*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[TumTum]

It seems only person that can understand proper English and write it too is the guy above the poster above me.

So you're saying you can't?

 

[Sanz]

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.

Really, you must be running your stats factory then.

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

 

[smash84]

So you're saying you can't?

 

[Sanz]

So you're saying you can't?

If I could I would have written it long back.

 

[Top_Cat]

Competion or not, Statistically, Warne is the one who has benefitted from the Presence of some great fast bowlers in his team. Warne's average goes down to 26.83 in the matches without Mcgrath. Goes down to 28.70 in matches without Mcgrath/Gillespie.

In other words, when Warne didn't have competition from Mcgrath/Gillespies, he does worse. His average and strike rate both are worse.

But I am sure we will hear excuses after excuses and another set of twisting tales of statistical manipulations to prove all that wrong.

Thin. Very, very thin. Especially since Murali's average goes up by slightly more without a bloke he played a similar amount of cricket without, Chaminda Vaas.

Warne's average without McG is 26.83, a difference of 1.4 runs per wicket when compared to his career average. Off the bat (so to speak), arguable as to whether that's a significant difference anyway.

Murali's average without Vaas? 24.57, a difference of 1.8 runs per wicket (arguable, significance, etc.)

Then on top of the questions of significance above, is the difference between those differences significant? Without testing, can't say but I'm guessing it won't be. So do we assume that Vaas played a larger role in Murali's wicket-taking because without him his career average difference is higher than Warne's without McGrath? Or do we assume that because we're talking relatively small numbers of matches in which McG/Vaas didn't participate, they're more subject to fluctuations in form/pitches/conditions (each measurement in cricket would, if modelled, have massive confidence intervals, tbh)?

And while we're talking the impact of having great bowlers around you, Malcolm Marshall's average, when you remove the matches Joel Garner played with him, gets better. So do we then conclude Marshall was a better bowler than both Warne and Murali because he bowled better without Garner in the side or maybe without Garner eating up wickets, there were more for him? Does being able to take wickets independently actually make you a better bowler or is the better bowler one who can work well with others and is the arithmetic mean actually the best measure to decide this anyway?

Or maybe we're comparing numbers with such massive measurement errors associated with them that we're stuck in statistical noise and aren't analysing anything of numerical significance?

Let's be real here; if I was a peer-reviewing a research paper about cricket statistics along these lines without discussion of error, it wouldn't get by me I can tell you. As it stands, it really doesn't pass the bull**** test.

EDIT: This is a wider rant than at you Sanz, tbh.

 

[TumTum]

Wait if you can't, then how did you know that he could?


Ok ok I'll stop teasing you

 

[Sanz]

Thin. Very, very thin. Especially since Murali's average goes up by slightly more without a bloke he played a similar amount of cricket without, Chaminda Vaas.

Warne's average without McG is 26.83, a difference of 1.4 runs per wicket. Off the bat (so to speak), arguable as to whether that's a significant difference anyway.

Murali's average without Vaas? 24.57, a difference of 1.8 runs per wicket (arguable, significance, etc.)

Then on top of the questions of significance above, is the difference between those differences significant? Without testing, can't say but I'm guessing it won't be. So do we assume that Vaas played a larger role in Murali's wicket-taking because without him his career average difference is higher than Warne's? Or do we assume that because we're talking relatively small numbers of matches in which McG/Vaas didn't participate, they're more subject to fluctuations in form/pitches/conditions (each measurement in cricket would, if modelled, have massive confidence intervals, tbh)?

First of all whole premise of this argument has been that Warne has suffered because of the presence of world class bowlers because he has had to share the wickets with them whereas Murali has benefitted from the lack of it. In other words(in Warne Vs. Murali argument) the likes of Vaas aren't considered worthy of anything. They are just there to wipe the shine of the ball so that Murali can come and bowl 90 overs every inning.

 

[akilana]

Clearly missing the point. Why would you ignore his record in Australia?

No wasn't missing anything. Pls read the posts in the last page and the post which I was replying to.

 

[Top_Cat]

First of all whole premise of this argument has been that Warne has suffered because of the presence of world class bowlers because he has had to share the wickets with them whereas Murali has benefitted from the lack of it. In other words(in Warne Vs. Murali argument) the likes of Vaas aren't considered worthy of anything. They are just there to wipe the shine of the ball so that Murali can come and bowl 90 overs every inning.

