*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[JASON]

Regardless of all the stats you want to put out there - the reality is Murali got better quality batsmen and on first innings does far better than Warne despite bowling on Day 1.

Warne's stats are inflated on the second innings in SL pitches which make even Club spinners look great.

Murali's stats against every country in the World, shows the guy gets Front line batsmen time after time at better economy rate (57) than Warne who gets his stats inflated by lot of tailenders. (but despite that his strike rate is lower than Murali -that should say something).

And this dumb logic about bowlers who bowl lot of overs getting wickets doesn't hold because I haven't seen Syed Rasel, Mashrafe Mortaza, Tapash Baisya or Prosper Utseya or Panyangara (or other Zim bowlers) among leading wicket takers....or with great figures ... So thats a load of Bull...again ....from the master of bogus Statistics .

 

[pup11]

Nobody is denying that Murali is a great bowler but one has to take into account that Murali is the sole potent wicket-taker in his team,but in Warne's case he was part of a bowling attack that had McGrath,Gillespie,Kasper,McGill and many others and all those guys were match-winning and wicket-taking bowlers in their own right but Warne still made his mark among all these bowlers.

 

[JASON]

Just to Clarify -

First Test
First Innings -
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Murali with 4/7
Leading wicket taker of Front Line Sri Lankan batsmen for Australia- Warne 2 and Kaspar 2
Second Innings -
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Murali with 4/7
Leading wicket taker of Front line Sri Lankan Batsmen for Australia - Warne 4/7

Second Test
First Innings

Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Zoysa 4/7
Leading wicket taker of Front line Sri Lankan Batsmen for Australia - Kaspar 3 Warne 3(in fact Kaspar took numbers 1,2,3 and could be argued as the chief wicket taker)

Second Innings
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Murali 3 , Vaas 3
Leading wicket taker of Front line Srilankan Batsmen for Australia -Gillespie 3, Warne 3

Third Test

First Innings
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka- Murali 3 Vaas 3
Leading wicket taker of Front line SriLankan Batsmen for Australia -Gillespie 3, Lehman 2,Kaspar 1

Second Innings
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka -Murali 3
Leading wicket taker of Front line Srilankan Batsmen for Australia - Lehman 3

In Summary Murali was the leading Wicket taker of Frontline Australian batsmen in 5 out of 6 innings (being shared with Vaas on 2 occasions).

Warne was the leading wicket taker of Frontline SriLankan batsmen in 4 of 6 innings (being shared with Kaspar and Gillie on 3 occasions - and one of these where he took Just 2 Front line batsmen's wickets along with Kaspar ).

 

[JASON]

Nobody is denying that Murali is a great bowler but one has to take into account that Murali is the sole potent wicket-taker in his team,but in Warne's case he was part of a bowling attack that had McGrath,Gillespie,Kasper,McGill and many others and all those guys were match-winning and wicket-taking bowlers in their own right but Warne still made his mark among all these bowlers.

Not always as the Stats posted in my previous post show he was clearly out performed by Lehman in the 3rd Test.

 

[SJS]

I am one of those who is not particularly fond of this debate (and the pointlessness when its so well established thatpositions are embedded in rock). So this is not to take sides in this debate but just to make a point regarding making comparisons.

- Its generally very difficult to compare two sportsmen since conditions change, oppositions change, context of matches changes and so on. In the case of Murali and Warne since they are contemporaries, purveyors of similararts (spin) though extremely difficult both in execution and also slightly in what is required to counter each, the comparisons are mad with a bit more authoritatively then for, say, Imran with Sobers.

- Statistics are the usual (often the only) refuge of those who delve in this.

- If we ARE going to compare stats then we need to reduce as much of the disparities of context out of it as we possibly can. This doeant make the resultant comparison perfect but at least it is slightly less irritating when figures completely out of context are thrown around. For example, How can we compare Murali with Warne when the latter never had to bowl to the Aussies, such destroyers of most bowling reputations. Conversely, how can we compare them when Murali has the advantage (so say many) of bowling on wickets made for him at home or when he plays so much against weaker sides.

