*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[gwo]

Suffice to say, Hoggs 1/19 > Murali's 0/44 in the 2007 WC final.

Infact, you could call it "magnificent"




Look at it in terms of the match context.

 

[Craig]

148 pages of this...fantastic

AWTA.

 

[Ikki]

Where did I say that I will take Murali ? Imagining things again ? 1.62 after all the filtering, without the Filtering Murali hands down.

By arguing against me that is what you are saying. Are you saying you would rather that difference in prelims than the 11 runs difference on average in the finals?

Even 1.62 difference between two world class bowlers is remarkable. So I see that pretty Clearly Murali has better stats, even with your desired filter.

Desired? No, Logical filter. One has played minnows where the other hasn't. if 1.62 runs is massive, then 11 runs is [enter word 10x more effective than massive]. :P

 

[Ikki]

I reckon statistically speaking, Murali is better pretty much undeniably. And messing with stats trying to prove Warne was better is just counter productive.

Actually, in Tests, when using the proper statistics Warne is better. He is slightly better away. What throws a spanner in the works is that Murali has a much better home record because they custom made to his strengths. Warne himself has a better record in Sri Lanka than Murali does (even when you include his Tests against minnows). When you do try and lessen the importance of home (as SS did in his analysis in his old thread) Warne is actually better statistically.

 

[Athlai]

Yet statistics only show what the player actually did, and have taken up the whole argument of this bloody thread. Where's the discussion of Warne's ability to out think almost any batsman, his absolutely unplayable rippers, the momentuem he often built that guided Australia to victory. Murali too, with his unrivalled paitence, his natural gifts and the way no batsman has ever been to really get on top of him.

These points are swept under the rug as stats are being modified over an argument with two incomparable players. Unless you managed to build a scenario machine that replicated them exactly to play under the exact same conditions for several years, you can just never know. With two great players such as these, the space between them is negligible.

 

[Ikki]

As if Murali's overall record is worse than Warne's.

Geezus...it doesn't matter if they are worse, they inflate his figures.

Murali with minnows averages 18. Murali without minnows, averages 24. See the difference?

Why ? Why should we put that argument, because this is what suits your point in this thread ?

Actually If we tool Warne's performance(in Prelims) against Zimbawe out, His average sinks to 30.62, Murali is fairly consistent with 24.62.
So Who is benefitting from playing against a weaker team here ? (Now I wait to hear from the mighty zimbabwe because including them in the stats will suit your point)

You're daft. Zimbabwe was not a minnow in ODIs. No one discounts them. Look at the World XI which bagapath created, he uses the stats against them as well.

If we were talking about Tests, yes, take them out.

Let's analyze their performance against Common Opposition :-

Against India :- Warne 77, Murali - 47
Against NZ :- Warne 44, Murali - 14,8
Against SA:- Warne 16.5, Murali - 15.71
Against WI : Warne 13.66, Murali 28.33

Common opposition? You don't count Pakistan, West Indies, S.Africa, England & Zimbabwe? Because 2 of them are uncommon? This is WC I presume?:

Warne is better against S.Africa as well AND Zimbabwe..(which both played)

And of the uncommon teams, Warne averages 16 against Pakistan and Murali averages 32 against England.

Yeah...clearrrrrrr who is better.

In Chasing/Defending a Target - Warne 75.5, Murali - 23.85

Where did you get that amount? Warne averages 13 to Murali's 19.

No the difference is not small, Just showed you 24 Vs. 30.

You showed me you can't count or read.

Yeah, so ? Winning Prelims is important too esp if you eliminate the minnows, NO ?

Being 1.62 runs better at it and being something like 11 runs inferior in finals is not as important. NO?

 

[Ikki]

Are you suggesting that Aravinda Desliva doesn't have a stellar record as an ODI batsman or that he didn't have a great career as one ? If you did, then I can only laugh at such a suggestion.

If you compare Aravinda to the greats like Tendulkar or Ponting...then he doesn't have a leg to stand on and one finals performance will not hide all the other deficiencies. That's what I am saying.

IMO Aravinda's ODI career is >> Shane Warne's ODI career.

errr...nope. Great player though and SL legend.

