*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Top_Cat]

Let's not forget that Murali and Warne played in entirely different team cultures. His early days aside when Taylor gave him heaps of overs, Warne couldn't go his hardest at a new batter because there were so many other options to choose from if he went for a few. He had to work his way into the contest. Murali knew he'd get plenty of the ball even if a batter went after him from ball 1 so he could afford to go all out. Warne was also somewhat defensive early doors, has said for years the first job of a spinner is to make sure he stays on, not giving too much away early, etc.

To a lesser extent, it's the nature of the beast too I reckon. By their default line, leg-spinners who are busting a gut and not quite landing them are easy pickings because they'll either be bowling balls which spin away and can be left/cut for 4 or on leg-stump so can be milked. Offies are always threatening the stumps so batsmen have to be a bit more cirsumspect.

Would rate the former as a bigger factor, though.

 

[Top_Cat]

Dunno if it would have helped that much. Look at that economy rate, pitchez was flaaaaat.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Warne's basic philosophy when it came to bowling was, "earn another over". He wanted to keep bowling, and bowling, and wanted to control the tempo. It is a bit of a vulnerability that he had, and that many spinners do have, about settling in and setting about your work; a side-effect growing up I guess where if you were spanked for more than 10 in your first or second over, you'd be ripped off straight away.

Probably ties in with what Lara says, that he was happiest when he was in a groove, and was able to treat it like a one-on-one duel, rather than worrying about what the captain would do.

 

[vcs]

Very flat indeed. Still was a lionhearted effort by him.

Amazing how much Kumble improved away from home in the latter part of his career. Don't think his career figures quite reflect how crucial he was to some of our away results in the 2000's, IMHO.

 

[marc71178]

marc71178 what are you referring to specifically?

Well for one thing, the injuries factor - it is well documented that Warne had some pretty major injuries that impacted on his bowling / caused him to miss large periods of play.

 

[JBH001]

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.

I've said this before a few times that in some ways the development of the doosra was detrimental to his development as a spin bowler. He got better with his use of the doosra in the mid 2000s but for a while there in the early 2000s, he seemed to have completely forgotten his use of the big ripping off-break. Although, he did recently comment that one reason for that was the strain the big spinning off-break put on his body which is why it is re-occurring a little more since his retirement from test cricket. But the other reason, I think, was just laziness as a bowler.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Disagree to be honest. Warne averaged 25 and struck at 50.8! in the 00s - he was striking as fast as McGrath which is quite incredible. Without B/Z Murali averaged 25 @ 59.6 in the 00s.

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.

Who knows what would have happened had Warne not been injured.

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.

Actually, I am not saying Warne would have continued at that same rate. That would be some prediction. All I claim is that he would have had a far better record if his home was SL rather than Aus. It's my attempt to show you that the real difference between their stats, which on the face look better for Murali, is the homes they spent half their careers bowling on. Once you accept that, you'll see how close it really is and if you think Murali is some statistical freak of nature, you'll appreciate that Warne was the same. And that it wasn't because he was blonde or could put on a show.

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.

Well, taken from the moment they were teammates Warne's record improves when McGrath doesn't play.

Anyway, you might like this thread.

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.

He is striking 11 balls faster than Murali (that is when you include minnows, otherwise even faster) over a 9 match sample. If it was 1 run or 1 ball difference; of course I'd see your point. But there is a large gap between them and as I explained to Athlai; Murali, not even against the likes of NZ or Eng, was as dominant in SL as Warne was against SL herself.

Anyway, some do think Lohmann was the greatest fast bowler of all time, or up there at least.

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

Well, I recall before Murali played his last series here Michael Clarke pretty much said that they'd be targeting him.

 

[ankitj]

Interesting! So did Lara decode Murali or not?

 

[Ikki]

That's not what Lara said.

Lara said as Warne got more confident he was harder to face. That's what I think also as I said once he got that glint in his eye he was a force.