- Here are stats of the two bowlers with some of these contextual anomalies removed.

The figures of Warne and Murali against all opponents except each other, without the minnows (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) and only in away games.

The figures make an interesting reading.

The overall figures are not too dis-similar.


CRITERIA........WARNE........MURALI
Tests.....................53..................37
Wkts.....................274................218
Avg......................23.9...............23.7
S/R......................56.1...............55.2
W/Test.................5.2..................5.9
Eco Rt.................2.55................2.57
5 fors....................13...................17
10 fors....................3....................6

Its absolutely amazing how similar the strike rate, average and economy figures are.

Murali's takes more wickets per test but It could be argued that he is the sides main wickettaker by far while Warne had MacGrath besides a hoard of others. On the other hand it can be countered that having a great bowler atthe other end helps rather than hinders a great bowlers effectiveness.

When bowling against the better players of spin (India) they both have their worststats.

CRITERIA........WARNE........MURALI
Tests.....................9..................8
Wkts.....................34................31
Avg......................43.1.............39.6
S/R......................81.0..............81.9
W/Test.................3.8................3.9
Eco Rt.................3.2.................2.9
5 fors....................1....................2
10 fors..................0....................0

Again one is stuck by the similarity of the figures. So instead of arguing about their stats can we just accept that we were lucky to have two such greatchampions playing atthe same time and that inspite of being as different from each other chalk and cheese their performances are so similar that lesser mortals like us should give up trying to achieve 'punditry' by looking for that BIG difference that will clearly settle the argument.

Unless it is a question of patriotrism or any other such silly things. I say silly because not being able to appreciate a great opponent's skills in a sporting arena is not just silly, it is much worse and the loss is of the one guilty of it.

One suspects, though, that a lot of the hardness of attitude has to do with the side-issue of legality or otherwise of Murali's bowling action. I think its high time that we accpeted that in such matters, finally the law will be the arbiter and thats how it should be, howsoever strong our personal opinions even on a matter of what should and should not be legal.

 

[JASON]

Peace.

 

[SJS]

Sorry. I missed out the attachment. Here it is

 

[pup11]

Just to Clarify -

First Test
First Innings -
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Murali with 4/7
Leading wicket taker of Front Line Sri Lankan batsmen for Australia- Warne 2 and Kaspar 2
Second Innings -
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Murali with 4/7
Leading wicket taker of Front line Sri Lankan Batsmen for Australia - Warne 4/7

Second Test
First Innings

Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Zoysa 4/7
Leading wicket taker of Front line Sri Lankan Batsmen for Australia - Kaspar 3 Warne 3(in fact Kaspar took numbers 1,2,3 and could be argued as the chief wicket taker)

Second Innings
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Murali 3 , Vaas 3
Leading wicket taker of Front line Srilankan Batsmen for Australia -Gillespie 3, Warne 3

Third Test

First Innings
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka- Murali 3 Vaas 3
Leading wicket taker of Front line SriLankan Batsmen for Australia -Gillespie 3, Lehman 2,Kaspar 1

Second Innings
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka -Murali 3
Leading wicket taker of Front line Srilankan Batsmen for Australia - Lehman 3

In Summary Murali was the leading Wicket taker of Frontline Australian batsmen in 5 out of 6 innings (being shared with Vaas on 2 occasions).

Warne was the leading wicket taker of Frontline SriLankan batsmen in 4 of 6 innings (being shared with Kaspar and Gillie on 3 occasions - and one of these where he took Just 2 Front line batsmen's wickets along with Kaspar ).

Thats what i am trying to say that in Murali's case he and Vass (to a lesser extent) are the only two wicket-takers of their team,but in Warne's case bowlers like McGrath,Gillespie,Kasper were all equally capable of taking wickets of top-order batsman so the competiton for Warne was really stiff in his own team.

But Warne still managed to pick all those wickets so i would rate him slightly ahead of Murali.

