*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[honestbharani]

No?

Aravinda in that series scored his runs at 96, the next best who played more than 1 innings was Jayawardene at 30. There was just 1 other half-century in the series (of a round 50).

That series was one of my favourites because my favourite batsman ever (Aravinda) virtually single-handedly defied Australia.

How dare you decry it?!

lol, somehow I didn't remember how outstanding he was, but it basically backs up my point even more. It is not even about strike rates... Sometimes, an attacking batsman can have only a strike rate of 50 or 60 against Warne, but it is the WAY he hits him that makes the difference. He could block 10 deliveries and then step out and ondrive him against the spin for a two and a four and that in itself puts a question to Warne and he doesn't SEEM to be as effective as he is when the batsman just keep defending against him.... In fact, I reckon the same can be said about Murali and just about every other attacking bowler.....

 

[Ikki]

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 ...

I'm yet to wonder where you get your theories from. Here is Vaas' figures in all 6 innings, in which 2 of them he had better figures than Murali:

1st test, 1st innings:

Overs: 12
Maidens: 2
Wickets: 1
Runs: 39

1st test, 2nd innings:

Overs: 27
Maidens: 3
Wickets: 0
Runs: 67

2nd test, 1st innings:

Overs: 11.2
Maidens: 5
Wickets: 2
Runs: 14

2nd test, 2nd innings:

Overs: 33
Maidens: 6
Wickets: 3
Runs: 103

3rd test, 1st innings:

Overs: 26
Maidens: 3
Wickets: 3
Average: 93

3rd test, 2nd innings:

Overs: 21
Maidens: 3
Wickets: 2
Average: 61

---

Apart from the 1st test - 2nd innings of it really - he was very good. He was the better performer in the whole 2nd test and was MORE than adequate in the 3rd. Look at how many overs less he bowled, in some cases 10-20 overs less in every innings. In the Test (the 2nd one) where he was the best bowler, he bowled 21 less overs than Murali. Then look at how much the Aussie pacemen bowl, especially when they're successful. Then think about it, we have more alternatives, so the other overs are split between Kasper and Dizzy to share - and they bowl almost as much as Vaas. If Murali is the only good bowler, yet Vaas is bowling well, why does Vaas chip in as if he is not automatically the 2nd best?

Vaas is the clear alternative whilst with Australia it's either Dizzy or Kasper - and then there is a case for Lehmann in this tour - and yet Vaas bowls maybe on average 4 overs an inning more than Dizzy and Kasper? They bowled almost as much as Vaas...even though they had more competition. I hope that sounds as simple as I intend it to be.

ADD: and no one is saying Vaas would have taken more if he had more chances or not. But to give him a chance when he is clearly bowling well is the key. And if guys like Vaas are getting their chances and Murali is bowling much less then his figures aren't going to sway the way it had in this 2003/04 series.

 

[JASON]

As I said before you have a great knack for twisting and putting stats to make one performance look better than the other...

Vaas's numbers which you have convoluted look good, but the context Kaza is whats lacking in your whole bloody argument over 25-30 pages of rubbish you keep posting on this thread to fill the World Wide Web....

Vaas took a few wickets, but Murali took more ...and more Frontline batsmen...in every test he came up with most wickets of batsmen 1-7 ......And I think you must think SL captain and Coach were dummies to not bowl Vaas if they thought he would clean Australia and even more economically (bowling more Maidens as you keep saying )

 

[SJS]

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

You just have too look at the comarison 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.

Oh I can answer those points but having decided never again to get into this particularargument I prefer to remain neutral

Just one point though. Its always easy to pick and chose between stats and find something or the other to support one's predetermined stance. Hence our legendery statistics factory.

As far as your theory is concerned, it just so happens that taking away figures against England from the overall away stats quoted by me, here is what you get.


CRITERIA........WARNE........MURALI
Tests.....................31..................31
Wkts.....................145................170
Avg......................25.6.............25.0
S/R......................59.4..............57.2
Eco Rt.................2.58.................2.62
5 fors....................5....................12
10 fors..................0....................3

Once again the average, strike rate and economy are amazingly similar. Yes the wkts per teat as well as five fors are higher for Murali which is true wiyth or without England. This is generally countered (with a grain of truth one dare say) that having just one strike bowler in a side will mean he will 'strike' more often. Wecan live with that and still conclude that there stats do not throw any major sources of light one way or the other to show marked superiority of one over the other.

Asfar as county figures are concenred, I am surprised that you want to remove the figures against England's test sides in England but want to conclude the argument based on the performance against second rung England players in England !!

I repeat this doesnt mean I am for Warne. I do have my personal preference over these two master bowlers but its not something that going to win any arguments here

 

[Ikki]

As I said before you have a great knack for twisting and putting stats to make one performance look better than the other...

Vaas's numbers which you have convoluted look good, but the context Kaza is whats lacking in your whole bloody argument over 25-30 pages of rubbish you keep posting on this thread to fill the World Wide Web....