 

[Ikki]

Let's not forget that Murali and Warne played in entirely different team cultures. His early days aside when Taylor gave him heaps of overs, Warne couldn't go his hardest at a new batter because there were so many other options to choose from if he went for a few. He had to work his way into the contest. Murali knew he'd get plenty of the ball even if a batter went after him from ball 1 so he could afford to go all out. Warne was also somewhat defensive early doors, has said for years the first job of a spinner is to make sure he stays on, not giving too much away early, etc.

To a lesser extent, it's the nature of the beast too I reckon. By their default line, leg-spinners who are busting a gut and not quite landing them are easy pickings because they'll either be bowling balls which spin away and can be left/cut for 4 or on leg-stump so can be milked. Offies are always threatening the stumps so batsmen have to be a bit more cirsumspect.

Would rate the former as a bigger factor, though.

You're probably right. Warne's economy was great in the 90s. It would contribute to your explanation re how he played under Taylor.

 

[Athlai]

Full transcript

The two spinners, Warne and Muttiah. I would face Warne any day. You know I’d walk out and I’d know from ball one I can hit it off the middle and go on to score a hundred, yes he can get me out but Muttiah always confused me in the first half an hour-forty five minutes. I had no clue what was going on and he did not know that, I don’t know if he knew, but he didn’t know that. And um. After 45 minutes, if I was still there I could see that he was losing confidence. Which Shane Warne he gains confidence, so I can start off hitting the ball off the middle of the bat and forty five minutes goes by and Shane is gaining confidence and I think that is the difference between the two spinners. And that’s what I think gives Shane, Shane Warne the edge. I’ve had great battles with him and um we’ve gone out and had a beer and we’ve had a great time together. Sort of the same character that I, like myself, you know we play hard on the field and we enjoy ourselves off the field. And um I’ve had a great great opportunity to meet him, played my career at the same time that he did and um you know we’ve had some great great performances together.

 

[Athlai]

Well, I recall before Murali played his last series here Michael Clarke pretty much said that they'd be targeting him.

Seems to be a fairly common line pre-series isn't it?

 

[Ikki]

Well, they said it, and they did it. So I'm not sure what else to say.

 

[Faisal1985]

Well clearly he is not taking away anything from Shane Warne or Murali only describing how 1 was more difficult in the first 45 mins and the other after the 45 mins....One would get irritated if he couldn't deceive him and get his wicket with in 45 mins and lose confidence and the other would gain it only after he was getting middled and off after the 45 mins.

Both indeed are spin legends.



However, Lara is lucky that he didn't face Kaneria

 

[vic_orthdox]

Well clearly he is not taking away anything from Shane Warne or Murali only describing how 1 was more difficult in the first 45 mins and the other after the 45 mins....One would get irritated if he couldn't deceive him and get his wicket with in 45 mins and lose confidence and the other would gain it only after he was getting middled and off after the 45 mins.

Both indeed are spin legends.



However, Lara is lucky that he didn't face Kaneria

Don't be so sure...

YouTube - Great Brain Lara - Blasting PAKISTAN - ENJOY

 

[Cricketismylife]

Look in the 2000s Murali has 565 wickets at 20.97 Warne has 357 at 25.17. You cannot just remove Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for the millionth time. Otherwise start removing tailenders, remove Australia and Sri Lanka, since it's Australia was clearly a better batting line up than Sri Lanka. Factor in weak pitch era etc. This argument is going round in circles.

My take on the lone wolf argument, is that even though you don't share wickets as a lone wolf, your average (and SR) will take a beating compared to someone who is bowling with a better attack. I saw the other thread which clearly showed that the average gets worse the more overs a bowler bowls.

The difference between Warne and Murali, is that if Warne is bowling well he gets to stay on bowling, the guy at the other end may take some of his wickets, but he will still get to enhance his average. However, if Warne is bowling badly or conditions are very seamer frinedly, Australia can just bowl Mcgrath, Gillespie etc and Warne's figures will not suffer.

By contrast, even if Murali is bowling badly, nearly always he has to bowl. Even early on the first day of matches, he often had to come on and get the openers out. Warne had that luxury of seeing his quicks dismiss the top order on the first day, so he would not have to bowl as much in that situation. And on the later days Warne would take over more.

