*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[honestbharani]

****, it's raining mods all of a sudden

Juz happened to be reported at a convenient time zone, I guess.

 

[Migara]

Yeah they were good players.

Their dominance of Warne is well reflected in SL's imposing Test record v Australia while they played... Oh wait...

Anyway, fwiw before I'm done in here for another six months, they were both great bowlers. Murali played more ODIs, and I would say he is marginally a better ODI bowler than Warne. Though tbf, as an Australian supporter who watched every home test or ODI Murali played in Australia, I never, ever had the slightest thought or remote fear he would run through our side. Never.

And if Warne cops **** for his record in India, then Murali must cop it for his here, because for the most part it looked like our blokes could have played him with a stick of celery.

Oh Wait . . Where did we talked about Test matches? They were ODIs.

And if you are really worried about how Gurusinghe played here is his record vs Warne. Basically smoked him around. And here is Ranatunga's. Once again getting some treatment.

No one said Murali's or Warne's record was flawless.

 

[nightprowler10]

Migara, that sort of name calling is absolutely unacceptable.

This thread is quickly dwindling down due to some crappy posting, if this continues I'll be forced to close the thread and the offending posters may see some disciplinary action as a result.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki's WC Final >> WC Match >>>> Any ODI theory and the Aravinda de Silva is the best ODI player shocker. This has been dealt before.

Not even close.

It's because Warne has a comparable overall ODI record with Murali but was superior at the WC that I have him over. Not just because of the WC alone. I am not claiming something like Aravinda is a better ODI batsman than Tendulkar since one can argue the former's effect at the highest level. But if they were close enough statistically, I would tip de Silva ahead.

 

[Migara]

Migara, that sort of name calling is absolutely unacceptable.

This thread is quickly dwindling down due to some crappy posting, if this continues I'll be forced to close the thread and the offending posters may see some disciplinary action as a result.

Where was the name calling?

 

[Migara]

Not even close.

It's because Warne has a comparable overall ODI record with Murali but was superior at the WC that I have him over. Not just because of the WC alone. I am not claiming something like Aravinda is a better ODI batsman than Tendulkar since one can argue the former's effect at the highest level. But if they were close enough statistically, I would tip de Silva ahead.

Warne's record is not comparable to Murali in ODIs. Period.

 

[Jono]

Surely you guys have made your arguments now, and no one is budging. Not going anywhere from here.

 

[Ikki]

Warne's record is not comparable to Murali in ODIs. Period.

Yes it is, especially when you look at the top 8 teams. The likes of Netherlands and Ireland really shouldn't be in the discussion.

 

[Migara]

Once again no. England should not be even in the discussion in that case. Woeful during lare 90s. current Bangladesh team is better than that and ZIM of late 90s were a class above them. May be the "crappiest" teams like NED, NAM, CAN shoukd go, but not ZIM, IRE, BAN etc.

Even if you do that, Murali has 401 @ 25.03, ER 4.04, Warne has 264 @ 26.25, ER 4.28

 

[Ikki]

Remove the Eng of the late 90s and include Zim of the late 90s. It won't make enough of a difference. If you don't remove Zimbabwe at all their figures are still comparable. Only the Bangladesh of recent years deserves to be in there. Include them; again it doesn't make enough of a difference. Their figures are comparable.

 

[Migara]

Once again no. England should not be even in the discussion in that case. Woeful during lare 90s. current Bangladesh team is better than that and ZIM of late 90s were a class above them. May be the "crappiest" teams like NED, NAM, CAN shoukd go, but not ZIM, IRE, BAN etc.

Even if you do that, Murali has 401 @ 25.03, ER 4.04, Warne has 264 @ 26.25, ER 4.28

And to add to that,

ROW, during Murali's career, Avg: 33.25, ER: 4.74
ROW, during Warne's career, Avg:32.86, ER:4.59

Once again a non comparison.

 

[Ikki]

Even if you do that, Murali has 401 @ 25.03, ER 4.04, Warne has 264 @ 26.25, ER 4.28

Exactly:

Warne: 26.25, ER 4.28, SR 36.7
Murali: 25.03, ER 4.04, SR 38.1

How are they not comparable?

