Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
You've basically repeated everything I've said yet tried to make it sound as if you're mitigating for Murali's advantages and exaggerating Warne's successes.
You've moved the goal posts but It doesn't really matter because it still points to the same thing. In fact the <3 and 4> probably make it look closer than it is (53 v 47).
Even in the break up between 0-2, 3-4 and 5-10 wickets:
- Murali's 0-2 hauls are 29%* of his innings whereas for Warne that figure is 49% (the higher percentage being much worse for the bowler here).
- In 5-10 breakup, Murali gets 29% to Warne's 13.5% (the higher percentage being better for the bowler here).
- The only division they're even close is the 3-4 wicket range where Murali is still in the lead (42% to 38%).
So again, where they perform badly, Murali has the smaller proportion and where they perform well to awesome, Murali has the bigger proportion. No matter how you slice it, he gets the advantage.
The reason for Murali having better shorter spell was already addressed; it has little to do with being kept out or not bowled. He was the main bowler for his team; that was rarely the consideration. It was because either Sri Lanka won early or the innings finished early and for that Murali will have greater stats as his team relies on him most. That explains his better stats; so assuming he'd have done better in a pack is wayward because the team will have finished more matches earlier than he'd have contributed to in such a scenario. To repeat the batting analogy; it's like saying Inzamum averaged 78 in wins compared to Ponting's 60 and if he played for Australia this shows he would have had a much better average because he would have won more. Forgetting all the while it is precisely because of the circumstances he's in that he averages so high.
Also, your last point is right and wrong. Warne often bowled longer spells more often in relation to his own average overs per inning. Not in comparison to Murali himself. Murali bowled more longer spells in reality. If anything, that split-up makes Warne look even better for when he was asked to do more he was much better than when Murali was asked to do more - with respect to what "more" means for each bowler. Yet, again, this is unrealistic because what you're consider average for Murali you're considering as a long spell for Warne.
* Just wanted to point out another flaw in your argument. You're comparing Murali's 0-2 hauls with his 5-10 hauls and saying the two 29% figures cancel each other out. What for Warne? He has -49+13.5, so he is -35.5. Which again shows that comparatively, the pack hunter is much disadvantaged. In fact, I punched the numbers into a spreadsheet to see just how much:
As far as I am concerned this one has been done and dusted and it's pretty conclusive. What isn't conclusive is just exactly what specific instances give lone wolves this undeniable advantage of getting bigger hauls so often. And there is no denying these bigger hauls certainly aid players and the bigger proportion of these innings the more they help.
You've moved the goal posts but It doesn't really matter because it still points to the same thing. In fact the <3 and 4> probably make it look closer than it is (53 v 47).
Even in the break up between 0-2, 3-4 and 5-10 wickets:
- Murali's 0-2 hauls are 29%* of his innings whereas for Warne that figure is 49% (the higher percentage being much worse for the bowler here).
- In 5-10 breakup, Murali gets 29% to Warne's 13.5% (the higher percentage being better for the bowler here).
- The only division they're even close is the 3-4 wicket range where Murali is still in the lead (42% to 38%).
So again, where they perform badly, Murali has the smaller proportion and where they perform well to awesome, Murali has the bigger proportion. No matter how you slice it, he gets the advantage.
The reason for Murali having better shorter spell was already addressed; it has little to do with being kept out or not bowled. He was the main bowler for his team; that was rarely the consideration. It was because either Sri Lanka won early or the innings finished early and for that Murali will have greater stats as his team relies on him most. That explains his better stats; so assuming he'd have done better in a pack is wayward because the team will have finished more matches earlier than he'd have contributed to in such a scenario. To repeat the batting analogy; it's like saying Inzamum averaged 78 in wins compared to Ponting's 60 and if he played for Australia this shows he would have had a much better average because he would have won more. Forgetting all the while it is precisely because of the circumstances he's in that he averages so high.
Also, your last point is right and wrong. Warne often bowled longer spells more often in relation to his own average overs per inning. Not in comparison to Murali himself. Murali bowled more longer spells in reality. If anything, that split-up makes Warne look even better for when he was asked to do more he was much better than when Murali was asked to do more - with respect to what "more" means for each bowler. Yet, again, this is unrealistic because what you're consider average for Murali you're considering as a long spell for Warne.
* Just wanted to point out another flaw in your argument. You're comparing Murali's 0-2 hauls with his 5-10 hauls and saying the two 29% figures cancel each other out. What for Warne? He has -49+13.5, so he is -35.5. Which again shows that comparatively, the pack hunter is much disadvantaged. In fact, I punched the numbers into a spreadsheet to see just how much:
As far as I am concerned this one has been done and dusted and it's pretty conclusive. What isn't conclusive is just exactly what specific instances give lone wolves this undeniable advantage of getting bigger hauls so often. And there is no denying these bigger hauls certainly aid players and the bigger proportion of these innings the more they help.
Last edited:
