*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Migara]

Now there's another important factor considering bowling away. Warne has bowled more than half hisdeliveries away from home.

21288 out of 40705 deliveries (52.3% ) are bowled away from home. Conversely out of 39202 deliveries bowled by Murali only 16187

(42.3%) have been bowled away from home. This will also need some serious standardization.I'll come up with it later.

 

[Migara]

Here is the standardized data for the gross number of balls bowled away from home. This needs further refinement to get Home-Away percentages of balls bowled to 50-50 for a better comparison.

Warne has better Avg, SR against all oppositions and test class oppositions. Murali has a better ER through out. But once more when comparing the common oppositions (because we don;t know what will be Warne's avg if he bowled to Aussie side and Murali's to SL side) Murali is the better bowler.

 

[Ikki]

Here is the standardized data for the gross number of balls bowled away from home. This needs further refinement to get Home-Away percentages of balls bowled to 50-50 for a better comparison.

Warne has better Avg, SR against all oppositions and test class oppositions. Murali has a better ER through out. But once more when comparing the common oppositions (because we don;t know what will be Warne's avg if he bowled to Aussie side and Murali's to SL side) Murali is the better bowler.

Your figures are off, again.

But, we do know and we get more than idea by Warne's FC form. He's bowled to largely the same batsmen and fringe batsmen of the Australian test side and has similar figures to his career figures. Of course, it's not the same as playing Australia in a Test, but it's more than a good indicator.

And again, you have to include the common team. It is too biased towards Murali by not doing it.

 

[Ikki]

Now there's another important factor considering bowling away. Warne has bowled more than half hisdeliveries away from home.

21288 out of 40705 deliveries (52.3% ) are bowled away from home. Conversely out of 39202 deliveries bowled by Murali only 16187

(42.3%) have been bowled away from home. This will also need some serious standardization.I'll come up with it later.

I've already taken care of that. I took the proportion bowled by each country of the total balls bowled away from home. That really matters only in aggregate figures, not ratios.

 

[JBH001]

I dont like to get into these discussions and often dont read this thread because it seems completely pointless. Moreover, as I have said elsewhere, proper comparisons (especially statistically) had best wait until Murali finally stops twirling away.

But, in regard to the West Indies, Murali did bowl to virtually the same sides that Warne did in the 1990's albeit in lesser tests, but he is consistently good against them from first test to last, something Warne is not until he comes up against the so called "minnow sides" and especially the outfit of 2005 iirc. Moreover, the side that WI fielded in the early 2000's hardly classifies as minnows - I doubt that they still do (they may be so in respect of Australia, maybe, but I doubt that they do so when the rest of the cricketing world is taken into account). A minnow like Zimb and Bang are hardly ever in a test, WI often are, but unfortunately tend to lose it do to a lack of mental discipline etc. However, they usually are competitive which is qualitatively different. And Muralis' performances against them stand out like a beacon in comparison to Warne which should be given the recognition it deserves and not shunted aside with little consideration and poor argument.

leaves the thread

 

[Ikki]

I dont like to get into these discussions and often dont read this thread because it seems completely pointless. Moreover, as I have said elsewhere, proper comparisons (especially statistically) had best wait until Murali finally stops twirling away.

But, in regard to the West Indies, Murali did bowl to virtually the same sides that Warne did in the 1990's albeit in lesser tests, but he is consistently good against them from first test to last, something Warne is not until he comes up against the so called "minnow sides" and especially the outfit of 2005 iirc. Moreover, the side that WI fielded in the early 2000's hardly classifies as minnows - I doubt that they still do (they may be so in respect of Australia, maybe, but I doubt that they do so when the rest of the cricketing world is taken into account). A minnow like Zimb and Bang are hardly ever in a test, WI often are, but unfortunately tend to lose it do to a lack of mental discipline etc. However, they usually are competitive which is qualitatively different. And Muralis' performances against them stand out like a beacon in comparison to Warne which should be given the recognition it deserves and not shunted aside with little consideration and poor argument.

leaves the thread

I think you make a good point. They deserve recognition but the point I was making is that when you are indeed comparing these two players with such fine points, these things will sway an Avg./SR point or two. And if people want to harp over half a run/ball then they should look at this too.

