*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Thirdman1]

Warne is a bit better than Murali away from home and better than Murali even in Sri Lanka. /QUOTE]

Warne's away stats are inflated by huge number of wickets against England. If Murali had played that much against England, he would have better average than Warne.

 

[Ikki]

Warne's away stats are inflated by huge number of wickets against England. If Murali had played that much against England, he would have better average than Warne.

Murali played them many times as well. We already standardised the away stats in this thread with Migara and Warne had the better away record still.

What tilted the stats back in favour of Murali overall was their home records. One bowled in Australia (one of the least spin-friendly places to bowl) and the other in Sri Lanka (one of the most spin-friendly places to bowl). That difference accounts for half the tests they've played (because they've both played roughly half their tests at home). The fact that one played with this advantage and the other with this disadvantage and they're so close statistically speaks volumes for Warne.

 

[honestbharani]

Call me stupid but....


1. I don't think Warne or Murali really got many "cheap" wickets no matter how many tailenders Warne may have dismissed and how many Zim and BD batsmen Murali may have dismissed.


2. I don't think Warne or Murali are cheats coz one guy was caught taking drugs once and the other was called for chucking once.


3. I don't think Warne or Murali choked in any country inspite of their bad records against few opposition in their home turf.


4. I don't think anyone ever "owned" Warne or Murali even though some batsmen have been relatively successful against them.


5. I don't think they are NOT all time great bowlers just because they are spinners. I think they are better than MANY fast bowlers who seem to have better avg. and SRs than them, coz cricket doesn't work that way.


I just happen to think Murali is a "slightly" better bowler because at his best, the batsmen seemed to be more limited in their options against him than Warne... But I would always take Warne in my all time side, coz he is a better batsman and a bigger character and more likely to eke out a wicket or two on a bad day than Murali. In my all time side, surrounded by some other great bowlers, I just want my spinner to have that X factor and a bit of unpredictability which Warne has... He can be hit around but he can bowl a great one out of nowhere. With Murali, you always knew what you got.. More consistent and less likely to bowl an awesome delvery when out of form than Warne. But then again, I feel he is more likely to NOT bowl a bad ball when in form than Warne...


Hopefully my last post on the topic.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

If Warne is being praised for having similar record despite bowling in non-spin friendly conditions for the most part, how come Vaas is not allowed the same when he was compared to Lee?Or Wasim Akram vis a vis Lilleee....some people just can't stop praising their own players...if their batsman averages 20 in a country,no problem,if their "great" bowler averages 100+ in SC,no problem....anyway all this spin friendly argument is just not correct..if India is so spin friendly,why does Warne average 45 there?

 

[Sir Alex]

Edit

 

[Uppercut]

Damn., I could not understand why Murali's home matches are not given that much of importance

Me neither. Murali tailored his bowling perfectly to the needs of the place where he played the majority of his cricket. And he did so because those matches needed to be won every bit as much as those in New Zealand or England. Or, as you said yourself:

May be yes. If that's the case that shows Warne knew how to bowl on these pitches, rather than saying "unhelpful". It was unhelpful for the bowlers who are not used to bowling on them. That takes quite a weight off "unhelpful" pitches theory.

Most spinners have difficulty in Australia, but Warne being an all-time great was able to his home pitches to become fantastically successful there. Ian Healy spoke of how he adopted his action to maximise bounce because his home pitches were more inclined to offer a lot of bounce than turn.

The net result of Warne's dominance in Australia was a significant contribution to his country having a phenomenal home record, and the effect of Murali's dominance in Sri Lanka on cricket in his country was arguably even greater. Why their performances elsewhere would count for more is beyond me- but then, so is much of this debate.

 

[Ikki]

If Warne is being praised for having similar record despite bowling in non-spin friendly conditions for the most part, how come Vaas is not allowed the same when he was compared to Lee?Or Wasim Akram vis a vis Lilleee....some people just can't stop praising their own players...if their batsman averages 20 in a country,no problem,if their "great" bowler averages 100+ in SC,no problem....anyway all this spin friendly argument is just not correct..if India is so spin friendly,why does Warne average 45 there?

