*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Cricketismylife]

Lol if we are going down the Bang Zim route again, then we may as well try and work out the quality of the wickets. For starters Warne got many tailend wickets in 2004 series and that should count against him, as well as the fact that he never bowled to an Australian or Indian line up in Sri Lanka. You can't just remove Bang Zim just like that.

 

[Ikki]

Lol if we are going down the Bang Zim route again, then we may as well try and work out the quality of the wickets. For starters Warne got many tailend wickets in 2004 series and that should count against him, as well as the fact that he never bowled to an Australian or Indian line up in Sri Lanka. You can't just remove Bang Zim just like that.

Why should it count against him that he didn't bowl against those two in Sri Lanka? The whole point is that Warne's record would be even better had he bowled to those teams in Sri Lanka. For example, Warne's record in India is better than Murali's. Only Murali's record at home/Sri Lanka makes his overall record against India better than Warne's. But Warne had to bowl against them in Australia.

And Warne only took 2 more tailend wickets than Murali in 04 (basically his career break-up of wickets, so nothing out of the norm there), whilst clearly outbowling his rival. In fact, I remember I analysed that series innings by innings and Warne's wickets barely came at a cost whilst Murali took many of his after Australia's batsmen made merry.

Even if you don't agree with removing B/Z, which is ridiculous, Warne is still ahead statistically - incredibly so wrt SR.

 

[Ikki]

Found the post:

And LET'S get into this innings by innings analysis because I have a hard
time believing you were at the ground if you actually look at the facts:

1st match: 1st innings

Murali:

- Takes 6 for 59 off 21.3 overs.
- 4 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Murali obliterates the batting line-up with only Lehmann giving an expense at 63.
- Sri Lanka: Murali the best performer easily:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        12      2     39      1
Dharmasena                  20      4     52      2
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Muralitharan                21.3    5     59      6[/COLOR][/B]
Chandana                    14      1     59      1
Jayasuriya                   1      0      2      0

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 116 off 42.4 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Warne cleans up well with really no expense.
- Australia: Warne with the best performance

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   28      9     61      1
Kasprowicz                  23      3     56      2
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       42.4    9    116      5 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
Symonds                     19      3     68      1
MacGill                     22      4     69      1
Lehmann                      2      0      9      0

1st match: 2nd innings

Murali:

- Takes 5 for 153 off 56 overs.
- 4 Non-Tailenders 1 Tailender.
- Murali gets his wickets but the Aussie line-up had destructed Sri Lanka already with Hayden getting 130, Martyn with 110 and Lehmann with 129.
- Sri Lanka: Murali the best performer:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        27      3     67      0 (2nb)
Dharmasena                  24      1    100      0
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Muralitharan                56      9    153      5[/COLOR][/B]
Dilshan                      6      3      9      0
Jayasuriya                  14.3    2     38      1
Chandana                    24.3    2    102      1

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 43 off 15 overs.
- 4 Non-Tailenders 1 Tailender.
- Warne obliterates the Sri Lankan line-up with little to no expense.
- Australia: Warne with the best performance quite easily, although MacGill is in there

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       15      5     43      5 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
Gillespie                    9      2     20      0 (1w)
Kasprowicz                   5      1     13      1
[I]MacGill                     16.2    2     74      4[/I]

2nd match: 1st innings

Murali:

- Takes 4 for 48 off 15 overs.
- 2 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Australia's 'great' lineup crumble with BIG thanks to Zoysa and Vaas.
- Hayden the only expense at 53.
- Sri Lanka: Vaas, Zoysa and Murali all with claim to being best performer

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
[B][COLOR="Orange"][I]Vaas                        11.2    5     14      2
Zoysa                       16      3     54      4
Muralitharan                15      4     48      4[/I][/COLOR][/B]

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 65 off 20.1 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Kasper and Dizzy collect the first 4 for 28
- Warne comes in with many wickets gone, wraps up the next 3 cheaply.
- Australia: Warne with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   12      4     25      1
Kasprowicz                  24      5     83      4 (2nb)
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       20.1    3     65      5 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
Symonds                      2      1      1      0
MacGill                      5      1     20      0

2nd match: 2nd innings

Murali:

