Murali's Record

[Richard]

Because... he said... as much...

 

[Fiery]

Can you keep doing that for a bit longer please?

 

[SJS]

FINGER SPINNERS IN AUSTRALIA - Part 1

Its very interesting to see how finger spinners in general and off spinners in particular have fared in Australia. I did a study of this and have updated the figures to include the last test series of Sri Lanka.

• For this analysis, I have included all finger spinners (as the term is generally understood) who have taken at least 100 test wickets.
  
• I excluded those who played often primarily as a batsman thus excluding people like Shastri, Mankad and Sobers.
  
• I excluded people who played just a single test in Australia like Harbhajan.

This gave me 27 bowlers in all - 14 left arm and 13 right arm (including Murali). Here is the complete list.

[B]Left Arm	Right Arm[/B]
Bedi	        Allen, David
Blythe	        Bracewell
Doshi	        Emburey
Edmonds	        Gibbs
Giles	        Illingworth
Lock	        Laker
Peel	        Mallett
Qasim	        Murali
Rhodes	        Prasanna
Tufnell	        Saqlain
Underwood	Tayfield
Valentine	   Titmus
Verity         Yardley
Vettori

Its interesting to see what happens to these bowlers when they tour Australia.

Effectiveness as Bowler : Wickets per test

I find this a very good criteria (not perfect as with any other) to determine the effectiveness of a bowler over his career. Thus Barnes with his 7 wickets per test makes him such a fantastically effective strike bowler. Murali is a very high 5 per wicket at this stage of his career. How does our reference group fare on this score.

[B]Type	Career W/T	Aust.W/T  Diff W/T[/B]
LAS	 3.27	        3.20	 -0.06
RAS	 3.35	        3.35	  0.00
Both	 3.30	        3.28	 -0.02

Note: The figures of Murali are removed from the above.

So, it can be seen that the bowlers as a whole do not fare much differently on this score in Australia in comparison to their overall careers. Within the groups there are variations of course with Tayfield (1.4), Bedi (1.0), Emburey (0.9) Iqbal Qasim (0.8) and Edmonds (0.5) taking much more wickets per test in Australia than all others.

Lock (-2.3), Blythe (-2.1) and Verity (-1.3) are the ones who suffer most in Australia on this score.

Murali has an amazing 6.12 wickets per test in his career as a whole and a mere 2.4 per test in Australia. Easily the worst in comparison. Even in absolute terms (without reference to creer stats, Murali comes 21st in this list of 27 bowlers in wickets per test in Australia and 11th amongst the 13 right hand off spinners.

I remind he has by far the highest number of wickets per test of any spinner in the history of th game for his career as a whole. What Australia does to his figures is absolutely astonishing.

Not a great start for the Matthara Marauder, I am afraid in this report.

FINGER SPINNERS IN AUSTRALIA - Part 2

More precise measure of effectiveness - Strike Rate : Balls per Wicket

The wkts per test criteria is considered slightly less useful since a bowler may take more wickets by sheer number of overs bowled in a test match. Thus a team where one bowler is head and shoulders above the others, he could end up getting more wickets by default, as it were. Thus a better measure is balls per wicket.

Generally faster bowlers take fewer balls to get their wickets and those bringing the ball in to the batsmen tend to have lower strike rates than those that take them away. The second part of the above sentence is generally but not always true. Also the changes in the LBW rules over time have changed this equation too.

Murali has a fabulous career strike rate of 54.1 which is like a pace bowler's rather than a spinner's as can be seen from the strike rates of our reference group.

[B]Type	Career SR	Aust.SR	 Diff %[/B]
LAS	77.31	        80.7	 4.45
RAS	82.04	        88.5	 7.86
Both	79.51	        84.7	 6.58

Clearly the effectiveness (ability to strike) of all finger spinners drop slightly in Australia but the drop is not very significant. Bedi (-15.4%), Valentine (-12.4), Qasim (-11.4), Emburey and tayfield have better strike rates while Blythe (46.6), Verity (45.9), Illingworth (29.5), Peel and Titmus have a drop in ability to strike of between 25 and 50%. Once again, only Lock with a drop of 167% (SR of 202 in Aust. against 76 in career) suffers greatly.

Murali's drop is 142 percent. In absolute terms, Murali ranks 26th amongst the spinners in the reference group and last amongst the off spinners.

Its important to remember that for the career as a whole Murali ranks amongst the top three in strike rate. The other two being Blythe and Peel from a century ago with completely different statistical reference points. Thus effectively Murali has by far the finest strike rate of all spinners since the end of the first world war and yet he has the worst ever in Australia bar the unheralsed (relatively) Tony Lock.

The drop is dramatic once again.

Cost Effectiveness : Runs per Wicket

This is the most common criteria used to rank bowlers since it combines the strike rate with economy. It is a useful overall tool of measurement though the break up of strikeability and economy is better for deeper analysis.

[B]Type	Career Avg	Aust.Avg	Diff %[/B]
LAS	29.1	        31.9	         9.68
RAS	30.0	        33.3	        10.99
Both	29.5	        32.6	        10.55

Once again there is a slight drop in performance for finger spinners in Australia but the drop is just about 10 percent. The average for the reference group goes up from 29-30 to 32-33. Clear drop but not alarming.

Emburey benefits most from bowling on Australian pitches with his average dropping ovr 16% (38.41 to 32.11) with Bedi having a very small (4.2%) improvement. Everyone else drops (Laker is about even). The worst affected are Blythe (57.6%), Verity (41.8), Illingworth (39.9), Doshi (30.2) and Peel (27). Clearly the English bowlers enjoy find the difference between the wet English summer and soft underground conditions a much bigger change to Australia.

But, once again, no one comes close to what happens to Murali. His average goes up a whopping 246 percent - from 21.78 overall to 75.42 in Australia. He again moves from 4th in the over all list (again with Blytrhe and Peel well above him and Laker more or less at par) to the absolute bottom of the heap.

Lock keeps him company once again but even he with his 194 percent increase, is not able to touch Murali's downfall down under.

- to be continued

 

[Richard]

Please, when it is, can we NOT count Murali as a fingerspinner?

Also, would it not be wise to consider Australia only since they've started covering their wickets? 1954\55 or whenever it was (Sean told me once, I forget - it was around then)

 

[SJS]

Please, when it is, can we NOT count Murali as a fingerspinner?

Also, would it not be wise to consider Australia only since they've started covering their wickets? 1954\55 or whenever it was (Sean told me once, I forget - it was around then)

I have used the term finger spinner, you can use any other it doesnt matter.

As regards covered wickets, I think we will see that I have repeatedly pointed out the figures of people like Peel and Blythe for example for similar considerations. We can easily take off all bowlers before WW2 and the resulting conclusion wont be very different.

In fact, Murali appears in worse light if we do that.

 

[Richard]

I have used the term finger spinner, you can use any other it doesnt matter.

Eh? There's a huge difference between fingerspinners and wristspinners, mainly in the fact that one usually spins it far more than the other.

I don't think Murali is of great interest when fingerspinners in Australia are concerned. Kumble might be though.

 

[SJS]

Eh? There's a huge difference between fingerspinners and wristspinners, mainly in the fact that one usually spins it far more than the other.

I don't think Murali is of great interest when fingerspinners in Australia are concerned. Kumble might be though.

And the point being ?

Anyway, you can work out the figures for right hand leg spinners since they are the only ones I have left out and see if it leads you to a different conclusion. I dont think Murali is more comaparable to, say Subhash Gupte, than he is to Prasanna. But I have no desire to argue this point with you. I know your views on the matter.

 

[silentstriker]

Kumble is a spinner? He's just an extremely good slow medium pacer, who sometimes gets turn.


Yes, that is a joke.

 

[Pratters]

Kumble is a spinner? He's just an extremely good slow medium pacer, who sometimes gets turn.


Yes, that is a joke.

There is a story on this... Every one used to play Kumble for the turn and used to be flummoxed. Then, Cronje, the great captain that he was, figured - he doesn't turn the ball much, play him like a medium pacer. South Africa fared well against him and then Lanka adopted the same strategy to bash him him.

 

[silentstriker]

There is a story on this... Every one used to play Kumble for the turn and used to be flummoxed. Then, Cronje, the great captain that he was, figured - he doesn't turn the ball much, play him like a medium pacer. South Africa fared well against him and then Lanka adopted the same strategy to bash him him.

I know, and they succeeded for a couple series, and he had to make some adjustment to his game. Even now, many teams try to play him as an oncoming medium pacer, but that doesn't work as well as it used to against him, he uses bounce and other tools much more intelligently these days.

 

[Richard]

Kumble does spin the ball, though - just, very unusually, he bowls more topspinners than sidespinners. Ergo, he's far more than a slow-medium-pacer, because he gets the ball to spin upwards off a pitch receptive to spin.

On one not receptive, though, you can pretty much play him as a slow-medium pacer. IIRR it was Graham Gooch who raised this idea upon seeing him for the first time in 1990, and it was a method Michael Atherton raised again in 1996. It didn't work in India in 1992\93, though, because he got bounce (and bowled the odd Leg-Break and Googly that actually turned). Nor did it work, and both Gooch and Atherton remarked on this, in 2005\06 when Kumble took 9-143 on a lovely wicket at Mohali.

 

[Richard]

And the point being ?

Anyway, you can work out the figures for right hand leg spinners since they are the only ones I have left out and see if it leads you to a different conclusion. I dont think Murali is more comaparable to, say Subhash Gupte, than he is to Prasanna. But I have no desire to argue this point with you. I know your views on the matter.

Why? Subhash Gupte was a wristspinner, was he not? Prasanna, regardless of what people may have said about how much he spun the ball, could not and did not spin it as much as Murali and, presumably, Gupte (though I know little about Gupte other than "he was good" and there have been good wristspinners who've not been particularly enormous spinners of the ball).

The only thing Prasanna and Murali have in common is the direction their stock-ball turned, and this changes when the batsman on-strike changes hand, and both of them in any case bowled a highly effective Wrong-'Un.

Murali is not bound by the limitations Prasanna and every other fingerspinner in history was. I fail to see how comparing Murali to fingerspinners makes any sense.

 

[SJS]

FINGER SPINNERS IN AUSTRALIA - Part 3

Conclusion : So clearly Murali suffers much more than any other spinner in the history of the game when he tours Australia. This could be explained by saying that he is not as good a bowler as he is made out to be as is doe by his detractors. Or by saying that he is under undue stress when playing in Australia and thus these figures do not reflect upon him as a bowler. This is the argument forwarded by those who are supporters of Murali. I am afraid neither can be used to explain the drop in Murali's figures.

We do have the figures of Tony Lock that show a similar decline. But this doesnt say much. Not because that is the only case in the entire history of the game but because of Murali's absolutely amazing record outside of Australia. Murali is clearly no ordinary bowler and it is for this reason that his worse than ordinary figures in Austrealia need a better explanation.

The stress he is under while bowling in Australia might have affected him in his first series but in the last one he went after having become a much more mature and seasoned campaigner.

It does appear that there is a combination of factors at work to account for these figures. I try to enumerate them.

1. Murali was clearly under stress in his earlier tour to Australia due to the question about his action. He was surely affected by the extremely hostile public reaction towards him as well as the scrutiny to which his action was placed. It is not unlikely that he may have tried to conciously work on his action while bowling there in order to escape any censure by umpires. He also refrained from using his major weapon the doosra in Australia at that time till the law was modified by ICC.

2. Australia, in the last 10 years or more, are a more dominant side as compared to the rest of the world than they have ever been almost in the entire history of the game, hemce most bowlers would tend to suffer in Australia by comparison to other places.

3. The advent of more and more bowlers bowling the doosra has made the already strong Australian batting line up less susceptible to the same by the time he agreed to go there again this year.

4. This Australian side has three left handers in the top four and another in Gilchrist. Four of the five hundreds in this series were scored by left handers. I suspect these left handers reduced Murali's effectiveness. Though how big is this a factor is not that easy to be stated.

5. The determination of not letting Murali break Warne's record in Australia was a HUGE factor this time around. Its difficult to think of a non-cricketing issue that may have affected, positively, a team's performance in one aspect on the field as this might have.

6. Murali too must have been affected by all this talk of not letting him get his record in Australia and this would surely have affected his mental make up and thereby performance. He is clearly a very emotional person.​

Finally Murali's career records are already astounding and will be further stretching the limits before he doffs his flannels but this failure of his to master the Australian conditions will continue to be a mark used against him by his detractors inspite of the exploits elsewhere and the defense will always be difficult to be offered.

 

[Ikki]

I wouldn't really call Murali a finger-spinner. To me, he generates all his spin from his wrist.

 

[SJS]

I wouldn't really call Murali a finger-spinner. To me, he generates all his spin from his wrist.

I said in the very first sentence "as the term is generally understood". So I am clear why I am using this term.

I am aware that Murali uses a lot of wrist (not all his spin is from the wrist though as he himself will tell you) and he is not the only one who does so as richard would have us believe. A lot of off spinners have done it in the past to varying degrees. In Murali's case it is much more pronounced. But to differentiate off spinners and orthodox left arm spinners from right arm leg spinners and chinaman bowlers, this is the terminology used and I see no reason to get into semantics.

The point I am making here has nothing to do with whether Murali bowls with more wrist than Prasanna or not.

Even if I had included right hand leg spinners in this study, I dont think the stats and hence the indicators would have been different.

Since I have not includd those who are traditionally called wrist-spinners (except by Richards of course) I chose to title it Finger spinners in Australia which is much less cumber some than calling it Right arm off spinners and orthodox left arm spinners in Australia

Thats all there is to it.

 

[Richard]

I said in the very first sentence "as the term is generally understood".

That's the thing, though - I'd say many people don't actually understand what the term truly means. Some people basically say "fingerspinner = bowler whose stock-ball turns into the right-handed batsman". I know, 'cos I've heard them say it.

If that's what you interpret a fingerspinner as, you might as well not use the term. You might as well just call bowlers "offspinners" and "legspinners", making the presumption of a right-hander on strike.

To me, a fingerspinner is a bowler who doesn't use his wrist greatly in the delivery, rather using for the greater part his fingers only. A wristspinner is someone who uses wrist, and uses fingers mostly to hold the ball, and only to impart a minor amount of the spin he ends-up imparting.

Regardless of the direction their stock-ball turns.

I also think it's a bit unfair to say

Since I have not includd those who are traditionally called wrist-spinners (except by Richards of course)

Unusually, I'm actually in a large majority on CW in considering Murali a wristspinner.

And I ask you as I've asked a few of late - what's with the "s" some are keen on putting on the end of my name?

 

[archie mac]

He was always "injured" whenever a tour of India came up.I remember someone mentioned the years in which he didn't tour subcontinent because of "injuries" & personal issues in "How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?" thread.In his whole career,he toured Pakistan & Sri Lanka only once & never toured India which means he was afraid to bowl there because of extremly unfriendly conditions for fast bowling.

Read a bio of the great man mate, and you will find that is crap, the same as "Boycott avoided fast bowling"

Edit: I see you have changed your mind after reading the rest of the thread. Still would be good to read a bio of Lillee, although there is yet to be a great one written of him. But Boycs the bio is a great read and one of the very best bios written on a cricketer imo

 

[archie mac]

FINGER SPINNERS IN AUSTRALIA - Part 3

Conclusion : So clearly Murali suffers much more than any other spinner in the history of the game when he tours Australia. This could be explained by saying that he is not as good a bowler as he is made out to be as is doe by his detractors. Or by saying that he is under undue stress when playing in Australia and thus these figures do not reflect upon him as a bowler. This is the argument forwarded by those who are supporters of Murali. I am afraid neither can be used to explain the drop in Murali's figures.

We do have the figures of Tony Lock that show a similar decline. But this doesnt say much. Not because that is the only case in the entire history of the game but because of Murali's absolutely amazing record outside of Australia. Murali is clearly no ordinary bowler and it is for this reason that his worse than ordinary figures in Austrealia need a better explanation.

The stress he is under while bowling in Australia might have affected him in his first series but in the last one he went after having become a much more mature and seasoned campaigner.