I'm not suggesting Warne did not or was incapable of removing the top order on the first day, I'm just suggesting Murali had to do it far more often, and it was hardly a situation which would be advantageous to his average.

If Murali had support, he would have had less wickets, but a lower average, he would simply be taken off when struggling and not be forced to continue because Sri Lanka would have better options.

In conclusion, Murali was able to pick up more wickets playing as a lone wolf, but it's a testament to him that he managed to keep his average so low.

 

[tooextracool]

Look in the 2000s Murali has 565 wickets at 20.97 Warne has 357 at 25.17. You cannot just remove Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for the millionth time. Otherwise start removing tailenders, remove Australia and Sri Lanka, since it's Australia was clearly a better batting line up than Sri Lanka. Factor in weak pitch era etc. This argument is going round in circles.

This argument fails to convince. Murali played 25 tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Warne played 3 (one of which was while Zimbabwe was still test class). Arguably on average both bowlers bowled an equal or near equal proportion of deliveries to the tailenders. There is a clear disparity here.

 

[Himannv]

Well clearly he is not taking away anything from Shane Warne or Murali only describing how 1 was more difficult in the first 45 mins and the other after the 45 mins....One would get irritated if he couldn't deceive him and get his wicket with in 45 mins and lose confidence and the other would gain it only after he was getting middled and off after the 45 mins.

Both indeed are spin legends.

Agree completely.

 

[Ikki]

Look in the 2000s Murali has 565 wickets at 20.97 Warne has 357 at 25.17. You cannot just remove Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for the millionth time. Otherwise start removing tailenders, remove Australia and Sri Lanka, since it's Australia was clearly a better batting line up than Sri Lanka. Factor in weak pitch era etc. This argument is going round in circles.

He played many many Tests against B/Z where Warne didn't. They are also the minnows of the era, let's not pretend we're removing them willy nilly. His average jumps 5 points and his SR almost 10 because of them. Clearly his matches against them benefitted him.

And they both bowled at tailenders, as all sides have tailenders. That makes little sense.

My take on the lone wolf argument, is that even though you don't share wickets as a lone wolf, your average (and SR) will take a beating compared to someone who is bowling with a better attack. I saw the other thread which clearly showed that the average gets worse the more overs a bowler bowls.

That's if they don't take big hauls. What that thread showed was that the lone wolves were far more likely to get big hauls and the proportion of these hauls benefitted them more in the end.

The difference between Warne and Murali, is that if Warne is bowling well he gets to stay on bowling, the guy at the other end may take some of his wickets, but he will still get to enhance his average. However, if Warne is bowling badly or conditions are very seamer frinedly, Australia can just bowl Mcgrath, Gillespie etc and Warne's figures will not suffer.

By contrast, even if Murali is bowling badly, nearly always he has to bowl. Even early on the first day of matches, he often had to come on and get the openers out. Warne had that luxury of seeing his quicks dismiss the top order on the first day, so he would not have to bowl as much in that situation. And on the later days Warne would take over more.

But if Warne is bowling well and his support take his wickets then they limit the amount of wickets he can take in a match and hence his good form goes wasted. Conversely, if Murali is having a great day he'll get plenty of wickets to bowl for. Murali gets to use his momentum far more than Warne. However, that also means that Murali, in bad form, will be hit for more runs. Still, in the end it still in his favour as he is much more likely to bowl well than badly.

I'm not suggesting Warne did not or was incapable of removing the top order on the first day, I'm just suggesting Murali had to do it far more often, and it was hardly a situation which would be advantageous to his average.

The difference between Warne and Murali's top and middle order is ~5%. Barely anything. And indeed, you can argue that since McGrath and co would regularly take top order wickets, restricting the number and order of wickets Warne could take, that difference is practically nothing.

If Murali had support, he would have had less wickets, but a lower average, he would simply be taken off when struggling and not be forced to continue because Sri Lanka would have better options.

But the opposite is true. When a bowler has bigger hauls his average is better.

 

[Sanz]

He played many many Tests against B/Z where Warne didn't. They are also the minnows of the era, let's not pretend we're removing them willy nilly.

What is Warne's record against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe ?