*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Migara]

Er. how is that stat-fixing? Care to explain?[/URL].
Nah...pretty clear here who is desperate enough to actually change stats to try and build his argument. What is sad is that EVEN when you do that the difference is like 0.5 runs? And that's definitive for you? Be ashamed.

I already has shown that Warne has played more against oppositions who do poor against spin (ENG, WI, SAF, NZ). Warne has 70% of his matches against them, where as Murali has around 50%. Knowing that fact and comparing is blatant stat fixing or stat tortoring to confess what you want. Have a logic about it.

This will answer why I call it blatant stat fixing to compare different proportions.

 

[Migara]

Who did he bowl against, Windies, S.Africa and Pakistan. Best sides of his day . The Sri Lanka play spin well is not why Warne didn't take wickets because Warne does very well against Sri Lanka . In that final Australia only took 2 wickets (Reiffel and Fleming the bowlers).

Warne taken to cleaners by gurusinghe and Ranatunga. That was shy he could not take wickets.

And how did Murali do very well in one of them? He took 1/31. (avg. 31, SR 60, econ 3.1). He did averagely in one and was flogged in the other. BTW, this is just the final, not all finals.

Whn opposition had a RR close to 5, having 10-0-31-1 is magnificient.

Again, I am wondering if this is an honest mistake or you're pretending to be clueless for the sake of holding onto your argument. Irrelevant comparison.

Aravinda cannot compare to Warne because he only has a World cup finals record that is impressive. He doesn't also have an overall record or an overall world cup record to match. Whereas the difference in Warne and Murali is that they're equal in most departments but Murali is clearly not as good (not many are) as Warne when it mattered.

Don't divert the attention. de Silva argument was not brought to answer any argument of yours. It was brought to show how laughable was funnygirl's comment. We all know that de Silva was not the best ODI payer at WC's despite having the best individual performance at a particular match

 

[Craig]

This again, thankfully I will say out of this one.

 

[Ikki]

Laugh at yourself mate. That is precisely what I have done in Here. Standardized for the number of deliveries bowled by each. So it's disgraceful stat fixing. ROFL!

LOL, do you think I said you stat-fixed because you standardised the data? I said how can anyone trust these elaborate little analysis you do when the last time (when you standardised before) you stat-fixed. You used the wrong proportions for every nation bar Zimbabwe

That clearly shows what your agenda is.

Once again you know that by adding that you can skew Murali's stats.

How can you test ball type A vs ball type B to find which lasts long? You have to bowl it under similar conditions. If yo bowl ball A in AUS, BAN, ENG, IND, PAK, SAF, WI & ZIM and ball B in BAN, ENG, IND, PAK, SAF, SL, WI & ZIM how you are going to be testing under similar conditions? Similar case with Warne and Muralil and BTW I included the stats which are in question to my analysis as well. Look here

Because you don't actually have to play the same teams to compare players. If Warne does well against the World XI, for example, and Murali never plays them it's not a point to discount a very good innings just because Murali does not play them. Much like Warne never played the Africa XI that Murali played against.

As you seemed to have done in the last comparison, you took out un-common teams to try and make Murali look superior by omitting Murali's worst record (Australia) and one of Warne's best (Sri Lanka). Give it up fella. And Let's even say Murali is still better (I think he is), the difference is negligible. Get over it.

Either you cannot understand it. Or you are too hypocratic to show it.

I understand it, but I also understand your reasons for not doing it. If you're the type of person that declares player X is better than player Y because of 0.5 runs - whilst dismissing the fact that they are in different teams and their roles were different, and a whole host of other reasons - it shows that you're not exactly the most fair individual to conduct such an argument with.

I have very well explained it. You are showing your deficiencies in understanding it.

You did it very poorly and we all know why you did it. No one argues that Viv Richards is inferior because he didn't face his own side. If the alternative I proposed (you remember it I am sure) is not counted then standardising is misleading - you are taking out Murali's worst opponent and taking away one of Warne's best.

I already has shown that Warne has played more against oppositions who do poor against spin (ENG, WI, SAF, NZ). Warne has 70% of his matches against them, where as Murali has around 50%. Knowing that fact and comparing is blatant stat fixing or stat tortoring to confess what you want. Have a logic about it.