Because those bowlers are swing bowlers. The flatness of the pitch is not really that much of a hindrance as their main weapon is through the air not on the pitch. In fact, swing bowlers like Wasim or Vaas or Imran did much better at home than they did away. Of course, this was also explained then in the Vaas thread but it didn't register there nor will it here I suspect.

A more relevant comparison would be if one seam bowler bowled in S.Africa and the other in India.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Because those bowlers are swing bowlers. The flatness of the pitch is not really that much of a hindrance as their main weapon is through the air not on the pitch. In fact, swing bowlers like Wasim or Vaas or Imran did much better at home than they did away. Of course, this was also explained then in the Vaas thread but it didn't register there nor will it here I suspect.

A more relevant comparison would be if one seam bowler bowled in S.Africa and the other in India.

Why I am not surprised.Somehow your reasoning ALWAYS seems to favour an Aussie player over a non-Aussie.

 

[Sir Alex]

Because those bowlers are swing bowlers. The flatness of the pitch is not really that much of a hindrance as their main weapon is through the air not on the pitch. In fact, swing bowlers like Wasim or Vaas or Imran did much better at home than they did away. Of course, this was also explained then in the Vaas thread but it didn't register there nor will it here I suspect.

A more relevant comparison would be if one seam bowler bowled in S.Africa and the other in India.

Which basically says one had it in him what was required to succeed in subcontinent while the other didn't. Hence one is better than the other. :-)

 

[Migara]

I'm not sure what flat you're trying to place where. Whether Warne did well at home, considering it's difficulty and lack of spin-friendly conditions is not something to write off as doable by anyone - as if just that he did well means pitches were helpful. Warne's away stats are much better than his home stats. Murali's home stats are much better than his away stats. Warne is a bit better than Murali away from home and better than Murali even in Sri Lanka. What that suggests to me is that aside from being superior away from home; the difference could be even larger had he the kind of conditions Murali had at his disposal for half his career.

You're combining his India and Sri Lanka stats is a joke. You argue constantly, as do others, that the conditions in these two conditions are not the same, and shouldn't be treated as such merely because they're both in the continent.

Warne made merry in Sri Lanka. Warne only failed away in India. Even against the WIndies he only ever had 1 bad series (in all his career, home or away) and that was during the period where he was getting pelted by everyone.

As for the discussion re Warne in Australian domestic cricket; it's a bit of both. I looked at his season by season record and he would usually play a few games only, per season. When you're in and out of domestic cricket like that it is hard to get consistency. Also, I hear he didn't take it as seriously as he could have; but like Vic I'd put that to preparation. On the pitch, I have no doubt a competitor like Warne was giving his all to win. Having said that, Australia has had very good players of spin and pretty unreceptive pitches in general. It's hard yakka out there for spinners.

Now first try to understand the point I am making. I am not suggesting spin bowling in Australia is a piece of cake. But what I am suggesting is since Warne has done well against touring sides other than SL and IND in Aus it shows Warne knew how to bowl on Aussie pitches. And not only Warne, even MacGill returned with similar stats to Warne if I am not mistaken, and fared in similar way to Warne against IND and SL. (Now you cannot consider Warne's stats in SL against Pakistan, because it is more like Pakistan A with all their big names missing with batting, but it's not that big glaring matter). I have combined IND and SL because these two are the best players of spin who played against Warne, and these two are the outliers in Warne's record in Aus. Warne made merry against a good SL batting line up once and that was in 1999. 1992 he was carted around, but I am happy to put that to inexperience. 2003 he bowled to a side which had gaping holes after de Silva, Gurusinghe, Mahanama and Ranatunga left and Tillekaratne on verge of getting dropped. Even then huge chunk of Warne's wickets were tail-enders.

Now if I summarize what I have said once more so you want imagine things,

1. Australia is a difficult place to bowl spin - accepted
2. Australia is an easier place to bowl spin for Aussie spinners than touring spinners
3. Warne knew how to get out batsmen from other sides than IND and SL, with similar average to his away stats.
4. Even after leaving some space for (1), Warne's averages against IND and SL looks out of place.