- Takes 5 for 173 off 50.3 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- 2 of Murali's Non-Tailenders come at big expense, considering they'd already done their damage, Gilchrist with 144 and Martyn 161.
- Sri Lanka: Vaas with probably the best performance, Murali not far:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Vaas                        33      6    103      3 (1nb)[/COLOR][/B]
[I]Muralitharan                50.3    8    173      5[/I]
Zoysa                       33     11    102      2
Lokuarachchi                12      2     33      0
Jayasuriya                   5      0     16      0
Dilshan                      1      0      6      0

Warne:

- Takes 5 for 90 off 21.1 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Australia: Warne with the best figures:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Kasprowicz                  17      1     55      1
Gillespie                   20      1     76      4
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Warne                       21.1    2     90      5[/COLOR][/B]
Symonds                      3      0     16      0
MacGill                     12      0     69      0 (1nb)

3rd match: 1st innings

Murali:

- Takes 5 for 123 off 37.1 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Only big Expense is Lehmann with 153.
- Sri Lanka: Murali with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        26      3     93      3 (1nb)
Zoysa                        3.3    1     23      0
Samaraweera                 14.3    1     38      1 (2nb)
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Muralitharan                37.1    6    123      5[/COLOR][/B]
Herath                      23      5     75      0 (1nb)
Jayasuriya                  11      1     27      1

Warne:

- Takes 2 for 115 off 36 overs.
- 2 Tailenders.
- Australia: Lehmann with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   23      3     96      3
Kasprowicz                  22.1    5     58      2 (1nb, 1w)
Williams                    19      5     48      0 (1nb)
Warne                       36      7    115      2
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Lehmann                     19      2     50      3[/COLOR][/B]
Katich                       8      0     29      0

3rd match: 2nd innings

Murali:

- Takes 3 for 93 off 29 overs.
- 3 Non-Tailenders.
- Only Expense is Katich with 86.
- Sri Lanka: Herath with the best performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Vaas                        21      3     61      2
Zoysa                       12      0     54      0 (1nb, 3w)
Muralitharan                29      5     93      3 (2nb)
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Herath                      24.2    1     92      4[/COLOR][/B]
Samaraweera                 15      4     40      0 (3nb, 1w)
Jayasuriya                   4      0     13      0
Dilshan                      1      1      0      0

Warne:

- Takes 4 for 92 off 33 overs.
- 2 Non-Tailenders 2 Tailenders.
- Australia: Lehmann with the best figures, Warne close behind

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Gillespie                   18      6     38      1 (1w)
Kasprowicz                  16.4    5     37      2
[I]Warne                       33     11     92      4 (2nb)[/I]
Williams                     5      0     19      0
[B][COLOR="Orange"]Lehmann                     17      2     42      3[/COLOR][/B]
Katich                       4      1     15      0

So as you can see, Warne was the better performer. In his team quite easily and in the series clearly so too. After the 1st test Vaas gets heavily involved and can claim to have had as much influence as Murali. The reason I introduced the 'expense' factor is that, whilst taking wickets - especially Non-Tailender ones - are great, they should reflect when they were taken and at what cost. So any Non-Tailender wicket that cost 50 runs or more got that distinction.

As you can see, Murali took some of those Non-Tailenders but not after they'd already run riot. And that's one very clear difference between the two; Warne didn't take a Non-Tailender wicket that cost the team an 'expense', or any wicket actually. Most were low and at the highest 30s-40s. This is one of the main arguments that goes between the two men, that although Murali's ratios reflect well, they've hadn't had as much impact on the game whilst Warne's impact is infamous enough.

 

[akilana]

Huh? Why? The two have nothing to do with the other.



Murali in SL averages 19.56 with a SR of 50.8.
Warne in SL averages 20.45 with a SR of 39.6.
Without B/Z Murali averages 22.22 with an SR of 55.9.

so what's Murali's average against SL in SL or Warne's average against Australia in SL so we can have a fair comparison. That Australian team was arguably the greatest ever in cricket history.

 

[akilana]

For example, Warne's record in India is better than Murali's. Only Murali's record at home/Sri Lanka makes his overall record against India better than Warne's. But Warne had to bowl against them in Australia.

Their record in India is very similar but Murali was better until his last tour to India. To be fair, Murali toured India twice after Warne's retirement. India being a stronger team in recent time had something to do with Murali's record worsening. I'm sure Warne's record would have got worse if he toured India in the last 4 years.

 

[Ikki]

so what's Murali's average against SL in SL or Warne's average against Australia in SL so we can have a fair comparison. That Australian team was arguably the greatest ever in cricket history.