Yet, remember that Warne did well even when you standardised the stat data. He was better still. The point was you were using the wrong percentages. How plain can it be said? Even 0.5% difference is something like 2000 bowled balls difference. In some cases you were about 4% off. You only got ONE country right.

This will answer why I call it blatant stat fixing to compare different proportions.

Yes, very clear...as mud.

Warne taken to cleaners by gurusinghe and Ranatunga. That was shy he could not take wickets.

So everyone but Rieffel and Fleming were taken to the cleaners. Agreed. But his success against Pakistan is not because they were poor players of spin (you said yourself they aren't) and not becaues he didn't face Sri Lanka (because he does well against them generally).

And aside from all that Warne is still a better WC finals player than Murali.

Whn opposition had a RR close to 5, having 10-0-31-1 is magnificient.

You are too much...

Don't divert the attention. de Silva argument was not brought to answer any argument of yours. It was brought to show how laughable was funnygirl's comment. We all know that de Silva was not the best ODI payer at WC's despite having the best individual performance at a particular match

diverting attention? You said the argument that Warne was a match-changer and an unbelievable WC bowler does not suffice because Aravinda de Silva played one great innings. You seemed to miss the train on funnygirl's comment.

 

[Migara]

As you seemed to have done in the last comparison, you took out un-common teams to try and make Murali look superior by omitting Murali's worst record (Australia) and one of Warne's best (Sri Lanka). Give it up fella. And Let's even say Murali is still better (I think he is), the difference is negligible. Get over it.

Now you are the one who said that SL pitches help spinners more than Aus pitches. That is the very reason we omitted home stats from the analysis. (English pitches are more or less same for both bowlers and so are other countries). Now you want to compare Warne's performances against SL which was done on spinning pitches against Murali's performance against Aus which was done on flat pitches. So we are back to round #1. We shoud consider home stats in tha analysis as well. You should be the one to give up. Your comments just don't make sense.

 

[Migara]

Because you don't actually have to play the same teams to compare players. If Warne does well against the World XI, for example, and Murali never plays them it's not a point to discount a very good innings just because Murali does not play them. Much like Warne never played the Africa XI that Murali played against.

As you seemed to have done in the last comparison, you took out un-common teams to try and make Murali look superior by omitting Murali's worst record (Australia) and one of Warne's best (Sri Lanka). Give it up fella. And Let's even say Murali is still better (I think he is), the difference is negligible. Get over it.

In ODI's Murali have a better record against uncommon teams. But still I took them away, because we need common oppositions. The number of deliveries bowled are so slight, even a magnificient performance will be diluted at the face of huge number of deliveries bowled at commoner oppositions.

 

[Migara]

I understand it, but I also understand your reasons for not doing it. If you're the type of person that declares player X is better than player Y because of 0.5 runs - whilst dismissing the fact that they are in different teams and their roles were different, and a whole host of other reasons - it shows that you're not exactly the most fair individual to conduct such an argument with.

No it was not the case, You were the one to bring out that Murali's stats are overrated because of Minnows blah blah. I have shown even without minnows, Murali keeps his stats unchanged, and they are even slightly better than Warne's. You made the offence, I am defending. So you was the one to made claims that Warne > Murali because Murali takes more wickets against minnows etc.

 

[Migara]

Yet, remember that Warne did well even when you standardised the stat data. He was better still. The point was you were using the wrong percentages. How plain can it be said? Even 0.5% difference is something like 2000 bowled balls difference. In some cases you were about 4% off. You only got ONE country right.

My method was different to yours. I calculated percentages after reducing the number of balls bowled against SL/AUS, then dividing it among nations and then adding the number of balls bowled against SL/AUS. That is because if Warne bowld 30% of his balls agains ENG, I exactly want 30% of Murali's to be against England. By your method, you can never do it.

 

[Migara]

Here is your %

Now I am using your method vs mine. You just used the % against all oppositions. I used % against common oppositions and then added different oppositions.

Here is Warne's away stats

Note that he has bowled 21288 balls against all oppositions and 19714 against common opposition. Using your method, proportion of deliveries used bowled against England is 31.7% (i.e. 6751 *100 / 21288) and using my method it is 34.2% (i.e. 6751 * 100 / 19714)

So here is Murali's away stats. Note he has bowled 17047 deliveries against all oppositions and 15475 against common oppositions.

Now calculating Murali's adjusted number of deliveries against ENG your method uses 0.317 * 17047, which should be 5406. (you got 5141 I don't know how you got it). According to my method, it's 0.342 * 15475. The whole table looks like this. (K-Kazoholic, M-Migara)

Now my mthod makes sure that Murali will get equal % of balls aginst each country which these have played in common. And I ave got the total number of balls right as well. You got something like 15572. (May be due to updates in Murali career). But obviouly using your method the number of deliveries bowled by Murali in total is wrong (17047 vs 17359). And % from Warne's proportions don't match with the final analysis as well. But mine, perfectly matches. Now who's using the wrong method?

 

[Ikki]

Oh lord. I am not going to continue because if I do you will just reply with more stuff. I'm trying to kick the habit of engaging in pointless debates. All points have already been stated and there is no reason to rehash them. Anyone interested just has to read this thread.

When you make a nice viable argument that enhances the discussion, I'll return. If not, then I see little point. We are a different breed. I do not see players inferior or superior because of a 0.5 runs average or 1 ball SR better. For me, there is a statistical qualification that I think certain players must reach to be the best and past that it's subjective. IMO, Warne is just a bit better but that is no real slight on Murali who is in his own right a fine bowler.

Anyway, Murali agrees with me, and that's what matters .

 

[Migara]

I just realized that you used Warne's 7.93% bowled against SL to transform Murali's against AUS which is totally wrong, because,

#1. Warne has and advantage of bowling on a spinning pitch
#2, Warne has an advantage of bowling to a lesser batting line up.

There is no way we can correct #2. But we can do something to correct #1.

We are going to consider matches Murali and Warne played Head to Head.(Darwin & Cairns tests were not counted because Murali did not play there, and last two SL vs AUS tests were not counted for Murali, because Warne was retied by then. All matches in SL that were SL vs AUS, both Murali and Warne played)

Murali vs AUS	B	R	W	Avg	ER	SR
in Australia	876	505	8	63.1	3.5	109.5
in Sri Lanka	2541	1223	47	26.0	2.9	54.1
Adj - in AUS	1708.5	985	16	63.1	3.5	109.5
Adj - in SL	1708.5	822	32	26.0	2.9	54.1
						
[B]Away = Home	3417	1807	47	38.3	3.2	72.4[/B]

Warne vs SL						
in Australia	988	433	12	36.1	2.6	82.3
in Sri Lanka	1574	794	37	21.5	3.0	42.5
Adj - in AUS	1281	561	16	36.1	2.6	82.3
Adj - in SL	1281	646.	30	21.5	3.0	42.5
						
[B]Away = Home	2562	1208	45.7	26.4	2.8	56.1[/B]

Then to give each opportunities, I adjusted stats as 50% of deliveries are bowled at home and 50% away. So it would give Warne 1281 deliveries at home and 1281 in SL. Then Runs conceded and wickets taken calculated for Home and Away situations (Adj. in AUS and Adj. in SL). Composite was taken as head to head stats. Same was used for Murali. And results were as above.

Now Warne's 2562 was taken as % against SL, which was 11.5% as Murali's % of deliveries against AUS. Now the table looks like this.

Now I think this will say how close these two are. The SRs are identical. Murali has a slightly better Avg and ER. That will prove beyond doubt that, Murali's stats are not inflated by playing against minnows, shown by taking subset of above data excluding BAN & ZIM.

[B]Player	Balls	Runs	Wkts	Avg	ER	SR[/B]
Murali	18846	8165	333	24.5	2.6	56.5
Warne	21433	9552	381	25.1	2.7	56.3

Against Test class opposition, in comparable conditions, Both are equally effective. Murali has slightly better Avg and ER, Warne SR.

I think I have addressed one of the biggest myths about Murali's stats

 

[Ikki]

Hahaha, omg, is this a joke? Do you know how many variables you just manipulated there? Weren't the subcontinental batsmen better players of spin, now they are inferior...and for god's sake you got the percentages wrong again...You cannot remove the uncommon ones because that also makes it unfair. If player X played 90% of Tests against country 1, 5% against country 2 and 5% against country 3; when you remove country 1 you make country 2 and 3's record 10-fold in importance. This again, is ********, because you are giving Murali an advantage by reducing the effect of his poor form against Australia. This is what it is coming down to.

