0

Warne:

- Takes 4 for 92 off 33 overs.
- 2 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Australia: Lehmann with the best figures, Warne close behind

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   18      6     38      1 (1w)
Kasprowicz                  16.4    5     37      2
[I]Warne                       33     11     92      4 (2nb)[/I]
Williams                     5      0     19      0
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Lehmann                     17      2     42      3[/COLOR][/B]
Katich                       4      1     15      0

The reason I introduced the 'expense' factor is that, whilst taking wickets - especially Non-Tailender ones - are great, they should reflect when they were taken and at what cost. So any Non-Tailender wicket that cost 50 runs or more got that distinction.

As you can see, Murali took some of those Non-Tailenders but not after they'd already run riot.

I think another illustration of your split personality coming into focus with the above. Isn't it great that a guy can take Frontline batsmen before they ran riot ....Most sensible people would say so...not so the case with you, eh....

And that's one very clear difference between the two; Warne didn't take a Non-Tailender wicket that cost the team an 'expense', or any wicket actually

. Most were low and at the highest 30s-40s.

As the wickets taken as shown before by Richard has shown, Murali took Australian Frontliners (Gilchrist x 3, Hayden x 3, Martyn x 3, Lehman x4, Symonds x 3, Katich x 2)
ie 18/28 wickets, Warne took (Dilshan x4, Tillekeratne x 4, Mahela, Sang twice each, Atapattu, Jayasuriya once + 12 Srilankan tailenders) ie 14/26 ( One could argue Dilshan and Tillekeratne's wickets were average at best ) . The fact that Murali took Frontline Batsmen of such quality has to reflect in the average...simple or what...not for you it seems.

This is one of the main arguments that goes between the two men, that although Murali's ratios reflect well, they've hadn't had as much impact on the game whilst Warne's impact is infamous enough.

Murali was the chief wicket taker (and of Frontline batsmen) in 5 out of 6 innings (all of which were before Day4 ) , While Warne was the leading wicket taker in 3 out of 6 innings.
(atleast 2 of these were on Day 5 in SL pitches well known to be Spin heaven even for the flattest of spinners on Day 5).
The comparison of number of Man of the Match awards in their careers clearly reflects whose impact was significant more often. I suggest you check that stat before your next post.

 

[JBH001]

Hmmm, Jason raises some interesting points. I had forgotten, or not taken into account, the fact that Warne did get to bowl in the 4th innings in all 3 test matches.

Further, statistically speaking, there is a considerable difference between 10 tailenders out of 28 wickets, and 12 tailenders out of 26 wickets.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Frankly, it's not a case which presents itself well for statistical argument, but it was quite evident if you watched the games. The first test is the clearest example for me. Murali took 11 for the match in what is obviously an excellent performance, but his second innings bowling was pretty average by his standards. The fact that three batsmen scored centuries before he got them out more or less illustrates that, and you can add to that the fact that he took several wickets when Australia were looking for quick runs to declare. If he'd had better support he wouldn't have ended up with those wickets, and 2/100 looks a lot worse than 5/150. The same pattern more or less held for the whole series. Murali bowled well and at times caused the Australians lots of problems and returned excellent figures, but even when they got right on top of him he still ended up with plenty of wickets and decent figures because nobody else was taking them. Warne was generally more threatening but had more competition for his wickets.

Anyway, it's only one series, but I can't see for the life of me how anyone who watched the series could imagine Murali was the better performer.

 

[JASON]

Hmmm, Jason raises some interesting points. I had forgotten, or not taken into account, the fact that Warne did get to bowl in the 4th innings in all 3 test matches.

Further, statistically speaking, there is a considerable difference between 10 tailenders out of 28 wickets, and 12 tailenders out of 26 wickets.

Mate, I was there at all three Tests...this sort of insight you remember too well only because you were there... SL lost all three Tosses....while not trying to detract from Australia's success , I would say had SL won all those tosses the result could have been a tied series or a 2-1 series to Australia.

Warne's great economy that Kaza has as believing is because SL batmen were batting in all three Tests on Day 5 ....and you know the records of Test Teams batting 4th in any part of the World...they were batting in SL pitches on Day 5 which are what spinners dream of day in day out....not surprising therefore that Darren Lehman of all people got a fair number of SL wickets in the 4th innings in 2 of those tests.

 

[JASON]

My summary is that while Murali had a great Series, he would have had a better series and SL would probably have ended the series even or only 2-1 had SL won even one of those three tosses.

Warne had a great series, but you cannot say by comparing the Stats he was the better bowler....the conditions on Day 5 is what he must have dreamt before getting there...even so Lehman picked up more wickets and out performed him in 1 or 2 of those innings.

Warne got the player of the series because he was on the winning side and because he had just passed 500 Test wickets at the same time ahead of Murali (or was it when he overtook Walsh).

No one in their right mind can say Warne's economy rate makes him better or the stats look better ...because that's darn Stupid ...and something you can only say without attending the Tests in real life and spending too much time analysing stats without context.

 

[JBH001]

Hmmm, yes, as I said, it was a good point you raised, Jason.