 

[Sanz]

Um, let's get real. Murali bowled 113.5 overs against them in the 90s. Murali's bowled that in 1 test before. And you're comparing this to 16 of Warne's tests. .

Adding a laughing smiley isn't going to change cold-hard facts. Murali took 20 wickets in 3 tests, Warne took 49 in 16 tests. It is enough to suggest that Murali bowled better than Warne against the WI in the 90s in whatever opportunity he got to bowl against them. Hence your assertion that "the West Indies Warne faced is much different to the one Murali faced. Warne faced them mostly in the beginning of his career and where they were the best side/thereabouts in the world. Whereas Murali faced them when bar Lara they weren't much better than the minnows aforementioned. Acknowledge this, and it is Warne ahead by even more" doesn't hold true. It is clear that it is more of an imagination on your part in order to show Warne better/greater than Murali. I personally have no interest in showing who is greater or better, I know who I want (or will pick) in my team but just pointing out the flaw in your argument and inaccuracy in your statement.

Even on this point. Let's factor in that Warne plays only 3 tests like Murali and has the figures above and has 7 tests like Murali in the 2000s with his own score. Does that not improve his figures? Exactly the point.

What point ? Murali still maintains a superior avg. of 18 vs. Warne's 23, not to forget the difference in the SR as well. And no, even if you take out the three test Warne Played against WI in 2000s, his avg. doesn't go down by much. It is a fact that Warne's avg. against WI was always around 30 whereas Murali's always around 17 or so and that's quite a difference.

Warne did as magnificantly as Murali in the beginning. Surprise surprise, the years he gets hit around are when everyone else did the same. It was in that injured period where he was getting knocked really bad where his away figures take a drop. Otherwise he ends up with 27.9 avg and 59 SR. for the 90s. Also, 16 tests compared to 3...yeah.

No Warne didn't do as well as Murali against the WI in the beginning. After 3 tests Warnie was averaging 26, Murali was 15. This whole injury excuse is load of crap and basically put forth in order to exaggerate how good warne was and the only reason he faltered was because of his injury and all that. It is incorrect and misleading. Warne averaged 31, 27, 27 in first three series(all in 90s), which is nowhere near Murali's avg. of 11.75 and 15.43.

I am not going to get into 16 Vs. 3, because Murali has played WI enough no. of times and taken enough wickets to convince me that his performance in the WI in the 90s was no fluke.

 

[Ikki]

Adding a laughing smiley isn't going to change cold-hard facts. Murali took 20 wickets in 3 tests, Warne took 49 in 16 tests. It is enough to suggest that Murali bowled better than Warne against the WI in the 90s in whatever opportunity he got to bowl against them. Hence your assertion that "the West Indies Warne faced is much different to the one Murali faced. Warne faced them mostly in the beginning of his career and where they were the best side/thereabouts in the world. Whereas Murali faced them when bar Lara they weren't much better than the minnows aforementioned. Acknowledge this, and it is Warne ahead by even more" doesn't hold true. It is clear that it is more of an imagination on your part in order to show Warne better/greater than Murali. I personally have no interest in showing who is greater or better, I know who I want (or will pick) in my team but just pointing out the flaw in your argument and inaccuracy in your statement.

And if those 3 tests were very poor? Then what? Murali had 1 test when that team resembled anything like a championship side and the other 2 when the rest were aging or gone.

Let's even hold the prediction that Murali would have still done better than Warne, but would he have done as well as his overall figures suggest now? I doubt it. And that was my argument. I said: debate it to whatever degree, it has still helped his figures more than it has helped Warne.

What point ? Murali still maintains a superior avg. of 18 vs. Warne's 23, not to forget the difference in the SR as well. And no, even if you take out the three test Warne Played against WI in 2000s, his avg. doesn't go down by much. It is a fact that Warne's avg. against WI was always around 30 whereas Murali's always around 17 or so and that's quite a difference.