Also 50% at home and 50% away...are you high? Warne played most of his tests awayyyyyyyyy his record away is also better. You are discounting his performances in Sri Lanka for the simple fact that he did well. Considering that Murali has half his career at home, and Warne has it on these unhelpful pitches (you said it yourself) you are giving Murali ANOTHER advantage here by giving half his career away record for Australia at home. Essentially, negating to an extent Murali's poor away form to Australia and Warne's great away form to Sri Lanka.

Why are tests where either didn't play discounted? Sir, it doesn't matter if Warne doesn't play because Murali's job is to get those above Warne out. And discounting the tests when Warne retired? Why would you do that? Because it makes his away average 12 less and his SR about 30 less? You are a joke, stop stat-fixing.

 

[Ikki]

This is the only table that makes sense. It has the CORRECT percentages AND it is adjusted so that the AMOUNT of times Warne played Sri Lanka is the SAME as the amount of times Murali plays Australia. This figure is 7.39% where Murali's REAL percentage is 9.22% - even this was a favour to him.

The irony is that you think it's too harsh that Murali plays in Australia because of the unreceptive pitches but this is where Warne played almost half his career. And conversely you think it's unfair that Warne get any benefit from spin-receptive pitches in Sri Lanka...where Murali played half his career. Twisting and turning here for a matter of a few Tests. Imagine what Warne would have done if Sri Lanka was his home and affected half his Tests.

 

[Sanz]

Aravinda did it how many times? Warne did it how many times?

Warne did it only once too, out of 2 WC finals he played in.

In 1996 :- 10-0-58-0
In 1999 :- 9-1-33-4 (Ijaz, Afridi, Moin and Akram)

Compared to that Aravinda (1 out of 1) :-

In 1996 Finals :- 104 Not Out in 124 Balls (while Chasing) , 9-0-42-3 (Taylor, Ponting, Healy)

Heck even the bowling performance of Aravinda looks better than Warne's, if you look at the wickets taken.

Not to forget the fact that in the only Finals Murali and Warne played together, where everything was equal except the quality of batsmen, Murali came out on Top as well with 10:0-31-1 against the better batting side compared to Warne's 10-0-58-0. Needless to mention that Murali wasn't half the bowler in 1996 that he became later and still performed better than Warne in the finals.

What is Aravinda's overall career record btw? And what about Warne's? Do they stack up to their contemporaries?

Why should that matter when the only thing you have been pointing is the world cup performance, after everything was discussed or showed ?

How difficult it is to accept defeat in your argument ? When You lost the argument about the WC performance and then you come up with something else ?

 

[Ikki]

Warne did it only once too, out of 2 WC finals he played in.

In 1996 :- 10-0-58-0
In 1999 :- 9-1-33-4 (Ijaz, Afridi, Moin and Akram)

Compared to that Aravinda :-

In 1996 Finals :- 104 Not Out in 124 Balls (while Chasing)
9-0-42-3 (Taylor, Ponting, Healy)

Heck even the bowling performance of Aravinda looks better than Warne's, if you look at the wickets taken.

Not to forget the fact that in the only Finals Murali and Warne played together, where everything was equal except the quality of batsmen, Murali came out on Top as well with 10:0-31-1 against the better batting side compared to Warne's 10-0-58-0. Needless to mention that Murali wasn't half the bowler in 1996 that he became later and still performed better than Warne in the finals.

Er. They both only did it in ONE world cup FINAL. Whereas Warne is consistently good in ALL WC finals (quarters/semis included) AND he is excellent in the Prelims. It's simply not an argument. I didn't base my assertion on ONE final but the whole career. Whereas the Aravinda argument is argued based ONLY on ONE final - not any other final or prelim.

And whether Australia was the better batting side is irrelevant, they sucked and Sri Lanka won. So whether in comparison it is better it is irrelevant because 1/31 is not 'magnificant'.

Why should that matter when the only thing you have been pointing is the world cup performance, after everything was discussed or showed ?

How difficult it is to accept defeat in your argument ? When You lost the argument about the WC performance and then you come up with something else ?

What are you talking about? We are talking about Murali and Warne. Their whole WC record is very similar yet Warne's finals are much much better. BTW Murali has played more finals than Warne so there is no "he didn't play enough" side-argument here.

What Migara is saying is that Aravinda's SINGLE WC final performance makes him a stellar batsman. Wrong. I know you are thinking about the Ponting V Tendulkar argument but that's totally different because BOTH had great all-round careers to match that. Simply choosing one player better than another because of 1 performance ignoring the rest of their career is ********. Otherwise Aravinda himself is a better bowler than Murali.