Vaas took a few wickets, but Murali took more ...and more Frontline batsmen...in every test he came up with most wickets of batsmen 1-7 ......And I think you must think SL captain and Coach were dummies to not bowl Vaas if they thought he would clean Australia and even more economically (bowling more Maidens as you keep saying )

LMAO, he keep saying it to himself the poor guy but he's yet to prove it. How can I convolute the scorecard? That was right off it, copy paste job. No change at all. The simple figures - the ones you like.

4th time asking now, where is the chop-job you keep talking of?

Murali took more wickets...because he bowled much much more. How can I put it a simpler way for you? I already gave the batsmen example as to why average and strike-rate play a large part in making wicket-taking valuable.

So where is the context lacking? Do us a favour, bestow your great knowledge on us, but please keep it to facts and statistics that exist.

P.S. have you just recently started watching cricket or did you rack up your posts in the general forum or something?

 

[Perm]

JASON, you're pretty much getting owned in this argument. Kazo is just presenting some basic stats and you're trying to say that he is twisting the scorecards. I think it is you who needs to take off his tinted glasses mate

 

[Ikki]

I repeat this doesnt mean I am for Warne. I do have my personal preference over these two master bowlers but its not something that going to win any arguments here

SJS, why don't you open a thread or mention who it is and why. Can't promise I agree but I tend to enjoy reading your reasons.

 

[adharcric]

This is generally countered (with a grain of truth one dare say) that having just one strike bowler in a side will mean he will 'strike' more often.

If you go by wickets per test, yes. If you go by strike rate, no - having strong support from your attack can only be a good thing. Anyways, I'm not getting involved in this.

 

[SJS]

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 .

Oh I have no problem over debating this issue. I have done the same myself a long time back here itself but I think its clear that all arguments have been offered, chewed over, spat out and regurgitated over and over again.

There is no more life left in this horse.

 

[JASON]

Kaza, I started watching Cricket yesterday and started playing only today..then I joined this forum jacked up 6000 posts thanks to James (the Cricket web owner) who helped me in this regard...

But honestly Kaza, I will bring it to the attention of SL Team Management and coches, that based on your Great Statistical analysis, one thing has come out clear as Gold....
that Henceforth Vaas should be bowling more overs than Murali ...since he bowls more maidens and his strike rate is better (-is that what you said ) ...Murali be restricted to just 15 overs and Vaas should aim for 40 overs...pehaps (is that correct Kaza ... )

And this will bring SL far greater success than previous....and thats just based on Stats and Stats alone....Goddam it ...

 

[JASON]

JASON, you're pretty much getting owned in this argument. Kazo is just presenting some basic stats and you're trying to say that he is twisting the scorecards. I think it is you who needs to take off his tinted glasses mate

Since you are as Neutral as they come I will take it , Mate. Cheers , Thanks..

Happy...

 

[JASON]

Asfar as county figures are concenred, I am surprised that you want to remove the figures against England's test sides in England but want to conclude the argument based on the performance against second rung England players in England !!

But my question is even if they were second rung players...there shouldn't be such a massive difference, surely...

 

[SJS]

If you go by wickets per test, yes. If you go by strike rate, no - having strong support from your attack can only be a good thing. Anyways, I'm not getting involved in this.

You are absolutely right. I am talking here of wkts per test and frquency of five fors only. The strike rate difference between them isnt that great.

 

[SJS]

But my question is even if they were second rung players...there shouldn't be such a massive difference, surely...

Well there could be several reasons for that.

By the way, a major difference between Muali and Warne's figures is bowlingagainstWindies in Windies. Warne averages 39.7 with a strike rate of 78.3 while Murali has a terrific average of 18.2 at a strike rate of 41.9. Someone will get up and say these figures skew Murali's stats favourably.

What to do?

If you remove Windies figures from the overall figures of both the statsarestill similarwith Warney's being a pip better.

Thats all such nit picking will achieve.

 

[Ikki]

If you go by wickets per test, yes. If you go by strike rate, no - having strong support from your attack can only be a good thing. Anyways, I'm not getting involved in this.

This is where my point in the other thread comes in with regards to momentum. Warne can bowl a great spell, not take wickets and will have to start all over again. Murali bowls much more and will carry that momentum for a much longer time and will eventually clean up what's left to make his strike-rate acceptable all the while having a negligible effect on the game.

E.g. Warne bowls 25 overs and takes 2 wickets, that is a strike-rate of 75.
Murali bowls 30 overs and takes 2 wickets, but finishes out the rest of the innings with another 10 overs for 2 more wickets and that will bump it up to 60. And really, by then it's a foregone conclusion.

Here is a simple way of thinking about it: Warne bowls either great and takes wickets or bowls great not taking wickets or not bowling well and not taking wickets.
Murali will either bowl well and take wickets or bowl poorly and still take em.