 

[Migara]

Now here is how spinners fared in SL and in Aus

SL (28-08-1992 to present): 31.4
AUS (02-01-1992 to 05-01-2007): 35.4

Now compare and contrast with Warnes home average of 26.4 and Murali's 22.2 (w/o B & Z)

Avg of Murali relative to spinners in SL: 22.2 - 31.4 = -9.2 (or 22.2 / 31.4 = 64.5% )
Avg of Warne realtive to spinners in Aus: 26.4 - 35.4 = -9 (or 26.4 / 35.4 = 74.6%)
(but I like taking the deficit than the ratio)

Showing that it is almost the same. But, Warne had trouble bowling mainly to IND and lesser SL even this 9 runs adjustment is made. But compared to that Murali at home did not have much trouble dislodging AUS and IND batsmen who are the best that Murali bowled to

 

[Ikki]

Now first try to understand the point I am making. I am not suggesting spin bowling in Australia is a piece of cake. But what I am suggesting is since Warne has done well against touring sides other than SL and IND in Aus it shows Warne knew how to bowl on Aussie pitches. And not only Warne, even MacGill returned with similar stats to Warne if I am not mistaken, and fared in similar way to Warne against IND and SL. (Now you cannot consider Warne's stats in SL against Pakistan, because it is more like Pakistan A with all their big names missing with batting, but it's not that big glaring matter). I have combined IND and SL because these two are the best players of spin who played against Warne, and these two are the outliers in Warne's record in Aus. Warne made merry against a good SL batting line up once and that was in 1999. 1992 he was carted around, but I am happy to put that to inexperience. 2003 he bowled to a side which had gaping holes after de Silva, Gurusinghe, Mahanama and Ranatunga left and Tillekaratne on verge of getting dropped. Even then huge chunk of Warne's wickets were tail-enders.

Now if I summarize what I have said once more so you want imagine things,

1. Australia is a difficult place to bowl spin - accepted
2. Australia is an easier place to bowl spin for Aussie spinners than touring spinners
3. Warne knew how to get out batsmen from other sides than IND and SL, with similar average to his away stats.
4. Even after leaving some space for (1), Warne's averages against IND and SL looks out of place.

You didn't understand my point then. Warne has done well against those teams or not done well against India or Sri Lanka...but he still did it on pitches not suited for spin. Understand? When Murali faced Australia in Sri Lanka, he did it on his own pitches that are greatly in his favour. When Warne faces Sri Lanka in Australia, he is facing very good players of spin on pitches that are not in his favour.

The fact that Sri Lankans have spanked visiting spinners (bar Warne) doesn't mean the pitches aren't suited to spin. I remind you, only 2 places in world cricket does spin outdo pace - India and Sri Lanka. What it means is that the Sri Lankans are awesome players of spin.

No matter how much you twist it, half your tests (being at home) will result in a big difference if you're playing in one place which aids your type of bowling opposed to playing half those tests in a place where it doesn't.

 

[Migara]

You didn't understand my point then. Warne has done well against those teams or not done well against India or Sri Lanka...but he still did it on pitches not suited for spin. Understand? When Murali faced Australia in Sri Lanka, he did it on his own pitches that are greatly in his favour. When Warne faces Sri Lanka in Australia, he is facing very good players of spin on pitches that are not in his favour.

Now where did I say no to that? That's why I say you imagine things, or you hallucinate. Now carefully read this word by word once more, without blabbering non sense.

[QUOTE="Migara]Australia is a difficult place to bowl spin - accepted[/QUOTE]

The fact that Sri Lankans have spanked visiting spinners (bar Warne) doesn't mean the pitches aren't suited to spin. I remind you, only 2 places in world cricket does spin outdo pace - India and Sri Lanka. What it means is that the Sri Lankans are awesome players of spin.