Frankly, it's a non-starter numerically and I don't know why you're even bothering with it. Your attempts to debunk it are doomed from the start because they're both using the same (poor) measures.

I don't even bother with trying to correct peoples' stats arguments on this site for that reason alone but geez, some of the assumptions people make on here are, to put it lightly, stretching the bounds of good sense. Not worth the stress man!

Sports statistics in general, even baseball stats collected and analysed using sabrmetrics, are for very (very) broad trend analysis only, in my book. Comparing transpositions and extrapolations is getting lost in the noise, I reckon.

 

[akilana]

I don't even bother with trying to correct peoples' stats arguments on this site for that reason alone but geez, some of the assumptions people make on here are, to put it lightly, stretching the bounds of good sense. Not worth the stress man!

so you don't read ikki's posts

 

[smash84]

Wait if you can't, then how did you know that he could?


Ok ok I'll stop teasing you

LOL....good one

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Clearly missing the point. Why would you ignore his record in Australia?

Ikki's argument for the removal of BG/Zim is because they were far and away the weakest test teams and Murali played them a lot, skewing his overall average and strike rate heavily in his favour, an opportunity Warne himself did not get.

I personally wouldn't completely remove them, but ZIM/BG do make a significant difference in the debate between the two players

btw. we have a PM not president

Akilana didn't miss the point,you are.Ikki is happily making excuses for Punter's 14 test sample in India yet he wants to take murali's stats in aus-a far smaller sample-at facevalue.

He also tried arguing that Murali's better average in England doesn't mean much because Warne played more matches yet he has no probs with using Warne's average in sl over 8 or whatever tests to compare it with Murali's in SL!!

 

[GotSpin]

Akilana didn't miss the point,you are.Ikki is happily making excuses for Punter's 14 test sample in India yet he wants to take murali's stats in aus-a far smaller sample-at facevalue.

He also tried arguing that Murali's better average in England doesn't mean much because Warne played more matches yet he has no probs with using Warne's average in sl over 8 or whatever tests to compare it with Murali's in SL!!

Didn't Ikki say that you shouldn't dismiss Pontings overseas record just because of his failures in India? I don't keep track of everything, so I just replied to a direct bit

 

[Ikki]

You surely can't discount the 14 Tests Ponting play in India. That is huge.

No one is saying remove India for Ponting; it is an argument to look deeper into his oversees record.

If a batsman averages 70 against every country bar 1 where he averages 10 and ends up with an away average of 50; that is an incredibly misleading stat to illustrate the efficacy of said player. For whatever reason he's had problems against one team and was imperious against others so summing up said player's away record as that is misleading if in comparison a certain batsman averages 51 overall yet never averaged 70 against any team although never having a low, so low.*

*that's not Ponting or Tendulkar but just a vivid example of what I am talking about.

Really, you must be running your stats factory then.

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

Apologies, you're right. I mistakenly used his all-career average without B/Z. Still, the point remains, without minnows Warne in 00s > Murali of 00s.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Didn't Ikki say that you shouldn't dismiss Pontings overseas record just because of his failures in India? I don't keep track of everything, so I just replied to a direct bit

You're on the point. Avada and co. keep missing it. Worse, they're pointing to something as if it's a "Gotcha moment", it really isn't.

No one said apart from B/Z Murali is **** or even under-par. The rest of his record is terrific; it's pretty much the same as Warne. How can that be bad? However, B/Z matches for Murali include a lot of matches against sub-par opponents where Warne does not get the same chance. Sanz also misses the point. Warne played 1 test against Zim and 2 against Bangladesh. Even Bradman might average 20 in such a limited sample. FTR, Warne's record is fine; but it isn't in the teens average wise because he didn't get to play B/Z long enough to establish a more reliable sample - as Murali did. The reply was that Murali did well above the norm and his B/Z stats should be included anyway...but I showed several bowlers playing enough matches had those kinds of ridiculous stats as well.