You don't face your own team. Of course, you know that but you've missed my point. If Warne can destroy Sri Lanka at home - which is the the biggest Test you can face in SL - and have better figures than Murali who faced everybody other than the best; then it should stand to reason Warne would do well against those other teams in SL - if he were Sri Lankan. It's not really about SL the team - although it is relevant as they smashed opposition spinners - but that Murali's home conditions were far better suited to spin bowling than Warne's. And because of that home advantage Murali is better statistically. For away from home, Warne is better.

 

[Ikki]

Their record in India is very similar but Murali was better until his last tour to India. To be fair, Murali toured India twice after Warne's retirement. India being a stronger team in recent time had something to do with Murali's record worsening. I'm sure Warne's record would have got worse if he toured India in the last 4 years.

India were just as good at home in the 90s. And as asides go, Warne played India several times in the period where he was unfit/out of form. FTR, Warne's last series in 04 was his best one, the best either had statistically and that's with him missing the last test/best pitch due to injury.

Anyway, that's pedantry. The point is their records were more or less just as poor as each other in India. It's the fact that Warne faced India in Aus whilst Murali faced them in Sri Lanka that makes their overall records against India contrast.

 

[Maximus0723]

Why Sreesanth avatar?

 

[Ikki]

Why not? The Indian Lillee.

 

[akilana]

As you can see, Murali took some of those Non-Tailenders but not after they'd already run riot. And that's one very clear difference between the two; Warne didn't take a Non-Tailender wicket that cost the team an 'expense', or any wicket actually. Most were low and at the highest 30s-40s. This is one of the main arguments that goes between the two men, that although Murali's ratios reflect well, they've hadn't had as much impact on the game whilst Warne's impact is infamous enough.

First of all Murali was bowling at probably the greatest team in the world without any support at the other end while Warne was bowling at the 5th ranked team with so much support at the other end. It's easy to see who had it easier.

 

[Jarquis]

First of all Murali was bowling without any support at the other end while Warne was bowling with so much support at the other end. It's easy to see who had it easier.

Oh dear...

 

[akilana]

You don't face your own team. Of course, you know that but you've missed my point. If Warne can destroy Sri Lanka at home - which is the the biggest Test you can face in SL - and have better figures than Murali who faced everybody other than the best; then it should stand to reason Warne would do well against those other teams in SL - if he were Sri Lankan. It's not really about SL the team - although it is relevant as they smashed opposition spinners - but that Murali's home conditions were far better suited to spin bowling than Warne's. And because of that home advantage Murali is better statistically. For away from home, Warne is better.

then Akram > Lilee, McGrath etc. Akram bowled more than half of the matches in flat pitches compared to McGrath and Lilee.. You can't have it both ways.

Warne benefited from having good support at the other end and having good batsmen in the team putting scorecard pressure on the opposition.. SL has always been a poor away side and Australian batsmen almost always put enough runs on the board to bowl out the opposition twice... Warne had a big advantage there but that's aside

# countries Murali outbowled Warne > # of countries Warne outbowled Murali. I don't see how Murali benefited from bowling on spinners friendly pitches.

 

[Ikki]

LOL, deja-vu. But Akram was a swing bowler and the pitch did not disadvantage him. In fact, Akram bowled better at home than away. Unlike Warne and McGrath whom bowled better away than at home.

It doesn't matter about the # of countries. If Murali is better in 6/10 but is much worse in the 4/10 than Warne than overall Warne is better. The countries Warne averages worse than Murali (NZ and Eng) the stats are negligible.

 

[Ikki]

First of all Murali was bowling at probably the greatest team in the world without any support at the other end while Warne was bowling at the 5th ranked team with so much support at the other end. It's easy to see who had it easier.

Huh? Sri Lanka are the hardest team to face in Sri Lanka. They're fantastic players of spin. In fact, Australia went into each 2nd innings behind in that series. If it wasn't for Warne the series result could have been the opposite. Vaas was actually very good in that series after the 1st test.

 

[Cricketismylife]

You cannot assume Warne would have dominated India if he bowled against them in Sri Lankan conditions.

It seems much more likely in my mind that for example Murali would have continued to confuse English batsman had he had more test matches in England, than the likeleness of Warne turning in matchwinning performance if hypothetically he had played India in Sri Lankan conditions.

Another factor which has been missed out is the fact that wickets have grown to favour batsman in the 2000s. Murali had to play a higher percentage of his matches in the flat pitch era than Warne.

Anyhow, by Ikki's logic Tendulkar has to be better than Ponting, because Tendulkar would have forged a successful career in Australian conditions, but Ponting would have been a nobody in Indian conditions.