 

[Ikki]

Yet statistics only show what the player actually did, and have taken up the whole argument of this bloody thread. Where's the discussion of Warne's ability to out think almost any batsman, his absolutely unplayable rippers, the momentuem he often built that guided Australia to victory. Murali too, with his unrivalled paitence, his natural gifts and the way no batsman has ever been to really get on top of him.

Statistics show what they did with what they were afforded.

I actually like the part you are talking about and I think those are much more important than being 0.5 runs better... for crying out loud.

These points are swept under the rug as stats are being modified over an argument with two incomparable players. Unless you managed to build a scenario machine that replicated them exactly to play under the exact same conditions for several years, you can just never know. With two great players such as these, the space between them is negligible.

Agree immensely. I am just bothered Poster X can come here, give some half-****ed method of stat-fixing and then say "I have proven X myth does not exist". I mean, really.

 

[pasag]

Yet statistics only show what the player actually did, and have taken up the whole argument of this bloody thread. Where's the discussion of Warne's ability to out think almost any batsman, his absolutely unplayable rippers, the momentuem he often built that guided Australia to victory. Murali too, with his unrivalled paitence, his natural gifts and the way no batsman has ever been to really get on top of him.

These points are swept under the rug as stats are being modified over an argument with two incomparable players. Unless you managed to build a scenario machine that replicated them exactly to play under the exact same conditions for several years, you can just never know. With two great players such as these, the space between them is negligible.

Nice post, agree fully.

 

[Ikki]

Do you understand basic and simple mathematics ??

Q. Please look at the following statistics and tell who is better :-

A's score = 24
B's score = 26

2 runs on average does not make a player EASILY better than another player. For all we know, averaging 26 in one game was more difficult than averaging 24.

If we separated players by such small margins there'd be no need for this forum. "EASILY" better is when Someone averages 99.94 and the rest are 60 at best. Or when one guy is the only person averaging 60 and the rest 50.

Sanz - A's, fairly easily ( without even blinking the eye)
Kazo - Let me think, Umm, Warne is an Aussie, Murali isn't, Its not that simple, its not easily, umm, yeah sorta

Pasag/James - Sorry, Times is up.

Because you seem to see through the prisms of "Kazo" I think that is where half your problem is. Maybe YOU would think someone will think like that but I clearly don't. I am, even when it suits me not to be, saying these differences do not define who is better. 1 ball 1 run does not define superiority. 2 runs average does not define superiority. 0.5 runs, even less, does not define superiority. Can't say it any clearer than this buddy.

I am a Warne fan and so I argue he is better because IMO he is. But when you call someone biased, moving the goal posts, have the balls to point it out.

We're still waiting.

 

[Ikki]

Cop Out ? Let me read you my initial post on this matter :-

"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.

I clearly talked about their head-to-head performance in the only finals they played together.

Whether YOU are talking about it is IRRELEVANT. You popped in the middle of my argument with Migara. He was saying Murali had 1 magnificant performance and 1 here he got hammered. Whilst Warne had 1 magnificant performance and 1 where he got hammered. Implying they are equal.

No one said 1/31 is not better than 0/58. The point was it is not MAGNIFICENT no matter how you pull it. 4/33 IS however.

So you are copping out, because you know what we're talking about, yet you are still blabbering on about it. Now you can imagine why I think you can't read to save your life.

I wan't even defending him, when I made that post, I replied to your questions "Aravinda did it how many times? Warne did it how many times?" on my own without actually reading what Migara did or didn't say about Murali's performance vs. Warne's in that particular match.

And remember, what I said? Aravinda did it once, Warne did it once. So are they both the greatest ODI of all time? Equally? Yet Warne for his bowling exploits goes pasttttt one game. Aravinda doesn't - not even for his batting performances.

For you 31/1 in 10 may not be magnificent, but the way you are trying to equate it with 0/58 is just ridiculous. Warne's was a very poor spell whereas Murali's was a good one on its own whereas if compared to Warne's performance in the game, it was an excellent performance against better batsmen.

No one is equating it. Are you blind? How many times do I have to type "1/31 is better than 0/58". That wasn't the argument. The argument was in itself, is 1/31 magnificant - i.e. like 4/33 is.