 

[Ikki]

Just to Clarify -

First Test
First Innings -
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Murali with 4/7
Leading wicket taker of Front Line Sri Lankan batsmen for Australia- Warne 2 and Kaspar 2
Second Innings -
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Murali with 4/7
Leading wicket taker of Front line Sri Lankan Batsmen for Australia - Warne 4/7

Second Test
First Innings

Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Zoysa 4/7
Leading wicket taker of Front line Sri Lankan Batsmen for Australia - Kaspar 3 Warne 3(in fact Kaspar took numbers 1,2,3 and could be argued as the chief wicket taker)

Second Innings
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka - Murali 3 , Vaas 3
Leading wicket taker of Front line Srilankan Batsmen for Australia -Gillespie 3, Warne 3

Third Test

First Innings
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka- Murali 3 Vaas 3
Leading wicket taker of Front line SriLankan Batsmen for Australia -Gillespie 3, Lehman 2,Kaspar 1

Second Innings
Leading wicket taker of Front line Australian Batsmen for Sri Lanka -Murali 3
Leading wicket taker of Front line Srilankan Batsmen for Australia - Lehman 3

In Summary Murali was the leading Wicket taker of Frontline Australian batsmen in 5 out of 6 innings (being shared with Vaas on 2 occasions).

Warne was the leading wicket taker of Frontline SriLankan batsmen in 4 of 6 innings (being shared with Kaspar and Gillie on 3 occasions - and one of these where he took Just 2 Front line batsmen's wickets along with Kaspar ).

Um, it doesn't seem to sink in does it? It doesn't matter whether Murali took more front-line batsmen. The big differences are this:

1) the closest performing bowler in the Sri Lankan side, Vaas, who bowled better than Murali in some innings, bowls only HALF the amount that Murali does. HENCE, it would be quite impossible for him to take MORE wickets than Murali unless he has an absolutely amazing spell. So you have to look at overall figures: strike-rate and average.

Your argument is akin to saying X batsman is better than Y batsman because he scored more runs, denying the fact that on average - strike-rate, you can count too - he scores less than Y batsman, who has played less tests. It's like saying Kallis is better than Bradman because he scored more runs in his career - taking it into a broader sense.

Yes, Murali too more wickets, but he wasn't cheaper or quicker at doing so. So that is why when I factor in 'performance' I am not sticking to a simple measure of counting wickets - which is why in half the innings, he WASN'T the best bowler.

2) When he took those wickets was AFTER the batsmen in question belted him all over the park.

So, when you consider how much better Warne has to bowl to stand out, because of his support, then it's CLEAR - and not like mud - that he was the better performer.

 

[JASON]

Thats what i am trying to say that in Murali's case he and Vass (to a lesser extent) are the only two wicket-takers of their team,but in Warne's case bowlers like McGrath,Gillespie,Kasper were all equally capable of taking wickets of top-order batsman so the competiton for Warne was really stiff in his own team.

But Warne still managed to pick all those wickets so i would rate him slightly ahead of Murali.

Then how do you explain the 3rd Test where Lehman took more Frontline Batsmen's wickets....

To SJS -still Peace - but had to respond to this...

 

[SJS]

Then how do you explain the 3rd Test where Lehman took more Frontline Batsmen's wickets....

To SJS -still Peace - but had to respond to this...

How about reponding to my stats and what I am saying in that post

 

[JASON]

Um, it doesn't seem to sink in does it? It doesn't matter whether Murali took more front-line batsmen. The big differences are this:

1) the closest performing bowler in the Sri Lankan side, Vaas, who bowled better than Murali in some innings, bowls only HALF the amount that Murali does. HENCE, it would be quite impossible for him to take MORE wickets than Murali unless he has an absolutely amazing spell. So you have to look at overall figures: strike-rate and average.

Your argument is akin to saying X batsman is better than Y batsman because he scored more runs, denying the fact that on average - strike-rate, you can count too - he scores less than Y batsman, who has played less tests. It's like saying Kallis is better than Bradman because he scored more runs in his career - taking it into a broader sense.