 

[TumTum]

It seems much more likely in my mind that for example Murali would have continued to confuse English batsman had he had more test matches in England, than the likeleness of Warne turning in matchwinning performance if hypothetically he had played India in Sri Lankan conditions.

Well for me most likely they would have learned a way to play him better. It's not like Murali is the trick & confuse the batsmen type.

Also I don't see the need for inserting Akram/McGrath or Tendulkar/Ponting arguments.

 

[Ruckus]

The thing I loved about Warne was his pure approach to bowling. His run up and action etc. is so clean and smooth - he basically just let the ball do the talking. However, with Murali (not that this is a bad thing, this is just my preference) everything about his bowling, other than the ball itself, is more distracting - his run up is much more 'busy', his action (regardless of whether people think he chucks or not) is more complex and his follow through is much more pronounced. Even his facial expressions are more intense! You could put up a pretty convincing claim arguing that these features of Murali's bowling are clever ways of increasing the potency of your bowling - and you would probably be right. But, for me, I prefer Warne's style and approach.

 

[Ikki]

You cannot assume Warne would have dominated India if he bowled against them in Sri Lankan conditions.

And why can't I? I look at the fact that in the only place both bowlers bowled against the same team in Tests Warne was just as good as the other. Warne's best record anywhere is also in Sri Lanka. He would have undoubtedly been better; not only against India but everyone else else.

It seems much more likely in my mind that for example Murali would have continued to confuse English batsman had he had more test matches in England, than the likeleness of Warne turning in matchwinning performance if hypothetically he had played India in Sri Lankan conditions.

Well, that's your mind.

Another factor which has been missed out is the fact that wickets have grown to favour batsman in the 2000s. Murali had to play a higher percentage of his matches in the flat pitch era than Warne.

Well yes, but most of those matches were against minnows. Disregard minnows and Murali played 68 tests and Warne 63 (actually Warne bowls in more innings 122v123) - and Warne has the better overall record.

Anyhow, by Ikki's logic Tendulkar has to be better than Ponting, because Tendulkar would have forged a successful career in Australian conditions, but Ponting would have been a nobody in Indian conditions.

Not really, there is nothing inherently hard about batting in India. In fact, it's easier than many places. Ponting just has a curious record there. He's played much better on similar pitches and scored many runs against better spinners.

IF India was renown for it's tough pitches, low scoring matches, and that was disadvantaging Tendulkar wrt his home record, that argument would be valid.

 

[Cricketismylife]

My big problem with the whole Murali Warne away analysis is when comparing records, the comparison has to be standardised fairly. As far as I'm concerned how can you simply remove Zimbabwe and Bangladesh figures? As I said they should be weighted, but not removed completely.

In the same way it has to be taken into account that Warne never bowled against his own line up in Australia, and Murali never bowled at his own line up in Sri Lanka. So there is no common opposition there. Again I would never agree for these stats to be removed, but there has to be some adjustment in Murali's favour for bowling against a stronger batting team.

Then we have to take into account the flat pitch era, and seeing as we ALREADY have discounted for minnows, we cannot discount for them again. Murali was disadvantaged by playing in the flat pitch era more than Warne was.

Lastly we have to find out the percentage of tail-end wickets taken, as they would be lower quality wickets, much like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

These are some of the things which I feel need to and can be accounted for (and I would be willing to hear other valid measures).

In conclusion, it's obvious that simply removing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe does not make for a fair comparison of their away records.

 

[Prince EWS]

My big problem with the whole Murali Warne away analysis is when comparing records, the comparison has to be standardised fairly. As far as I'm concerned how can you simply remove Zimbabwe and Bangladesh figures? As I said they should be weighted, but not removed completely.

In the same way it has to be taken into account that Warne never bowled against his own line up in Australia, and Murali never bowled at his own line up in Sri Lanka. So there is no common opposition there. Again I would never agree for these stats to be removed, but there has to be some adjustment in Murali's favour for bowling against a stronger batting team.

If you standardise everything they did by the strength of the opposition and use a base average of 30.02 you get:

Murali: 22.28
Warne: 24.95

That doesn't take the percentage of tailend wickets or the pitches they played on into consideration (two things that, if accounted for, would help Warne close that gap) but it does account for the standard of the teams they bowled to, and how regularly they bowled to each team. I'll be starting a thread on it soon so I'll explain the method properly in that.