 

[funnygirl]

so what ,this is for test matches .Then apologies for my comments ,i thought u guys are comparing world cup stats and ODi stats in general.

 

[Ikki]

so what ,this is for test matches .Then apologies for my comments ,i thought u guys are comparing world cup stats and ODi stats in general.

He was before, until I called him on his stat-fixing and he continued it with the Tests on this page.

 

[Sanz]

Er. They both only did it in ONE world cup FINAL.

Do you understand the difference between 1 out of 1 and 1 out of 2 ? Not only Aravinda made 100+ runs, he also took 3 top wickets compared to warne's.

Whereas Warne is consistently good in ALL WC finals (quarters/semis included) AND he is excellent in the Prelims. It's simply not an argument.

I see someone is moving the Goal Post, From

"WC finals are a different ball of wax."

to

All WC Finals Blah Blah Blah.

And whether Australia was the better batting side is irrelevant, they sucked and Sri Lanka won. So whether in comparison it is better it is irrelevant because 1/31 is not 'magnificant'.

1/31 vs. 0/58 - Take your pick. I know which one is better. And It is so ignorant to say that Australia sucked in that match, because they clearly didn't, if you had watched, you would have known.

What are you talking about? We are talking about Murali and Warne. Their whole WC record is very similar yet Warne's finals is much much better. BTW Murali has played more finals than Warne so there is no "he didn't play enough" side-argument here.

Talking about the inconsistency in your argument and how you move goal posts when your argumnent isn't working for you.

Since when ALL finals matter to you ?

What Migara is saying is that Aravinda's SINGLE WC final performance makes him a stellar batsman. Wrong. I know you are thinking about the Ponting V Tendulkar argument but that's totally different because BOTH had great all-round careers to match that. Simply choosing one player better than another because of 1 performance ignoring the rest of their career is ********. Otherwise Aravinda himself is a better bowler than Murali.

According to the criteria set by you(Did I already mention the gem by you - "WC finals are a different ball of wax.") , Aravinda is the best ever ODI cricketer, allrounder ever to grace the game of cricket.

 

[Ikki]

LOL, this is why I keep asking you if you've skilled up on your reading comprehension because you are terrible. Again, I'll educate you.

Do you understand the difference between 1 out of 1 and 1 out of 2 ? Not only Aravinda made 100+ runs, he also took 3 top wickets compared to warne's.

So Aravinda is a better ODI bowler than Warne?

I see someone is moving the Goal Post, From

"WC finals are a different ball of wax."

to

All WC Finals Blah Blah Blah.

No, it seems you just can't read.

I said at the start that both bowlers are great ODI bowlers but one did well in all finals. WC finals Warne > Murali. All WC finals Warne > Murali. Not by a little, by a lot.

1/31 vs. 0/58 - Take your pick. I know which one is better. And It is so ignorant to say that Australia sucked in that match, because they clearly didn't, if you had watched, you would have known.

Hahaha, so did I say 0/58 is not poor? I said 1/31 is not 'magnificent' (as Migara suggested). So Murali's BEST record is 1/31. Do you remember what I called it? I said it was average. Not MAGNIFICENT. To aid you read I'll use caps in some important words.

BTW, are you saying Australia were good? Maybe if you compare them to India, but not Australia herself.

Talking about the inconsistency in your argument and how you move goal posts when your argumnent isn't working for you.

Since when ALL finals matter to you ?

They do, and always have. This was your trouble in the other ODI thread. That's why I keep asking if you can read. All finals Tendulkar and Ponting are similar whilst one of them has proven himself 2/3 WC finals. That, I said, is the basic difference if one wanted to argue it. Whilst you kept going on about their whole career...to which I said the difference is only 1 run and 1 ball.

According to the criteria set by you(Did I already mention the gem by you - "WC finals are a different ball of wax.") , Aravinda is the best ever ODI cricketer, allrounder ever to grace the game of cricket.

But that's the funny thing, you are so high you forgot to check that his overall record/WC record (what have you) does not support his claim as the BEST all-rounder ever. It's only ONE performance in the final.

Again, I hope you improve your reading. You ask if there is anything you missed .

 

[Anil]

you guys are like the energizer bunny....i salute your stamina...