 

[Ikki]

Once again a non comparison.

You're a funny guy.

 

[Migara]

Exactly:

Warne: 26.25, ER 4.28, SR 36.7
Murali: 25.03, ER 4.04, SR 38.1

How are they not comparable?

Simple, Murali has a way better ER compared to the ROW, Better average than Warne, and over a period 60% more than that of Warne. Now don't bring SR in to equation, and Warne has only it for advantage. Average, ER and longevity, three factors in his favor. Hence, non-comparable.

 

[Ikki]

Simple, Murali has a way better ER compared to the ROW, Better average than Warne, and over a period 60% more than that of Warne. Now don't bring SR in to equation, and Warne has only it for advantage. Average, ER and longevity, three factors in his favor. Hence, non-comparable.

His ER is 0.28 runs better. Which means 2.8 runs cheaper per match. On the other hand, Warne will take his wickets 1.4 balls faster. Minuscule differences.

This is like saying a batsman who averages 53 @ 56 and a batsman who averages 52 @ 58 aren't comparable.

Heck, McGrath and Wasim Akram have bigger differences in their stats. Saying they're not comparable is silly to say the least.

 

[Migara]

His ER is better than 0.28 because his career gets in to 2010. Hence adjusted Average values for the era has to be taken.

Murali: ROW = 4.04 / 4.74 = 0.852
Warne: ROW = 4.28 / 4.59 = 0.932

When applied to global ERs, Muralis = 0.852 * 4.52 = 3.85, vs Warne = 0.932 * 4.52 = 4.21, a 0.4 run difference.

Hence, not close

 

[Ikki]

His ER is better than 0.28 because his career gets in to 2010. Hence adjusted Average values for the era has to be taken.

Murali: ROW = 4.04 / 4.74 = 0.852
Warne: ROW = 4.28 / 4.59 = 0.932

When applied to global ERs, Muralis = 0.852 * 4.52 = 3.85, vs Warne = 0.932 * 4.52 = 4.21, a 0.4 run difference.

Hence, not close

Even on those terms, the 2.8 runs turns into 4 runs a game. Still comparable. And this is only that important if all you care about is restricting runs. If you're talking about wickets (SR):

Murali: ROW = 38.1 / 42 = 0.907
Warne: ROW = 36.7 / 42.8 = 0.857

When applied to global SRs, Muralis = 0.907 * 42.9 = 38.9, vs Warne = 0.857 * 42.9 = 36.7 a 2.2 ball per wicket difference.

Hence, comparable.


------

Haha, it seems you ignored my Wasim and McGrath example. Are they more differed statistically or not?

 

[Jarquis]

In ODIs, economy is much more important than SR IMO. Seeing as you can effectively take 0 wickets in an ODI and win.

 

[Ikki]

In ODIs, economy is much more important than SR IMO. Seeing as you can effectively take 0 wickets in an ODI and win.

There's a bit of a divide on that kind of thinking. A lot of people consider taking wickets just as important, if not more important; which makes SR wholly relevant. The two are kind of inter-related. It's unlikely you're going to keep batsmen pinned for an entire game. The key about wickets is that it breaks up partnerships, brings doubt and slows the run-rate again. If you don't take wickets, sure enough the batsmen are going to get comfortable enough to start taking their chances and upping the run-rate.

 

[Jarquis]

There's a bit of a divide on that kind of thinking. A lot of people consider taking wickets just as important, if not more important; which makes SR wholly relevant. The two are kind of inter-related. It's unlikely you're going to keep batsmen pinned for an entire game. The key about wickets is that it breaks up partnerships, brings doubt and slows the run-rate again. If you don't take wickets, sure enough the batsmen are going to get comfortable enough to start taking their chances and upping the run-rate.

Well I did say it was my opinion. What you'd say would have more merit if Warne was an absolute wicket taking machine, but frankly his SR is 2 balls better than Murali's? To me that doesn't offset a 4 run differential in economy. Neither are massive margins but IMO conceding 4 runs fewer per match is always preferable to conceding more runs.
Stifling the run rate can build pressure on batting sides leading to them taking risks and "buying" wickets.

Or if you think that SR and economy are of similar importance.... just use averages