Yes, Murali too more wickets, but he wasn't cheaper or quicker at doing so. So that is why when I factor in 'performance' I am not sticking to a simple measure of counting wickets - which is why in half the innings, he WASN'T the best bowler.

2) When he took those wickets was AFTER the batsmen in question belted him all over the park.

So, when you consider how much better Warne has to bowl to stand out, because of his support, then it's CLEAR - and not like mud - that he was the better performer.

It still doesn't sink in to you does it, that your theory about bowlers who bowl more overs getting large number of wickets...then Some of the Bangladeshi, Zimbabwean bowlers should be among the leading wicket takers on the list...That theory is a load of Bollocks.

And believe me if Vaas was capable of getting those wickets, they (Sri Lankan Captain or coach)would not spare him the overs to keep him rested...you have lot of rubbish theories which you confidantly put out here but they are all bluff at best ... I have got to give it to you though ....you have no damn hesitation in posting these crap theories .... and you expect everyone to suck them like lollies..

 

[pasag]

Again one is stuck by the similarity of the figures. So instead of arguing about their stats can we just accept that we were lucky to have two such greatchampions playing atthe same time and that inspite of being as different from each other chalk and cheese their performances are so similar that lesser mortals like us should give up trying to achieve 'punditry' by looking for that BIG difference that will clearly settle the argument.

My exact stance on the issue, nice post.

 

[Ikki]

Regardless of all the stats you want to put out there - the reality is Murali got better quality batsmen and on first innings does far better than Warne despite bowling on Day 1.

He got them out, after bowling a marathon spell, and after getting smacked around.

Taking a 4/80 is much better than taking 5/125, and not just cleaning up the end when you're at 2/125 and jumping with the other 3. But to have an actual impact on the game, which is why the 'expense' thing here is key. See the difference?

Warne's stats are inflated on the second innings in SL pitches which make even Club spinners look great.

Then Murali, by that logic, is even WORSE than a club spinner because in all those 2nd innings he had WORSE figures. Are you sure you're getting this?

Murali's stats against every country in the World, shows the guy gets Front line batsmen time after time at better economy rate (57) than Warne who gets his stats inflated by lot of tailenders. (but despite that his strike rate is lower than Murali -that should say something).

But Murali bowls almost double than most his teammates, of course he is going to take wickets, it just doesn't mean he's had a significant impact on the game. It's a very easy concept to get.

And Murali also has a comparable rate of tail-enders. Warne takes what, 3-7% more tail-enders than Murali? Yet it is Murali that has the opportunity to FACE Top-order batsmen - who fillet him anyway - and still has a clear reliance on tail-enders. Again simple logic, even if it sounds confusing. Check out how many 4-fers and 5-fers McGrath has and then take a look at Gillespie and Kasper, and then be AMAZED still how many more 4-fers and 5-fers Warne has with that support. Not only do they cut down how many he can take in an innings/match, but they consistently take top-order batsmen leaving him with only 6-7 batsmen left. Now that is AMAZING.

Think about it like this, Murali comes in when 0 or 1 batsman has been taken so he has 9 bowlers to bowl at. Let's say he takes a 5-fer. 5/9 = 57%.

Warne comes in with 3 or 4 down in a LOT of test matches. Let's say only 3 have been taken and Warne comes in. When Warne takes a 5-fer that is: 5/7 = 71%!

Now even if Murali takes 6 wickets - one more than the above for Warne - it still comes out to: 6/9 = 67%.

And this dumb logic about bowlers who bowl lot of overs getting wickets doesn't hold because I haven't seen Syed Rasel, Mashrafe Mortaza, Tapash Baisya or Prosper Utseya or Panyangara (or other Zim bowlers) among leading wicket takers....or with great figures ... So thats a load of Bull...again ....from the master of bogus Statistics .

