*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Ikki]

Speculation is the name of the game. No past Tests are alike. Even if, for example, Warne/Murali both face India in India...the line-ups could be different, the form of the batsmen could vary, the conditions could be different, the grounds could be different and it is all speculation. Heck the teams they're themselves are different.

Look at Tendulkar's record against Pakistan for example; he's played several different teams worth against them. Unless players face the exact same team in pretty much the same conditions it's all speculation.


Also, Warne did better in SL, Aus, Ind, Zim, SA so that is 5. If you count the neutral tests against Pak, that's 6 of 10. Frankly, that doesn't matter and such a measure between these two is pointless. Again, even in countries Murali is better than Warne, like NZ and Eng...it is so slight it's stupid to say X>Y as if that's that. Because Warne also played more matches against both teams and that is a contributor. Frankly, I think anyone saying Murali did better against England than Warne - especially considering the pressurised nature of the series (The Ashes) - is building a poor argument.

 

[Jarquis]

I disagree with it being pure speculation.

Speculation is the name of the game.

Heh.

 

[Ikki]

Heh.

There's a difference which if you had read you'd understand.

If I say tomorrow it's going to rain...that is pure speculation. I am not basing that on anything other than guesswork.

If I say tomorrow it's going to rain based on instrument readings that can help me verify that; whilst it is still speculation it is grounded in logic and sense.

It's all speculation though. If I claimed a Batsman that averages 50 is going to do better against an all-time XI than one that averages 35 then I am speculating. But that hardly makes the guess I made on a whim.

 

[akilana]

Talk about manipulating the stats to make your favourite player look better.

 

[mohammad16]

Brian Lara on facing Warne and Murali

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sSyYSFhTLA

peace homeboys

 

[Jono]

Wow really interesting stuff.

Love hearing from the greats.

 

[mohammad16]

I think part of what he is talking about stems from the fact that Murali was pretty much on, being the bowler that he was, he was on from ball one. So if Murali being at his best from the start was unable to knock Lara over, he started losing confidence. While Warne took a little bit more time to not only warm up, but also set the batsmen up, work a plan. So you could be playing him easy and what not but he would gain confidence from imparting various different plans short and long in nature.


This clearly shows the difference between the two bowlers, Murali was more gifted physically as his doosra was almost unpick-able, while Warne had no choice but to rely on out thinking the batsmen through strategy.

If I wanted to win a test, I would pick Murali over warn, this is why I woulda picked him in the All time XI. Warne however was not only far more entertaining, but perhaps the greatest cricketing mind I have ever seen, and damn effective too.

 

[Maximus0723]

Finally, someone is honest about their opinion.

 

[vcs]

Nothing to do with Warne or Murali, but man I miss Lara.

 

[social]

I think part of what he is talking about stems from the fact that Murali was pretty much on, being the bowler that he was, he was on from ball one. So if Murali being at his best from the start was unable to knock Lara over, he started losing confidence. While Warne took a little bit more time to not only warm up, but also set the batsmen up, work a plan. So you could be playing him easy and what not but he would gain confidence from imparting various different plans short and long in nature.


This clearly shows the difference between the two bowlers, Murali was more gifted physically as his doosra was almost unpick-able, while Warne had no choice but to rely on out thinking the batsmen through strategy.

If I wanted to win a test, I would pick Murali over warn, this is why I woulda picked him in the All time XI. Warne however was not only far more entertaining, but perhaps the greatest cricketing mind I have ever seen, and damn effective too.

You obviously only saw Warne after his shoulder and finger injuries

 

[smash84]

This topic reminds me. Did Lara find Wasim Akram to be the most difficult bowler he faced?

Between Warne and Murali, Murali was an absolute wicket taking machine but Warne had an aura about him that nobody else had. That excitement, those mind games with the batsmen. Mixing up his leg breaks. Just an awesome sight.

 

[mohammad16]

You obviously only saw Warne after his shoulder injuries

No, Warne could turn the ball miles, he also had a great flipper, but his googly was nowhere near as effective as Muralis doosra. Murali himself has asserted that he wasnt half the bowler he was until he developed his doosra.

To be able to use your wrists to impart off spin is one thing, to use it to bowl a doosra that spins almost just as much is another. A rare gift indeed. There are bowlers would could turn the leg break more than Warne, theres no one who can match Murali in the off spin department. He certainly was more physically gifted.

