*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[TumTum]

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.

Good luck on your endeavors

 

[Cricketismylife]

If you look at it, Murali was a far better bowler in the 2000s than in the 90s, firstly due to experience gained but more importantly due to the doosra. Unfortunately, over this long period Murali did not get many opportunities away from home, and so some of his away statistics are clearly not a reflection of his ability.

For example, Murali without the doosra had a very credible record against South Africa, imagine what it would have been WITH the doosra. Unfortunately he played 0 tests in South Africa after 2002. And as covered before, very few tests in the other countries. So playing the speculation game (which I feel has been taken too far), who knows what havoc Murali could have caused with the doosra.

I mean Ikki has been speculating that if Warne had played more in Sri Lanka he would have continued at that rate, it seems fair enough to speculate that Murali with his addition of the doosra would have caused havoc if he had more matches in England, South Africa and New Zealand.

As for Australia, it is a blemish but as I have said repeatedly, Murali failed in only 2 tests there, which is a paltry sample. Murali's career improved drastically from the start of his career to the end, it's just a shame he did not get more tests away from home.

And does anyone know Warne's actual record when Mcgrath wasn't playing? I want to explore the argument about whether it's better to bowl in a weaker or stronger attack.

 

[TumTum]

I want to explore the argument about whether it's better to bowl in a weaker or stronger attack.

Already been done. Conclusion was they both have their positives and negatives.

 

[marc71178]

If you look at it, Murali was a far better bowler in the 2000s than in the 90s, firstly due to experience gained but more importantly due to the doosra. Unfortunately, over this long period Murali did not get many opportunities away from home, and so some of his away statistics are clearly not a reflection of his ability.

For example, Murali without the doosra had a very credible record against South Africa, imagine what it would have been WITH the doosra. Unfortunately he played 0 tests in South Africa after 2002. And as covered before, very few tests in the other countries. So playing the speculation game (which I feel has been taken too far), who knows what havoc Murali could have caused with the doosra.

And with his workload, who knows how long it would've been before he burned out?

That still doesn't answer my question as to why you're happy to make a lot of excuses for Murali, but none for Warne.

 

[akilana]

oh dear..

 

[Top_Cat]

tbh, reckon the doosra only helped Murali clean-up against weaker sides. Feeling was that he over-used it against stronger sides like Australia and just gave them a really good look at it.

I know he took plenty of wickets in the '04 series but I remember he tended to take them in a rush towards the end of the innings, well after Australia had put on plenty of runs. Were long stretches where he was pretty much innocuous.

 

[Cricketismylife]

marc71178 what are you referring to specifically?

Ikki to say Warne is better than Murali in Sri Lanka is ridiculous and really stretching it 48 wickets at 20, compared to 493 wickets at 19. There is such a huge difference in wickets that the comparison isn't worth making. Plus you have said that his wickets in Sri Lanka are worth more than Murali's when actually no such value has been calculated to start with.

With this kind of speculation, we may as well agree Lohmann is the greatest bowler of all time.

 

[Burgey]

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?

The problem with that though, is that there are many people who are quite happy to use 3 and 4 test sample sizes to say a random bowler (let's call him, say, oh I dunno, Dennis Lillee) wasn't as good as other bowlers, even though the random bowler in question (Lillee) only played four tests in a certain part of the world (let's call it, I dunno, the subcontinent) at the fag end of his career.

Not saying you do it btw, just saying it happens here all the time.

FTR, Murali never looked the goods here, save for one spell in the World XI test match which I saw at the SCG in 2005, when he bowled here, for arguably the only time, as we all know he is and was capable of.

 

[Athlai]

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.

Personally I think they did the opposite. I reckon they targeted his teammates and just worked Murali around the field. The plan worked though.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Stupid ICC XI match skews this a bit. But all those Sri Lankan boys got taken to the cleaners.

But since 95 you'd have to say there aren't many spinners who have been to Australia that have had low economy rates. Kumble despite his success has an economy rate marginally higher, and so does Harby, Kaneria and Panesar while Giles went only slightly better.

The only major spinners to go for significantly less runs an over since 1995 are Vettori, Saqlain, Benn (), Such, Harris. I really wouldn't say they targeted Murali, I'd say as a team they played him very intelligently and didn't take any stupid risks while scoring runs pretty freely at the other end.

Also jeez spinners get trashed in Aussie, the figures are terrible. Vettori with 35 @ 39.97 has a case for being one of the top 3 spinners there in recent history.

 

[TumTum]

Also jeez spinners get trashed in Aussie, the figures are terrible. Vettori with 35 @ 39.97 has a case for being one of the top 3 spinners there in recent history.

Well tbh it is because of their own wrong doing. Haven't seen a opposition spinner that actually bowled consistent lines and lengths here. Most seem to spray it around.

 

[Athlai]

Haha yeah I suppose, probably all a bit worried they aren't getting much turn but thats never been an issue for Dan. His first series in Oz was pretty epic though.

 

[Top_Cat]

Personally I think they did the opposite. I reckon they targeted his teammates and just worked Murali around the field. The plan worked though.

In SL, maybe. Even then, blokes would just pick their shots more carefully than against others and if Murali slipped into their hitting zone, they'd go hard at it. Lehmann landed Murali into the crowd at wide mid-on a couple of times. Martyn played him very well by not leaving his crease at all, preferring to play him as late as possible off the back-foot. Takes enormous confidence in your method to do that. Plus I don't think the pitches were that good for spin on the '04 tour so Murali was nullified a little. In Australia, Murali went for runs well above his career economy rate so dunno if I agree they just played him out and smashed everyone around them (although it would have been in their minds to do so in case Murali settled into a length).

On the doosra, once the Aussies were able to pick it, they realised it was far less threatening than the offie. It turns big but doesn't spit like his off-spinner. The Aussies of the time tended to be troubled more by spinners who got bounce than big spin so that Murali was throwing up the doosra all the time meant less balls at them which were more likely to get them out. Was a bit of a tactical blunder by Murali from where I sat.

 

[Athlai]

In SL, maybe. Even then, blokes would just pick their shots more carefully than against others and if Murali slipped into their hitting zone, they'd go hard at it. Lehmann landed Murali into the crowd at wide mid-on a couple of times. Martyn played him very well by not leaving his crease at all, preferring to play him as late as possible off the back-foot. Takes enormous confidence in your method to do that. Plus I don't think the pitches were that good for spin on the '04 tour so Murali was nullified a little. In Australia, Murali went for runs well above his career economy rate so dunno if I agree they just played him out and smashed everyone around them (although it would have been in their minds to do so in case Murali settled into a length).

On the doosra, once the Aussies were able to pick it, they realised it was far less threatening than the offie. It turns big but doesn't spit like his off-spinner. The Aussies of the time tended to be troubled more by spinners who got bounce than big spin so that Murali was throwing up the doosra all the time meant less balls at them which were more likely to get them out. Was a bit of a tactical blunder by Murali from where I sat.

Didn't see any of the '04 tour so I'm only really talking about what I saw in his last tour of Australia.

 

[vic_orthdox]

tbh, reckon the doosra only helped Murali clean-up against weaker sides. Feeling was that he over-used it against stronger sides like Australia and just gave them a really good look at it.

I know he took plenty of wickets in the '04 series but I remember he tended to take them in a rush towards the end of the innings, well after Australia had put on plenty of runs. Were long stretches where he was pretty much innocuous.

Boof Lehmann was saying something similar, takes you an over or two just to get yourself picking the ball up again from him, even when you've faced him before, and that he showed his hand a bit often throughout. Once you were in, and picking what he was doing, he found it reasonably comfortable playing him.

 

[Top_Cat]

Boof Lehmann was saying something similar, takes you an over or two just to get yourself picking the ball up again from him, even when you've faced him before, and that he showed his hand a bit often throughout. Once you were in, and picking what he was doing, he found it reasonably comfortable playing him.

He certainly looked pretty comfortable against Murali.

That Murali used the doosra almost as a stock ball meant he both lessened its utility as a shock ball and his ability to build pressure with his offie. After a while, the Aussies were picking it so well, they were leaving it.

 

[Sanz]

You obviously only saw Warne after his shoulder and finger injuries

How many wickets did he take after that ?

 

[Sanz]

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.

That's not what Lara said.

 

[Sanz]

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

And he played Murali very well too.

 

[Lostman]

That's not what Lara said.

gives new definition to rose tinted.

 

[vcs]

Kumble was pretty awesome in this series. If only he had had better bowling support...