Now, I did not get to watch the series, I was backpacking in Australia at the time (and had a great time doing it, too!) and only got to watch it intermittently. However, from what I saw, Warne certainly did seem to bowl a little better than Murali in that series - given that, of course, a major measure of how a bowler is bowling is how a specific batsman handles him, which of course depends on the quality of said batsman. In this context, Warne seemed to have the SL batsmen in more trouble and more often than Murali had the Aussie batsmen. But your comments about Warne bowling on day 4 and 5 and having the best chance 'to look good' are very apt.

 

[JASON]

Hmmm, yes, as I said, it was a good point you raised, Jason.

Now, I did not get to watch the series, I was backpacking in Australia at the time (and had a great time doing it, too!) and only got to watch it intermittently. However, from what I saw, Warne certainly did seem to bowl a little better than Murali in that series - given that, of course, a major measure of how a bowler is bowling is how a specific batsman handles him, which of course depends on the quality of said batsman. In this context, Warne seemed to have the SL batsmen in more trouble and more often than Murali had the Aussie batsmen. But your comments about Warne bowling on day 4 and 5 and having the best chance 'to look good' are very apt.

Exactly, in fact if you look at the First innings alone - Murali looks great because the figures are similar or slightly better for Murali.(and considering the strength of the opposition)

But take the second innings and consider that SL batsmen were batting late Day 4 and all day Day 5 to save a Test (or chasing 300 -400 on Day 5) (on a pitch that would make ordinary Club spinners look like giant killers .... ) and you can see the difference.

To Murali's credit he kept SL in the contest into Day 5 by which time after a couple of wickets it became a lost cause....In Kandy (second Test) SL really had a fighting chance before they (the batsmen) squadered it on Day 5.

 

[honestbharani]

Hmm, you're being a tool. Even Sir Richard Hadlee said it's the law
of averages for a bowler like him to bowl so many balls to not
eventually take a substantial amount of wickets. Murali is the Hadlee
equivalent in spin-bowling. Just because Murali took 2 more wickets than
Warne does not mean he performed better. In fact, Warne averaged less
and took 6 balls less per wicket to take them. But even that's besides what
actually happened in the game.

As Richard has shown, he only had 2 tailenders more, which given the
strength of his support and his usual coming-in-later when batsmen
have dropped is MORE than understandable.

And LET'S get into this innings by innings analysis because I have a hard
time believing you were at the ground if you actually look at the facts:

1st match: 1st innings

Murali:

- Takes 6 for 59 off 21.3 overs.
- 4 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Murali obliterates the batting line-up with only Lehmann giving an expense at 63.
- Sri Lanka: Murali the best performer easily:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        12      2     39      1
Dharmasena                  20      4     52      2
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Muralitharan                21.3    5     59      6[/COLOR][/B]
Chandana                    14      1     59      1
Jayasuriya                   1      0      2      0

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 116 off 42.4 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Warne cleans up well with really no expense.
- Australia: Warne with the best performance

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   28      9     61      1
Kasprowicz                  23      3     56      2
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       42.4    9    116      5 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
Symonds                     19      3     68      1
MacGill                     22      4     69      1
Lehmann                      2      0      9      0

1st match: 2nd innings

Murali:

- Takes 5 for 153 off 56 overs.
- 4 Non-Tailenders 1 Tailender.
- Murali gets his wickets but the Aussie line-up had destructed Sri Lanka already with Hayden getting 130, Martyn with 110 and Lehmann with 129.
- Sri Lanka: Murali the best performer:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        27      3     67      0 (2nb)
Dharmasena                  24      1    100      0
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Muralitharan                56      9    153      5[/COLOR][/B]
Dilshan                      6      3      9      0
Jayasuriya                  14.3    2     38      1
Chandana                    24.3    2    102      1

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 43 off 15 overs.
- 4 Non-Tailenders 1 Tailender.
- Warne obliterates the Sri Lankan line-up with little to no expense.
- Australia: Warne with the best performance quite easily, although MacGill is in there

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       15      5     43      5 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
Gillespie                    9      2     20      0 (1w)
Kasprowicz                   5      1     13      1
[I]MacGill                     16.2    2     74      4[/I]

2nd match: 1st innings

Murali:

- Takes 4 for 48 off 15 overs.
- 2 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Australia's 'great' lineup crumble with BIG thanks to Zoysa and Vaas.
- Hayden the only expense at 53.
- Sri Lanka: Vaas, Zoysa and Murali all with claim to being best performer

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
[B][COLOR="Orange"][I]Vaas                        11.2    5     14      2
Zoysa                       16      3     54      4
Muralitharan                15      4     48      4[/I][/COLOR][/B]

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 65 off 20.1 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Kasper and Dizzy collect the first 4 for 28
- Warne comes in with many wickets gone, wraps up the next 3 cheaply.
- Australia: Warne with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   12      4     25      1
Kasprowicz                  24      5     83      4 (2nb)
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       20.1    3     65      5 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
Symonds                      2      1      1      0
MacGill                      5      1     20      0

2nd match: 2nd innings

Murali:

- Takes 5 for 173 off 50.3 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- 2 of Murali's Non-Tailenders come at big expense, considering they'd already done their damage, Gilchrist with 144 and Martyn 161.
- Sri Lanka: Vaas with probably the best performance, Murali not far:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Vaas                        33      6    103      3 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
[I]Muralitharan                50.3    8    173      5[/I]
Zoysa                       33     11    102      2
Lokuarachchi                12      2     33      0
Jayasuriya                   5      0     16      0
Dilshan                      1      0      6      0

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 90 off 21.1 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Australia: Warne with the best figures:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Kasprowicz                  17      1     55      1
Gillespie                   20      1     76      4
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       21.1    2     90      5[/COLOR][/B]
Symonds                      3      0     16      0
MacGill                     12      0     69      0 (1nb)

3rd match: 1st innings

Murali:

- Takes 5 for 123 off 37.1 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Only big Expense is Lehmann with 153.
- Sri Lanka: Murali with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        26      3     93      3 (1nb)
Zoysa                        3.3    1     23      0
Samaraweera                 14.3    1     38      1 (2nb)
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Muralitharan                37.1    6    123      5[/COLOR][/B]
Herath                      23      5     75      0 (1nb)
Jayasuriya                  11      1     27      1

Warne:

- Takes 2 for 115 off 36 overs.
- 2 Tailenders.
- Australia: Lehmann with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   23      3     96      3
Kasprowicz                  22.1    5     58      2 (1nb, 1w)
Williams                    19      5     48      0 (1nb)
Warne                       36      7    115      2
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Lehmann                     19      2     50      3[/COLOR][/B]
Katich                       8      0     29      0

3rd match: 2nd innings

Murali:

- Takes 3 for 93 off 29 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders.
- Only Expense is Katich with 86.
- Sri Lanka: Herath with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        21      3     61      2
Zoysa                       12      0     54      0 (1nb, 3w)
Muralitharan                29      5     93      3 (2nb)
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Herath                      24.2    1     92      4[/COLOR][/B]
Samaraweera                 15      4     40      0 (3nb, 1w)
Jayasuriya                   4      0     13      0
Dilshan                      1      1      0      0

Warne:

- Takes 4 for 92 off 33 overs.
- 2 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Australia: Lehmann with the best figures, Warne close behind

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   18      6     38      1 (1w)
Kasprowicz                  16.4    5     37      2
[I]Warne                       33     11     92      4 (2nb)[/I]
Williams                     5      0     19      0
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Lehmann                     17      2     42      3[/COLOR][/B]
Katich                       4      1     15      0

So as you can see, Warne was the better performer. In his team quite easily and in the series clearly so too. After the 1st test Vaas gets heavily involved and can claim to have had as much influence as Murali. The reason I introduced the 'expense' factor is that, whilst taking wickets - especially Non-Tailender ones - are great, they should reflect when they were taken and at what cost. So any Non-Tailender wicket that cost 50 runs or more got that distinction.

As you can see, Murali took some of those Non-Tailenders but not after they'd already run riot. And that's one very clear difference between the two; Warne didn't take a Non-Tailender wicket that cost the team an 'expense', or any wicket actually. Most were low and at the highest 30s-40s. This is one of the main arguments that goes between the two men, that although Murali's ratios reflect well, they've hadn't had as much impact on the game whilst Warne's impact is infamous enough.

Don't wanna get into a detailed argument on this series as I only watched parts of it and while I was keeping an eye on the updates, I never really watched it fully and with as much interest as I would usually do... But you mention about how Zoysa and Vaas helped Murali in the first dig in the second test. Kasper has done the same for Warney there and yet, you are saying Warne was the top performer for Australia easily, even though Kasper took 3 of the top 4 very cheaply and ended up with 4 overall, which is easily as important as whatever Zoysa did for Sri Lanka when they bowled in the first innings. Surely, Kasper was the joint performer there with Warney if that is the way you rated Zoysa and Murali........

 

[JASON]

Don't wanna get into a detailed argument on this series as I only watched parts of it and while I was keeping an eye on the updates, I never really watched it fully and with as much interest as I would usually do... But you mention about how Zoysa and Vaas helped Murali in the first dig in the second test. Kasper has done the same for Warney there and yet, you are saying Warne was the top performer for Australia easily, even though Kasper took 3 of the top 4 very cheaply and ended up with 4 overall, which is easily as important as whatever Zoysa did for Sri Lanka when they bowled in the first innings. Surely, Kasper was the joint performer there with Warney if that is the way you rated Zoysa and Murali........

Exactly the point I made in my post as well. In fact If you take Frontline batsmen's wickets only ,Warne had most wickets in only 2 of those 6 innings....But as far as Kaza goes , Vaas had a greater impact that Kaspa or Gillespie...

See for yourself.

Warne was the player of the series because he was on the winning side, he was bowling on late Day 4 and Day 5 when conditions are what spinners dream of (and hence his stats on the second innings in all these Tests look better) and with SL batting struggling on the 4th innings of these 3 tests , and because he had just overtaken Courtney Walsh as the leading Test wicket taker.

He certainly did not outperform Murali ....(and you only have to look at the quality of the wickets taken to judge for yourself.)