Are you okay? You sure you don't drink as you type? None of those bowlers bowl NEAR as much as Murali. Most of them bowl HALF per test match. Whilst they bowl 22-26 overs a match, Murali bowls 55 overs a match.

And that's REALLY besides the point because I am not saying "any bowler who bowls a lot will end up with Murali figures". No, not at all. Murali is a great bowler but if every great bowler had the kind of support Murali did and their team relied that way on his bowling then YES, their scores would be misleading just like Murali's are.

You really gotta stop digging yourself into a hole mate.

 

[Ikki]

It still doesn't sink in to you does it, that your theory about bowlers who bowl more overs getting large number of wickets...then Some of the Bangladeshi, Zimbabwean bowlers should be among the leading wicket takers on the list...That theory is a load of Bollocks.

Except that no-one is making that point. That's why it's a load of bollocks. Either you're confusing the issue or making a straw man. No one is saying the ONLY reason Murali bowls great is for that reason. But it helps his figures look MUCH better than his performance actually was. And we're not comparing Mortaza with Murali here, we're comparing Warne.

And believe me if Vaas was capable of getting those wickets, they (Sri Lankan Captain or coach)would not spare him the overs to keep him rested...you have lot of rubbish theories which you confidantly put out here but they are all bluff at best ... I have got to give it to you though ....you have no damn hesitation in posting these crap theories .... and you expect everyone to suck them like lollies..

Look at all those innings. Vaas is not only bowling a lot of maidens, but he was taking wickets and cheaply too. Even if you HADN'T watched the match you could at least see that in the scorecard.

I have to give it to you though, you have no hesitation for making a dumb statement, that is even FACTUALLY wrong, and then come here and pointing the finger. If I hadn't laughed so much replying to your theories I woulda got tired by now.

 

[JASON]

AS I said before, you bring out a lot of half baked stats and a lot of hockus pockus theories .... But they still don't hold .....

Meh I just stick to simple stats and simple logic and I rely on performances in winning tests...... and quality and strength of batsmen dismissed etc...

I am still waiting for your new theory on why Mashrafe Mortaza, Enamul Jaq and Rafique being not among the leading all time wicket takers given they bowl truck load of overs...

 

[Ikki]

I like SJS' post, but I think it's good to clarify and see 'why'. I can see why a lot of people may be his fans, especially his countrymen but there are a few things we don't have to kid ourselves over. And we argue and we break up arguments for all cricketers, I don't see why this one has to be so different. Especially when this thread is FOR that very reason .

 

[Ikki]

AS I said before, you bring out a lot of half baked stats and a lot of hockus pockus theories .... But they still don't hold .....

Meh I just stick to simple stats and simple logic and I rely on performances in winning tests...... and quality and strength of batsmen dismissed etc...

I am still waiting for your new theory on why Mashrafe Mortaza, Enamul Jaq and Rafique being not among the leading all time wicket takers given they bowl truck load of overs...

LOL . Okay, for the 3rd time, where are those stats half-baked?

If you only look at the simple stats then that explains how far off you are on analysing these two properly. You're dumbing yourself down for the sake of it and not to further your own knowledge. Be that as you wish, but don't expect me not to point out your huge flaws. And I already responded with regards to Mortaza, who you said bowls a lot...but doesn't...another fact wrong? So btw, why should the Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean bowlers be taking as much as Murali? I think you missed explaining that when you were trying to piece together an argument.

 

[JASON]

By the way Kaza that's a new one - Maybe they will now have to get Vaas bowling a lot of overs because according to your theory ...he actually will be more successful than Murali and because he also bowls more maidens than Murali (according to your theory) he will be more succesful

Have you considered writing a book on these theories ?

It could be a new Cricket Manual on strategies ...

 

[JASON]

To SJS - Warne's stats get inflated by the large number of Ashes Tests he played...

You just have too look at the comparison between the 2 bowlers in County Cricket ...and you will see my point.

Murali's success in County Cricket is phenomenal. And the comaprison is extra-ordinarily in favour of Murali.

Kaza will create a theory on that too, I am sure.