Vettori, and few Pakistani spinners have done well in SL. Only good spinners gets spared here. SL were good players of spin (but not now IMO), and that is accepted. And same has happened in Australia as well. Virtually no touring spinner has got on top of Aussies.

No matter how much you twist it, half your tests (being at home) will result in a big difference if you're playing in one place which aids your type of bowling opposed to playing half those tests in a place where it doesn't.

You are conviniently forgetting that we can have and idea about performance of players by looking at averages. And when this adjustment is made it shows Warne and Murali both have performed up to same level at home. Even after this correction is made Warne's stats against SL and IND is poor. If the same pattern to be expected, then you shuould see Murali averaging about 61 against India in SL, vs Warne's 65 in Aus, and it's not the case, because the average difference is 4 runs between spinners in Aus and SL during their times. Now how much you try to twist, Warne has done badly against India, even after considering the pitches are unresponsive.

 

[Ikki]

Now where did I say no to that? That's why I say you imagine things, or you hallucinate. Now carefully read this word by word once more, without blabbering non sense.

You keep referring to some point about Murali doing well against Australia and India at home as if he is a good player of spin where Warne didn't do well against Sri Lanka and India at home and did well against the rest as if there is a class difference. No, the bigger difference is that Warne was bowling on pitches that were, bar Sydney, unsuited for Spin.

Vettori, and few Pakistani spinners have done well in SL. Only good spinners gets spared here. SL were good players of spin (but not now IMO), and that is accepted. And same has happened in Australia as well. Virtually no touring spinner has got on top of Aussies.

Better spinners than Vettori have failed there and it's a point you've brought up yourself plenty of times: spinners get smashes, usually, in Sri Lanka. The difference between the spinners in Australia and Sri Lanka is not only do they face poor conditions, but batsmen that will rip you apart. In Sri Lanka, at least the conditions are conducive for spinning.

You are conviniently forgetting that we can have and idea about performance of players by looking at averages. And when this adjustment is made it shows Warne and Murali both have performed up to same level at home. Even after this correction is made Warne's stats against SL and IND is poor. If the same pattern to be expected, then you shuould see Murali averaging about 61 against India in SL, vs Warne's 65 in Aus, and it's not the case, because the average difference is 4 runs between spinners in Aus and SL during their times. Now how much you try to twist, Warne has done badly against India, even after considering the pitches are unresponsive.

No one is denying the fact that Warne did badly, even in Australia, because he also did so in India. The point is, Murali did not face India in Australia, and Warne did not face India in Sri Lanka; so your bigger point is lost. Especially considering Murali does pretty badly in Australia and Warne does better than Murali in Sri Lanka.

Also, for your stats here have left in B/Z in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan average rises from 31.4 to 34.4 and the Australian average goes from 35.4 to 36.1 increasing the difference by more. Murali becomes 12.2 points superior to other spinners and Warne 9.7 points superior.

I am pretty sure that's not accurate either as it takes into account home spin bowlers as well as visiting ones.

 

[Migara]

You keep referring to some point about Murali doing well against Australia and India at home as if he is a good player of spin where Warne didn't do well against Sri Lanka and India at home and did well against the rest as if there is a class difference. No, the bigger difference is that Warne was bowling on pitches that were, bar Sydney, unsuited for Spin.

Once again you are imagining things. What I've said is compared to Murali, Warne has outlying stats at home. I was trying to discuss the implications.

Better spinners than Vettori have failed there and it's a point you've brought up yourself plenty of times: spinners get smashes, usually, in Sri Lanka. The difference between the spinners in Australia and Sri Lanka is not only do they face poor conditions, but batsmen that will rip you apart. In Sri Lanka, at least the conditions are conducive for spinning.

That is the very reason why you could adjust the stats and try to identify something out of it.

No one is denying the fact that Warne did badly, even in Australia, because he also did so in India. The point is, Murali did not face India in Australia, and Warne did not face India in Sri Lanka; so your bigger point is lost. Especially considering Murali does pretty badly in Australia and Warne does better than Murali in Sri Lanka.