It is magnificent, in the light of what Warne did in the same match.

Still doesn't matter because it's at best average to everybody else.

Question: in the 2 finals that each had (it's actually irrelevant that they played head-to-head) who did better? I think we both know that answer.

 

[Laurrz]

You guys have good stamina lmao

 

[Sanz]

2 runs on average does not make a player EASILY better than another player. For all we know, averaging 26 in one game was more difficult than averaging 24.

It does, if statistics is the only measure.

If we separated players by such small margins there'd be no need for this forum. "EASILY" better is when Someone averages 99.94 and the rest are 60 at best. Or when one guy is the only person averaging 60 and the rest 50.

Dont preach to me. You are the one who has been arguing that Warne is better than Murali and posting statistical crap for so long and now that it is not working in your favor, you cry about the degree of measurement.

If you agreed and respected other people's opinion that Murali is better than Warne, this thread wouldn't exist. But you didn't, your posted loads of crap after crap of statistics to prove warne the better one and you still couldn't prove it.

Anyways, as I said, Statistically both are fairly easy to say. If stats are the only measurement of a player's performance then it makes no difference. Both 99 and 50.01 are better than 50. And If that's what you are going to use to define who is better then yes 50.01 is easily better than 50.

Because you seem to see through the prisms of "Kazo" I think that is where half your problem is. Maybe YOU would think someone will think like that but I clearly don't. I am, even when it suits me not to be, saying these differences do not define who is better. 1 ball 1 run does not define superiority. 2 runs average does not define superiority. 0.5 runs, even less, does not define superiority. Can't say it any clearer than this buddy.

They actually do, statistically.

I am a Warne fan and so I argue he is better because IMO he is.

Even I am a Warne fan and I dont need any bloody statistics to tell me that Warne is the better bowler of the two. But the problem arises when you distort the statistics and when it still doesn't work in your favor, you come back with another distortion. This page is a premier example of your distortions.

But when you call someone biased, moving the goal posts, have the balls to point it out.

You are biased, you have confessed it yourself, somewhere else on the forum. And the fact you confessed that you are a Warne fan hence you are going to argue he is better is proof enough that you are biased. I am a fan of Kapil Dev, doesn't mean I am going to argue that he is better Dennis Lillee by manipulating statistics.

You are moving the goal post, already talking about 'ALL' Finals from your usual 'GRAND' Finals.

We're still waiting.

Waiting for what ?

Take a Look at this thread itself and how you tried to exclude Zimbabwe when it wasn't going in favor of argument, and now you are gue as If Zimbabwe were the best team in the world. If that is not about moving the Goal Post then what is ?

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1424187&postcount=2093

Also here are your responses on the similar issue raised previously in the same thread :-

Yes, but you missed a glaring fact. Zimbabwe up 1999 was not trash. They had few good players like Flower brothers, Goodwin, Johnson and Campbell. The last 5 odd test matches are the ones that are not of test match quality. All the Bangladesh matches can be dropped as well as not up to standard.

Zimbabwe were still minnows, and you know that. Warne only played them once.

Perfect example of how you change your criteria when it doesn't work in your favor.

 

[Sanz]

Whether YOU are talking about it is IRRELEVANT. You popped in the middle of my argument with Migara. He was saying Murali had 1 magnificant performance and 1 here he got hammered. Whilst Warne had 1 magnificant performance and 1 where he got hammered. Implying they are equal.

It may be irrelevant to you, but not to me, because I wasn't arguing for Migara. Yes I popped in the middle, but the argument had nothing to with what Migara said or didn't say. I didn't even read his post on Murali's performance in that game until you pointed it to me.

No one said 1/31 is not better than 0/58. The point was it is not MAGNIFICENT no matter how you pull it.

It is magnificent in comparison to Warne's performance.

So you are copping out, because you know what we're talking about, yet you are still blabbering on about it. Now you can imagine why I think you can't read to save your life.

Considering that in the past(in this very thread) you have accused people like 'Top_cat' of lacking in reading comprehension, when they didn't agree with you. I take that as a compliment and also note that you are really unable to converse properly.

