*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Lostman]

^ Actually just realized this query was incorrect.
Only minors vs minors matches are excluded in this query.

 

[Jarquis]

Thanks
Not sure if it is correct but I have ODI's involving top 8.

Warne 4.69

Murali 4.83

See, I thought that was just games involving one of the top 8 sides? So could be England vs Ireland for example.
That query would only remove minnow vs minnow?

 

[tooextracool]

Thanks
Not sure if it is correct but I have ODI's involving top 8.

Warne 4.69

Murali 4.83

Its 4.55 vs 4.72

 

[Lostman]

tooextracool,
for my reference how you enter the query?

 

[Ikki]

Its not 'very little' though. 0.24 is a huge gulf in ER

But it isn't. 0.24 means 2.4 runs difference between them when they bowl 10 overs in a match each. Even withstanding the era argument; it's not a great deal. FTR, at the time Warne retired Murali's ER was 3.83 (0.09 difference with his overall career ER).

If we were talking about another ODI bowler apart from Warne I might agree. But in ODIs Warne had an exceptional knack of taking wickets when it was needed. Whilst conceding runs in the pursuit of taking wickets go hand in hand; I prefer a bowler who is more likely to take an important wicket than one who is going to consistently save 2-3 runs a match. And that's not to say Murali didn't take important wickets or didn't have that ability; but I rate Warne's ability to do that much higher and he certainly demonstrated that throughout his OD career - especially in WCs.

 

[Lostman]

Warnes and Muralis WC records are identical...

 

[tooextracool]

Its 4.55 vs 4.72

Or more precisely:

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Ikki]

Warnes and Muralis WC records are identical...

But their performances aren't. Especially towards the finals.

For example, Murali has 3 4fers in 31 WC innings. Warne has 4 4fers in just 17. Of the 3 that Murali has 2 come in the prelims and 1 in the semis. That contrasts with Warne who had 2 in the semis, 1 in the final and only 1 in the prelims.

Warne has 14 wickets in the finals in 5 matchesl Murali has 8 in 6.

 

[Lostman]

But their performances aren't.

Nonsense Murali has just as many if not more match winning performances in WC games.

 

[Jono]

Murali fair gun in 2007 WC:

20th Match, Group B: India v Sri Lanka at Port of Spain, Mar 23, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
26th Match, Super Eights: South Africa v Sri Lanka at Providence, Mar 28, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
1st Semi-Final: New Zealand v Sri Lanka at Kingston, Apr 24, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

He was instrumental in getting them into the final. Just because one of his performances didn't happen in an all-time classic semi-final Aust vs. SA WC 99 doesn't mean like he wasn't brilliant in World Cups.

 

[Ikki]

Nonsense Murali has just as many if not more match winning performances in WC games.

I quote myself:

-----
But their performances aren't. Especially towards the finals.

For example, Murali has 3 4fers in 31 WC innings. Warne has 4 4fers in just 17. Of the 3 that Murali has 2 come in the prelims and 1 in the semis. That contrasts with Warne who had 2 in the semis, 1 in the final and only 1 in the prelims.

Warne has 14 wickets in the finals in 5 matchesl Murali has 8 in 6.
-----

Murali took the grand majority of his wickets in the prelims; Warne almost took as many in the finals as he did in the prelims.

 

[tooextracool]

But it isn't. 0.24 means 2.4 runs difference between them when they bowl 10 overs in a match each. Even withstanding the era argument; it's not a great deal. FTR, at the time Warne retired Murali's ER was 3.83 (0.09 difference with his overall career ER).

If we were talking about another ODI bowler apart from Warne I might agree. But in ODIs Warne had an exceptional knack of taking wickets when it was needed. Whilst conceding runs in the pursuit of taking wickets go hand in hand; I prefer a bowler who is more likely to take an important wicket than one who is going to consistently save 2-3 runs a match. And that's not to say Murali didn't take important wickets or didn't have that ability; but I rate Warne's ability to do that much higher and he certainly demonstrated that throughout his OD career - especially in WCs.

This argument is like saying Laxman is the greatest batsman ever because he could turn a match on its head with one innings. 0.33 or whatever the difference is a considerable difference. I think saying that it's the same as 2.4 runs per 10 overs doesn't really do it justice given that these are average figures. Its like saying Damian Fleming only concedes 3 more runs than McGrath per wicket in tests, hence they are almost equals. The point is that Warne was far more likely to get caned around the park and cost his teams games in addition to his ability to turn games on their head.