Now you are the one who used Muali's stats agains AUS in AUS and Warne's stats against SL in SL in standardization. OK now I would like to hear the logic of it since you have admitted it is not the same. Equally good players of spin, equally good spinners, one bowling on "unhelpful" pitches and other bowling on "helpful" pitches.

Also, for your stats here have left in B/Z in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan average rises from 31.4 to 34.4 and the Australian average goes from 35.4 to 36.1 increasing the difference by more. Murali becomes 12.2 points superior to other spinners and Warne 9.7 points superior.

It further shows Murali did still better. Isn't it?

 

[Ikki]

Now you are the one who used Muali's stats agains AUS in AUS and Warne's stats against SL in SL in standardization. OK now I would like to hear the logic of it since you have admitted it is not the same. Equally good players of spin, equally good spinners, one bowling on "unhelpful" pitches and other bowling on "helpful" pitches.

Could you rephrase? I didn't understand that.

It further shows Murali did still better. Isn't it?

I don't think it's even relevant. Sri Lankan spinners did not face Sri Lankan batsmen at home. Including how they did at home vs other teams whereas other spinners are marked on how they did against only Sri Lanka is not a right comparison. You then combine the stats. You should compare how x player did with how spinners did in country Y (minus team Y's spinners).

 

[Migara]

Could you rephrase? I didn't understand that.

This may refresh your memory.

This too

 

[Ikki]

This may refresh your memory.

Not really.

We may not know what Warne would have averaged batting against Australia in Australia, but averaging in the 70s? Let's get real. And the point was this: Murali has bowled to many inferior teams (in terms of playing spin) at home, even if he did face Australia and India that record is still benefitted by the many teams that usually don't have a chance against him in those conditions; but Warne faced the hardest team in that same home (Sri Lanka) and succeeded more than Murali did. That shows that when the two bowled in those bowler friendly conditions they both had large success. It's a point of reference you can use to gauge just how well Warne may have done in Sri Lanka. Whereas Murali was a complete failure in Australia. Dare I say; most spinners (not even in the same hemisphere as Murali) did better than him there. What makes you think he'd have been as good as Warne had they swapped homes?

I am not talking about growing up in that environment and learning to play there, etc. I am talking about what their records as they stand suggest.

 

[JBH001]

This is going beautifully.

Its like scratching a sore, you just cant help yourself.

That said, the couple of pages after the AV, GS and associates morass seems to be decent enough, although I've only skimmed them.

Think UpperCut spot on with this is observation (much the same, for example, as Imran, Kapil, Vaas etc tailoring their bowling styles for home conditions):

Me neither. Murali tailored his bowling perfectly to the needs of the place where he played the majority of his cricket. And he did so because those matches needed to be won every bit as much as those in New Zealand or England. Or, as you said yourself:

Most spinners have difficulty in Australia, but Warne being an all-time great was able to his home pitches to become fantastically successful there. Ian Healy spoke of how he adopted his action to maximise bounce because his home pitches were more inclined to offer a lot of bounce than turn.

The net result of Warne's dominance in Australia was a significant contribution to his country having a phenomenal home record, and the effect of Murali's dominance in Sri Lanka on cricket in his country was arguably even greater. Why their performances elsewhere would count for more is beyond me- but then, so is much of this debate.

 

[Burgey]

Because those bowlers are swing bowlers. The flatness of the pitch is not really that much of a hindrance as their main weapon is through the air not on the pitch. In fact, swing bowlers like Wasim or Vaas or Imran did much better at home than they did away. Of course, this was also explained then in the Vaas thread but it didn't register there nor will it here I suspect.

A more relevant comparison would be if one seam bowler bowled in S.Africa and the other in India.

Lillee bowled 90 mph outswing in his early days though mate. Later he relied more on seam than swing. A better reaons would be that Akram and Lillee bowled in different eras completely, or one had the advantage (or disadvantage) of being left arm. Anyways, really don't want to go there.

As for the other matter, IMO Vaas >> Lee in any event, and quite comfortably tbh.