 

[mohammad16]

This topic reminds me. Did Lara find Wasim Akram to be the most difficult bowler he faced?

Between Warne and Murali, Murali was an absolute wicket taking machine but Warne had an aura about him that nobody else had. That excitement, those mind games with the batsmen. Mixing up his leg breaks. Just an awesome sight.

Brian Lara is on record to have said that Wasim was not on the most difficult but by far the best bowler he has ever faced.

 

[Ilovecric]

Well Lara did make 277, 213,153 not out,132 etc all with Warne bowling... No surprise.

 

[NasserFan207]

No, Warne could turn the ball miles, he also had a great flipper, but his googly was nowhere near as effective as Muralis doosra. Murali himself has asserted that he wasnt half the bowler he was until he developed his doosra.

To be able to use your wrists to impart off spin is one thing, to use it to bowl a doosra that spins almost just as much is another. A rare gift indeed. There are bowlers would could turn the leg break more than Warne, theres no one who can match Murali in the off spin department. He certainly was more physically gifted.

Agreed, though both are insanely talented, Murali is physically a 'freak'. Noone else can or ever will bowl like him.

 

[Ikki]

Love explanations like this. Gives you so much more of a feel for the bowlers. As a fan I kind of got the same feeling as Lara. Once Warne got you on the ropes and had that glint in his eye; there just was no better bowler - let alone spin bowler - IMO.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Problem with that comparison is that the extrapolations are hardly realistic. As I said, Murali played 3 tests in Australia in the period where he was a top or very good bowler. And we are talking a 10 year period (1998-2008) where he played 3 times!

Do you think if Murali had played regularly in Australia he would have averaged 75?

The sample is too small in this case and using that figure of 75 completely skews the analysis. It's an outlier based on very few results. I mean Sobers averaged 0 after 1 match in odi's, are we gonna assume he would have averaged 0 over a career?

 

[Ikki]

The standardising of the result in terms of his proportions takes care of that. If it is a small amount of matches, it won't reflect largely in that record. The reality is, he played 5 tests, not 3. If we only counted when a bowler was at the top of their game, we'd need an entirely new analysis. Before 98 he already was a top bowler. In 95 he had very good series against NZ and Pakistan, before meeting Australia. Using that logic, do we remove one of his best series against India in 94? Do we remove Warne's similar series against SL and Ind? Heck, if you remove the SL series when Warne was really green, his in SL figures would look more ridiculous than they do now (avg. 18.3 sr. 37).

Do I think Murali would have averaged 75? I've said I don't before; but it'd probably look something like his record in India if not worse. Australia went out and targeted Murali each time; it was not surprising how badly he came off.

The Sobers point is a bit ridiculous. Murali played 5 Tests in Aus. He played 6 in NZ, WIndies, S.Africa and England; also only 4 in Bangladesh. Not to mention Murali refused to tour himself once.

 

[Prince EWS]

Problem with that comparison is that the extrapolations are hardly realistic. As I said, Murali played 3 tests in Australia in the period where he was a top or very good bowler. And we are talking a 10 year period (1998-2008) where he played 3 times!

Do you think if Murali had played regularly in Australia he would have averaged 75?

The sample is too small in this case and using that figure of 75 completely skews the analysis. It's an outlier based on very few results. I mean Sobers averaged 0 after 1 match in odi's, are we gonna assume he would have averaged 0 over a career?

Yeah, I tend to agree with this.

That's why I've never been a fan of that type of standardisation. Standardising by giving the bowlers the same number of matches against each opposition makes some games worth a lot more than others for no real reason, and in many cases works with small, tainted sample sizes. That's why I've always been a fan of trying to figure out the strength of the opposition in each and every game they play and standardise their performances on a game-by-game basis. Then it doesn't matter how many matches they've played against each team, as the quality difference between teams will have been nullified, and each game still counts for the same.

 

[marc71178]

Problem with that comparison is that the extrapolations are hardly realistic. As I said, Murali played 3 tests in Australia in the period where he was a top or very good bowler. And we are talking a 10 year period (1998-2008) where he played 3 times!

Out of interest, how come you're not making as many excuses for Warne where he hasn't got as good figures as you are for Murali?