Actually, Warne's average against WI is usually below 30, not always around it. Having 16/19 of your tests against the same country, but quite different side, is hardly a great point to compare someone who has had 7/10 of his tests when all the greats of that country left. You point to 3 tests as if it means Murali would have continued to that effect. I find it hard anyone would hold such an opinion. Argue that he'd have been better than Warne but as good as his figures are as they stand? Hardly. Which makes that 1-2 points difference all the more clear

No Warne didn't do as well as Murali against the WI in the beginning. After 3 tests Warnie was averaging 26, Murali was 15. This whole injury excuse is load of crap and basically put forth in order to exaggerate how good warne was and the only reason he faltered was because of his injury and all that. It is incorrect and misleading. Warne averaged 31, 27, 27 in first three series(all in 90s), which is nowhere near Murali's avg. of 11.75 and 15.43.

Averaging 26 against the best side in the world where you're an up and coming spinner - one that actually started very poorly, is hardly shabby.

How can his injury excuse be a load of crap. Look at all the series within the same time frame. It's not just that he was injured, but the fact that Warne faced injuries which obliged him to learn to bowl differently and give up some of his main weapons. I think this thread already contains this argument, I'm sure you already know of it.

And it doesn't have to be near it, it's not even a point to directly compare. You're equating 3 tests with 16. Maybe Murali would have had a poor day, maybe they would have figured him out...but they played so rarely in the 90s that the better players left and as such never got a chance.

I am not going to get into 16 Vs. 3, because Murali has played WI enough no. of times and taken enough wickets to convince me that his performance in the WI in the 90s was no fluke.

Um, but he DIDN'T play the good/great Windies side enough times to say that Murali would have done the same. So it's entirely abouy 16 v 3. For the record, if he had done poor in the 3 tests it still wouldn't have meant anything. 3 tests are 3 tests.

I can see where this is headed: "3 tests are enough" "No, they're not" and so on.

 

[Migara]

his will be the ultimate result.

Criteria

1. Both players have bowled similar number of balls against each opposition when proportions are compared

2. 50% of balls during their career are assumed to have bowled away from home

This will show that Murali should've been bowling more balls than Warne in away tests. However the total deliveries against

common opposition will add up to half of their career values. Once more SL, AUS and ICC matches were added after calculationg the

proportions.

When the variables are unified, Murali is getting in front clearly. Against all test sides including or excluding minnows, playing away

from home Murali has a better average and a economay rate. But when comes to common opposition or any subset of it, (which is

our comparison tool) Murali's record is far superior.

 

[Ikki]

his will be the ultimate result.

Criteria

1. Both players have bowled similar number of balls against each opposition when proportions are compared

2. 50% of balls during their career are assumed to have bowled away from home

This will show that Murali should've been bowling more balls than Warne in away tests. However the total deliveries against

common opposition will add up to half of their career values. Once more SL, AUS and ICC matches were added after calculationg the

proportions.

When the variables are unified, Murali is getting in front clearly. Against all test sides including or excluding minnows, playing away

from home Murali has a better average and a economay rate. But when comes to common opposition or any subset of it, (which is

our comparison tool) Murali's record is far superior.

You are now fixing data and mining it for yourself.

You don't have to assume 50% of their balls are away. We already know the EXACT amount of balls away.

In fact, it doesn't matter if one of them has bowled more away or not, that only matters in aggregate matters and not ratios. If Warne bowls 1000 balls away and 500 against England, that is 50%. If Murali bowls only 800 away we adjust that to reflect Warne's proportion of bowling to England by keeping that 50%, so Murali's has 400 balls with his own stats. This keeps his ratio and that's all that matters, you don't need the aggregate numbers (and you're still going about getting them incorrectly) because you can just enter a value (number of wickets) and multiply the avg. SR ratios to get that result

Not only this, your percentages are always off. Either you're purposely fixing them, or your spreadsheet program has a glitch.

You are only confusing yourself here, scraping at heaven and earth to try and turn hard numbers around.

 

[Francis]

Without offering any opinions about who's greater, you guys are so off the mark on how to guage who's greater with your methods.

Take Shane Warne, who's greatest team to torment used to be not England, but South Africa. They were clueless against him and Darrel Cullinan, one of SA's best batsmen of his day, was dombfounded as to how to play Warne. Come 2006 and Warne was going through a small forgotten period when his form sucked and he was having problems with his fingers. With the exception of one Test which he won for Australia (the second one), Warne was murdered and it was clear he was tired of a grueling schedule. The reason I bring that up is that after killing South Africa for so many years, that one tour skewered his stats against them so horrendously you'd never guess looking at numbers how great he did against them.