Competion or not, Statistically, Warne is the one who has benefitted from the Presence of some great fast bowlers in his team. Warne's average goes down to 26.83 in the matches without Mcgrath. Goes down to 28.70 in matches without Mcgrath/Gillespie.

In other words, when Warne didn't have competition from Mcgrath/Gillespies, he does worse. His average and strike rate both are worse.

But I am sure we will hear excuses after excuses and another set of twisting tales of statistical manipulations to prove all that wrong.

Actually, IIRC, Warne actually has better stats taking from the time they became teammates - in which prior to that time it includes Warne's green period v India and SL. McGrath's stats suffered worse when Warne wasn't there. It goes to averaging 23 and striking at 61.5.

I agree with T_C that it isn't really reliable on that kind of basis.

However, I'd point to the thread regarding pack hunters and lone wolves wherein those who bowled with less competition were much more likely to get a big haul and the proportion of these hauls benefitted them in the end.

It's not more worthless than comparing Murali vs Australia in SL and Warne vs SL in SL and arguing(assuming) Warne would have done better in SL against other teams.

What's worthless for me is using England and SA to compare the two.

No one compared Murali v Aus in SL to Warne vs SL in SL. It was Murali v all teams in SL v Warne against Pak/Sri in SL.

Ironically, it'd still be more comparable. Sri Lanka at home playing Warne is a great leveller.

B/Z aren't on the level of anyone but themselves.

 

[Migara]

Apologies, you're right. I mistakenly used his all-career average without B/Z. Still, the point remains, without minnows Warne in 00s > Murali of 00s.

Withot B/Z ('00s) Warne: 25.57

Without B/Z ('00s) Murali: 23.49

Are we missing something?

Murali Warne
v Australia 32.59
v England 20.37 22.42
v India 28.42 42.00
v New Zealand 19.86 30.08
v Pakistan 23.51 18.14
v South Africa 21.59 27.27
v West Indies 21.20

When the opposition is common Murali has dome better than Warne all the time except against Pakistan. If equal opportunities given then Murali's stats would have been better.

 

[Ikki]

Withot B/Z ('00s) Warne: 25.57

Without B/Z ('00s) Murali: 23.49

Are we missing something?

You are missing some things. Namely, you left out WIndies and Sri Lanka for Warne. Also; their SRs. Warne strikes about as fast as McGrath in the 00s.

Warne avg. 25.10 sr. 50.8
Murali: avg. 23.49 sr. 56.1

You didn't remove Windies or uncommon teams for Murali. His figures would be this. And to reiterate for the umpteenth time: this is with Murali bowling in SL and Warne in Aus half the time.

 

[Ikki]

In the 00s, without B/Z, Away from home figures:

Warne: avg. 22.41 sr. 44.1

Murali: avg. 28.58 sr. 61.4

Suffice to say, Warne's record away from home in the 00s is absolutely incredible. That is Waqar Younis-like strike rate...but for a spinner...which makes it even more incredible. It's scary to imagine what his overall figures would be if Sri Lanka was his home instead of Aus.

 

[Teja.]

Waqar and Wasim didn't bowl too much against Sachin in their heydays which is also why they might not rate Sachin as highly. They just didn't play a lot of cricket against him when Sachin was at his peak and they were at theirs.

Also I recall Wasim mentioning Martin Crowe as really tough to bowl to. In fact he says it in his autobiography too but I don't recall that about Waqar. Waqar usually had a fantastic time against NZ.

The Martin Crowe quote was before the Ws did face Tendulkar- apart from when he was 16- though. Wasim rated Tendulkar the finest of the modern era in a later interview(Admittedly was almost pushed to) and Waqar said he couldn't split Lara and Tendulkar.

 

[smash84]

The Martin Crowe quote was before the Ws did face Tendulkar- apart from when he was 16- though. Wasim rated Tendulkar the finest of the modern era in a later interview(Admittedly was almost pushed to) and Waqar said he couldn't split Lara and Tendulkar.

 

[Ikki]

He's saying Murali was harder to face initially but Warne was harder to feel comfortable against. There's no reason to read any further into it than that, really.

Well, you don't read more into that...you read more into what he said afterwards. After the point you touch on he summarises; watch from 0:27 onwards:

"...and I think that is the difference between the two spinners and that is what I think gives Shane Warne the edge...".