Or even simpler: Warne can bowl well and not take as many wickets and Murali can bowl poor but still take more wickets than he otherwise would.


The law of averages, plus his exceptional skill, says that he will not go through a test match bowling as much as he does, and bowling well and NOT taking wickets. And the way Murali bowls, tight and stock, means even if he isn't taking wickets or bowling well, the sheer amount that he bowls will eventually lead to a wicket or two. Mainly because of two things: his support won't take that many wickets and even if they were bowling well - as has been shown by this whole Vaas argument - Murali bowls way more than them.

Now Warne doesn't have that luxury. He can bowl really great and not take as many wickets as he should. He can bowl bad and he won't get that extra 15 overs to fix it up. For two reasons: his support will take those wickets, and the overs are shared much evenly in the Aussie line-up.

Hence it is a very big stop-start issue that does not translate into the fluency of career-overs-bowled divided by career-wickets-taken.

 

[JASON]

Well there could be several reasons for that.

By the way, a major difference between Muali and Warne's figures is bowlingagainstWindies in Windies. Warne averages 39.7 with a strike rate of 78.3 while Murali has a terrific average of 18.2 at a strike rate of 41.9. Someone will get up and say these figures skew Murali's stats favourably.

What to do?

Peace.

But lot of Kaza's theories are

 

[Ikki]

Kaza, I started watching Cricket yesterday and started playing only today..then I joined this forum jacked up 6000 posts thanks to James (the Cricket web owner) who helped me in this regard...

But honestly Kaza, I will bring it to the attention of SL Team Management and coches, that based on your Great Statistical analysis, one thing has come out clear as Gold....
that Henceforth Vaas should be bowling more overs than Murali ...since he bowls more maidens and his strike rate is better (-is that what you said ) ...Murali be restricted to just 15 overs and Vaas should aim for 40 overs...pehaps (is that correct Kaza ... )

And this will bring SL far greater success than previous....and thats just based on Stats and Stats alone....Goddam it ...

So again, you're rebutting an argument I never made. I did not say Vaas should bowl more than Murali or Vaas is better than Murali, but I am saying that when the support in the side is so thin, when you have someone like Vaas, then they should use him more. And Vaas is a good enough bowler to take those wickets that the others don't. But, unfortunately for you guys, he bowls like 20 overs less per match than Murali. Vaas is by no means a poor wicket-taker, nor does he leak runs. And, if he bowled more the wickets would be shared more. That's a fact.

 

[SJS]

SJS, why don't you open a thread or mention who it is and why. Can't promise I agree but I tend to enjoy reading your reasons.

Okay. Maybe one of these days I should write an article on the issue.

Let me say this much though

- I am one of those who felt that ICC was wrong in changing the law pertaing to legality of bowling and what constitutes 'chucking'. I dont want to go into the reasons for the same once again since I have done my bit of arguing on the subject. Having said that I accept the law as it stands today try not to let my feelings on the '15 degree lattitude' affect my opinion of Murali.

- I also feel that there is a possibility of discussion on whether Warne is the greatest leg spinner of all time. None of us has seen Orielly or Grimmett but there is an ever so slight feeling at times about the possibility that could they have been better. One does at time think of Warne being at a loss or Warne bowling a defensive line.

- One hasn't seen Laker but having seen Prasanna, an absolute wizard mind you, its difficult to see how much better an off spinner can be than Murali is with his 'doosra'. But its the doosra which is/was under a cloud and it has become increasingly difficult to imagine Murali and assess him without the doosra.

- If I was the non playingcaptain of an all time world XI and was forced to chose between them one spinner for a wicket I had no clue about, I think if I was assured Murali would not be called, I would select him.

 

[JASON]

Okay. Maybe one of these days I should write an article on the issue.

Let me say this much though

- I am one of those who felt that ICC was wrong in changing the law pertaing to legality of bowling and what constitutes 'chucking'. I dont want to go into the reasons for the same once again since I have done my bit of arguing on the subject. Having said that I accept the law as it stands today try not to let my feelings on the '15 degree lattitude' affect my opinion of Murali.

- I also feel that there is a possibility of discussion on whether Warne is the greatest leg spinner of all time. None of us has seen Orielly or Grimmett but there is an ever so slight feeling at times about the possibility that could they have been better. One does at time think of Warne being at a loss or Warne bowling a defensive line.

- One hasn't seen Laker but having seen Prasanna, an absolute wizard mind you, its difficult to see how much better an off spinner can be than Murali is with his 'doosra'. But its the doosra which is/was under a cloud and it has become increasingly difficult to imagine Murali and assess him without the doosra.

- If I was the non playingcaptain of an all time world XI and was forced to chose between them one spinner for a wicket I had no clue about, I think if I was assured Murali would not be called, I would select him.

SJS as always your posts are measured and sound and based on sound analysis as one has always come to expect.

 

[Ikki]

That's fair enough. I thought you were a big O'Reilly fan, or was that archie?