Nor is it like Murali didn't bowl match winning wicket taking spells in crunch world cup games. His 4/31 in the 2007 wc final essentially won the game and propelled them to the finals.

 

[Ikki]

Against the top 8 teams; in WCs:

Warne: avg. 19.68; er. 3.95; sr. 29.8.

Murali: avg. 24.59; er. 4.16; sr. 35.4.

 

[Jarquis]

Can't believe we're actually judging guys who have played over 180 ODIs each, based off less than 10% of their careers.

 

[Lostman]

I quote myself:
Murali took the grand majority of his wickets in the prelims; Warne almost took as many in the finals as he did in the prelims.

And what of Warne's performance in the 96 final? Surely tanking the game and resulting in his team loosing the final should count just as much as his winning effort in the 99 semi.

This is an absurd argument really.

 

[ankitj]

Wasn't there a thread where people were invited to manipulate stats till your favourite player looks best

 

[Ikki]

This argument is like saying Laxman is the greatest batsman ever because he could turn a match on its head with one innings. 0.33 or whatever the difference is a considerable difference. I think saying that it's the same as 2.4 runs per 10 overs doesn't really do it justice given that these are average figures. Its like saying Damian Fleming only concedes 3 more runs than McGrath per wicket in tests, hence they are almost equals. The point is that Warne was far more likely to get caned around the park and cost his teams games in addition to his ability to turn games on their head.

Nor is it like Murali didn't bowl match winning wicket taking spells in crunch world cup games. His 4/31 in the 2007 wc final essentially won the game and propelled them to the finals.

I don't think the comparison is apt. In tests, you can bowl any number of overs and you are likely to take many more wickets. In ODIs, it's 10 overs and likely few wickets per match. It's essentially a trade-off; do you want the person who is going to concede 2-3 runs per match; or possibly save you an over in terms of taking the same amount of wickets. For me, even that's not what makes me rate Warne; it's his incredible ability to step up when it matters. Did it in 96 and even more impressively in 99.

In the end, when you compare their cost per wicket in terms of runs and balls bowled is pretty similar. But because this is ODIs not all wickets need to be taken. However, taking an important wicket that is likely to turn the match is far more valuable than saving a few runs.

---

Look, I totally get why most people rate Murali ahead of Warne in ODIs. But for me; ODIs mean jack unless it's the WC. And I know who I'd take to the WC. What more as ODI players I'd much rather Warne as he is also likely to chip in twice as much with the bat negating the difference in their ER.

 

[Jono]

Meh if you're going to say all ODIs other than WC are useless don't bother getting into a debate regarding ODI players. Get into a debate as to who the better WC player is.

It's also a bit silly when one of the guys didn't play a WC in the 2000s, whereas another player has played two and is about to play his third next year.

 

[Ikki]

And what of Warne's performance in the 96 final? Surely tanking the game and resulting in his team loosing the final should count just as much as his winning effort in the 99 semi.

This is an absurd argument really.

But he was incredible in that tournament and his performance against the WIndies in 96 is also legendary in that semis. So one of his many finals innings he didn't do well. Are you seriously going to suggest Murali did better? So don't say they were the same in WCs...they weren't.

Murali excelled in the prelims and whilst still strong in the finals never got to Warne's almost magical turn-arounds. I'd rather someone who was very good in the prelims, rather than excellent, and then have them turn in amazing performances towards the end of the tourney. Those are where the hard games are and when it really matters.

 

[Ikki]

Meh if you're going to say all ODIs other than WC are useless don't bother getting into a debate regarding ODI players. Get into a debate as to who the better WC player is.

It's also a bit silly when one of the guys didn't play a WC in the 2000s, whereas another player has played two and is about to play his third next year.

They're fine enough; and not worthless on their own. I may have been harsh...but you play those games in the hope to be good enough in the WC. That's where everybody goes their hardest and the standard of play is the highest. Their overall records, adjusted for strengths of opposition, is close enough. What settles it for me is that one was just that much more instrumental at the highest stage.

As aforesaid, I can see why a lot of people pick Murali but I just wouldn't and disagreed with you initially that there was no argument about it.