It does appear that there is a combination of factors at work to account for these figures. I try to enumerate them.

1. Murali was clearly under stress in his earlier tour to Australia due to the question about his action. He was surely affected by the extremely hostile public reaction towards him as well as the scrutiny to which his action was placed. It is not unlikely that he may have tried to conciously work on his action while bowling there in order to escape any censure by umpires. He also refrained from using his major weapon the doosra in Australia at that time till the law was modified by ICC.

2. Australia, in the last 10 years or more, are a more dominant side as compared to the rest of the world than they have ever been almost in the entire history of the game, hemce most bowlers would tend to suffer in Australia by comparison to other places.

3. The advent of more and more bowlers bowling the doosra has made the already strong Australian batting line up less susceptible to the same by the time he agreed to go there again this year.

4. This Australian side has three left handers in the top four and another in Gilchrist. Four of the five hundreds in this series were scored by left handers. I suspect these left handers reduced Murali's effectiveness. Though how big is this a factor is not that easy to be stated.

5. The determination of not letting Murali break Warne's record in Australia was a HUGE factor this time around. Its difficult to think of a non-cricketing issue that may have affected, positively, a team's performance in one aspect on the field as this might have.

6. Murali too must have been affected by all this talk of not letting him get his record in Australia and this would surely have affected his mental make up and thereby performance. He is clearly a very emotional person.​

Finally Murali's career records are already astounding and will be further stretching the limits before he doffs his flannels but this failure of his to master the Australian conditions will continue to be a mark used against him by his detractors inspite of the exploits elsewhere and the defense will always be difficult to be offered.

Well summed up SJS, I think the flat tracks of late in Aust have not helped Murali as he seems to be at his best on quicker tracks.



Also I think you should know that Murali is not a finger spinner

 

[Son Of Coco]

Haha.



I've conceded that on occasion they can sometimes be useful. You aren't getting any more out of me.



Forget history, here are seven who've played in the last twenty years: Marshall, Ambrose, Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, McGrath, Donald.

As a quicker bowler myself I feel I am qualified to make comments regarding spin bowlers and the way they are regarded in the general cricketing community.

It's widely known spinners are occasionally slightly useful. This usually occurs during the short period of time it takes the supremely fit fast bowlers to recover from their 5 over spells of destruction and death. At this time the spinners simply do their best not to get tonked over the boundary too many times, ensuring the fast bowlers can then come back and wrap up the rest of the innings.

I like this period of the match. While I'm resting down on the fine leg boundary, sipping a couple of Gatorades and getting the 12th man (usually a completely useless spinner with a strong drinks carrying arm) to feed me grapes and fan me with a palm frond I enjoy watching the circus act that plays out before me on the shortly mown strip in the middle. It's entertainment, not unlike wandering through the 'Freaks and Monsters' exhibition at Barnum and Bailey's before heading into the big top. It's a reason to bring the kids to the cricket...even if some do end up bawling, heads buried in their mother's tops, frightened by the loose-limbed eccentricities being carried out before them.

 

[silentstriker]

As a quicker bowler myself I feel I am qualified to make comments regarding spin bowlers and the way they are regarded in the general cricketing community.

It's widely known spinners are occasionally slightly useful. This usually occurs during the short period of time it takes the supremely fit fast bowlers to recover from their 5 over spells of destruction and death. At this time the spinners simply do their best not to get tonked over the boundary too many times, ensuring the fast bowlers can then come back and wrap up the rest of the innings.

I like this period of the match. While I'm resting down on the fine leg boundary, sipping a couple of Gatorades and getting the 12th man (usually a completely useless spinner with a strong drinks carrying arm) to feed me grapes and fan me with a palm frond I enjoy watching the circus act that plays out before me on the shortly mown strip in the middle. It's entertainment, not unlike wandering through the 'Freaks and Monsters' exhibition at Barnum and Bailey's before heading into the big top. It's a reason to bring the kids to the cricket...even if some do end up bawling, heads buried in their mother's tops, frightened by the loose-limbed eccentricities being carried out before them.

Ah, a kindred soul.