And remember, what I said? Aravinda did it once, Warne did it once. So are they both the greatest ODI of all time? Equally?

Aravinda did it 1 out of 1, Warne did 1 out of 2. One has a 100% success rate(both as a batsman and as a bowler), the other has 50% success rate and 50% failure rate. Notice the difference.

Not equal by any measurement scale.

No one is equating it. Are you blind? How many times do I have to type "1/31 is better than 0/58". That wasn't the argument. The argument was in itself, is 1/31 magnificant - i.e. like 4/33 is.

Murali didn't play in the 4/33 match. So you can not really compare head-to-head. Nowhere have I suggest that 1/31 is anywhere close to 4/33, so that's really like clutching @straws.

Question: in the 2 finals that each had (it's actually irrelevant that they played head-to-head) who did better? I think we both know that answer.

Irrelevant because it suits your argument ?

In the overall finals, it has already been accepted that Warne is easily the better one, so I dont get the point why it is being brought up again and again.

 

[Sanz]

If you compare Aravinda to the greats like Tendulkar or Ponting...then he doesn't have a leg to stand on and one finals performance will not hide all the other deficiencies. That's what I am saying.

I am not comparing Aravinda to Tendulkar/Ponting. I comparing him to Warne as ab ODI player. You make it sound like Aravinda was just another average player in comparison to Warne, whereas the facts state otherwise.

Aravinda Despite playing for one of the weaker teams and playing 1/3rd of his matches in a totally different era, ended up among the top run getters of all time.

errr...nope. Great player though and SL legend.

That's your opinion and one with a heavy bias. Warne isn't one of the great all time ODI bowlers, he gets included as one because of his success in the Test Cricket. He was just one of the Good ODI bowlers, but not in the class of Joel Garner, Wasim Akram, WaqarYounis, Shane Bond, Saqlain Mushtaq, Brett Lee, Akhtar, Mcgrath etc. Nowhere Close.

Note this - Ajit Agarkar has similar no. of ODI wickets as Warne.

 

[Ikki]

It does, if statistics is the only measure.

Cop out, again. Statistics can/should never be the only measure. Hence my "they only qualify you for a certain class but beyond that it is subjective" assessment.

Dont preach to me. You are the one who has been arguing that Warne is better than Murali and posting statistical crap for so long and now that it is not working in your favor, you cry about the degree of measurement.

If you agreed and respected other people's opinion that Murali is better than Warne, this thread wouldn't exist. But you didn't, your posted loads of crap after crap of statistics to prove warne the better one and you still couldn't prove it.

Anyways, as I said, Statistically both are fairly easy to say. If stats are the only measurement of a player's performance then it makes no difference. Both 99 and 50.01 are better than 50. And If that's what you are going to use to define who is better then yes 50.01 is easily better than 50.

That's the problem YOU are the one trying to make it about statistics. YOU are the one in the other thread who said 1 ball and 1 run define superiority. Therefore YOU can preach to yourself. I am the one saying such differences are negligible whether they are for or against the player I happen to rate.

They actually do, statistically.

So? Stats are just numerical facts - fact that they exist within themself. They can never be used as a fact in this way: i.e. player A averages 0.5 runs more than player B so he is better. Unless every single variable is the same bar player A averaging 0.5 runs more than player B. That stance is non-sense. This is my objection and this is what you seem to advocate. As I said in the other thread, if such a thing is true, then don't be a hypocrite and keep talking Wasim Akram up to Imran Khan because by your own measure Imran Khan is better than Wasim Akram.

Even I am a Warne fan and I dont need any bloody statistics to tell me that Warne is the better bowler of the two. But the problem arises when you distort the statistics and when it still doesn't work in your favor, you come back with another distortion. This page is a premier example of your distortions.

Show me where I distorted statistics. Thanks. As I said "trash talking is no art". Show it. If I am distorting statistics I am the kind of person who is not going to do it intentionally. Show it to me so I can rectify my analysis. If you can't, then apology would do.