I've said it a billion times, stats are midleading.

Likewise it absolutely doesn't matter how well Murali did in the West Indies. It's become so pedantic people are trying to guess how good the West Indies were because of which era it was in. Did it occur to anybody the West Indies might have had an off game in the mid 90s and a great game in the 00s, only Murali got the better of them. Seriously, you only have to have watched Murali for a little bit to know on his day he can beat most batsmen. Cricket's like that, sometimes the great batsmen get the better of great bowlers, but a slight percentage difference and it could be the other way.

I mean seriously, you guys are breaking stats down and trying to hard to find the truth, but you can't. There's hundreds of ways to read stats, and each way gives you a different POV. I mean this thread is a never ending circle of discovering new ways to read stats and they'll never give you the right way to view things.

 

[Ikki]

Without offering any opinions about who's greater, you guys are so off the mark on how to guage who's greater with your methods.

Take Shane Warne, who's greatest team to torment used to be not England, but South Africa. They were clueless against him and Darrel Cullinan, one of SA's best batsmen of his day, was dombfounded as to how to play Warne. Come 2006 and Warne was going through a small forgotten period when his form sucked and he was having problems with his fingers. With the exception of one Test which he won for Australia (the second one), Warne was murdered and it was clear he was tired of a grueling schedule. The reason I bring that up is that after killing South Africa for so many years, that one tour skewered his stats against them so horrendously you'd never guess looking at numbers how great he did against them.

I've said it a billion times, stats are midleading.

Likewise it absolutely doesn't matter how well Murali did in the West Indies. It's become so pedantic people are trying to guess how good the West Indies were because of which era it was in. Did it occur to anybody the West Indies might have had an off game in the mid 90s and a great game in the 00s, only Murali got the better of them. Seriously, you only have to have watched Murali for a little bit to know on his day he can beat most batsmen. Cricket's like that, sometimes the great batsmen get the better of great bowlers, but a slight percentage difference and it could be the other way.

I mean seriously, you guys are breaking stats down and trying to hard to find the truth, but you can't. There's hundreds of ways to read stats, and each way gives you a different POV. I mean this thread is a never ending circle of discovering new ways to read stats and they'll never give you the right way to view things.

Even though I've contributed to the stats to-and-fro, I agree completely with the above. In fact, I wouldn't care if the stats were 1-2 points in favour of Murali or Warne as it would largely not change my opinion because of the many points un-stats related.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

While we're in the process of dissecting stats that prove absolutely nothing, someone should go through all the stats removing all wickets against minnows and then factor in the fact that Murali took 4 for 20something against Kenya but those unworthy opponents won the match. So stick that in your spread sheet and "£"!* it.

 

[Migara]

While we're in the process of dissecting stats that prove absolutely nothing, someone should go through all the stats removing all wickets against minnows and then factor in the fact that Murali took 4 for 20something against Kenya but those unworthy opponents won the match. So stick that in your spread sheet and "£"!* it.

You may be suffering with a very serous condition called selective blindness. There are stats calculated for test class oppositions. And if you know bit of stats you'll find that standardization will reduce the bias of extreme values also.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Now that Shane Warne has announced his retirement from all First Class Cricket he probably deserves a tribute thread but as it will inevitably become a discussion about how good he was compared to Murali it might as well continue here.

Warne retires

 

[honestbharani]

we already have a Shane Warne Tribute thread, though......

 

[Lillian Thomson]

we already have a Shane Warne Tribute thread, though......

He only annouced his retirement from all First Class Cricket yesterday.

 

[The Masterplan]

Yh, Warney wins hands down, Murali should never have gotten any wickets... he C.H.U.C.K.S the ball. Warne was a ledg!

 

[silentstriker]

A ledg?

 

[silentstriker]

And we went through this, it is not such an unusual thing to come back from injury, even twice as quick. Footballers come through with such progress regularly. Ali Karimi got injured just prior to the world cup - with an ACL injury - and managed to play in it through pain.

So just a lucky coincidence that he happened to be taking masking agents when he came back from injury so quickly? Makes sense.