You are biased, you have confessed it yourself, somewhere else on the forum. And the fact you confessed that you are a Warne fan hence you are going to argue he is better is proof enough that you are biased. I am a fan of Kapil Dev, doesn't mean I am going to argue that he is better Dennis Lillee by manipulating statistics.

I am biased, everybody is biased. What is your point? Do I ever argue that Damian Fleming is better than Allan Donald? No. If I am biased towards my countrymen it's in comparisons where there is no clear-cut "better player". Again, show me where I've made the "Kapil V Lillee" kind of biased argument. If you can, I will rectify it. If you can't, an apology would do.

You are moving the goal post, already talking about 'ALL' Finals from your usual 'GRAND' Finals.

Show me where I have done so. You know why you can't? Because if my intention is to make Warne look good I don't need to move the goal posts anyway...he is better in all finals AND the grand final.

Waiting for what ?

Waiting for you to at least quote my inconsistencies. As aforesaid "trash talking is no art".

Take a Look at this thread itself and how you tried to exclude Zimbabwe when it wasn't going in favor of argument, and now you are gue as If Zimbabwe were the best team in the world. If that is not about moving the Goal Post then what is ?

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1424187&postcount=2093

Also here are your responses on the similar issue raised previously in the same thread

Perfect example of how you change your criteria when it doesn't work in your favor.

Ta-DA! THIS alone shows you cannot READ to save your life. The post you quote is talking about TESTS, not ODIS! Yes, Zimbabwe is a minnow in the Test arena, but not the ODI arena. Very easy and simple to grasp...if you can read.

 

[Richard]

Zimbabwe is a minnow in the Test arena, but not the ODI arena.

No, they're a substandard team in the Test and ODI arenas. They were both Test and ODI standard until April 2003 though.

 

[Ikki]

It may be irrelevant to you, but not to me, because I wasn't arguing for Migara. Yes I popped in the middle, but the argument had nothing to with what Migara said or didn't say. I didn't even read his post on Murali's performance in that game until you pointed it to me.

You are arguing with me, hence it should be made relevant to me. Otherwise you are talking to yourself. I don't care that 1/31 is superior to 0/58. For me one is average the other is horrible. End of story.

It is magnificent in comparison to Warne's performance.

I'm talking to a 5 year old kid.

Considering that in the past(in this very thread) you have accused people like 'Top_cat' of lacking in reading comprehension, when they didn't agree with you. I take that as a compliment and also note that you are really unable to converse properly.

I did, where? What was the point? Was it true?

You can't understand a simple point to save yourself from humiliation it seems. Zimbabwe Tests - no. Zimbabwe ODI - yes.

Aravinda did it 1 out of 1, Warne did 1 out of 2. One has a 100% success rate(both as a batsman and as a bowler), the other has 50% success rate and 50% failure rate. Notice the difference.

LOL, no one is 100% proven or 50% proven when talking about 1-2 innings. To suggest so is to mean that Aravinda will score a century in EVERY world cup final he plays. You do understand the difference, don't you?

Not equal by any measurement scale.

Murali didn't play in the 4/33 match. So you can not really compare head-to-head. Nowhere have I suggest that 1/31 is anywhere close to 4/33, so that's really like clutching @straws.

LOL, it doesn't matter that he didn't play. That is not even a relevant point. That's like me saying: "Aravinda's performance should not count because Ray Lindwall didn't bowl to him". Clutching straws? Freudian slip? I think so.

Irrelevant because it suits your argument ?

In the overall finals, it has already been accepted that Warne is easily the better one, so I dont get the point why it is being brought up again and again.

Irrelevant because Warne's bowling is not dependant on Murali's existence. We should not count it because Murali wasn't there? Why? What was Murali going to do? Sometimes it's good to make sense mate.

 

[Ikki]

No, they're a substandard team in the Test and ODI arenas. They were both Test and ODI standard until April 2003 though.

Yes, and all the batsmen should have adjusted averages because of First-Chances...yada yada. We know your stance on this.

 

[Richard]

Yes, and all the batsmen should have adjusted averages because of First-Chances...yada yada. We know your stance on this.

Anyone claiming Zimbabwe are a ODI-standard team in 2008 needs to tread very carefully when trying to denigrate someone else's credibility.