Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
It is even scarier to imagine that If India was his home. He would be struggling to make it to the local Ranji teams then ?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion
- Thread starter Mr Mxyzptlk
- Start date
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Also suffice to say that it was in 2000s that Warne was banned for testing positive. He had the best year in 2000s in 2002, right before he was banned. Not really a coincidence.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
See, yet another post showing you're more interested in a petty reply than at being accurate.
India is a great place to bowl spin - just not for visiting spinners.
Nice try.
Last edited:
JBH001
International Regular
It's important to note though, that in the period in question of comparison with Warne (2000 - 2007), Murali is comparable on away figures (not including Bang/Zim).
20 Tests
127 Wickets
21 Avge
2.55 ER
51 SR
Warne (including the neutral tests against Pakistan)
34 Tests
215 Wickets
22 Avge
3.00 ER
44 SR
From 2007 to his retirement, his (Murali's) away figures ballooned to 60 average with a sr of 109 and an er of 3.3. His decline as a bowler was only one factor in this, some torpid pitches (exceptional by even 2000s standards) such as the tour of Pakistan (2008?) batathon snoozefest was another. (Although statistically these factors are cumulative.)
20 Tests
127 Wickets
21 Avge
2.55 ER
51 SR
Warne (including the neutral tests against Pakistan)
34 Tests
215 Wickets
22 Avge
3.00 ER
44 SR
From 2007 to his retirement, his (Murali's) away figures ballooned to 60 average with a sr of 109 and an er of 3.3. His decline as a bowler was only one factor in this, some torpid pitches (exceptional by even 2000s standards) such as the tour of Pakistan (2008?) batathon snoozefest was another. (Although statistically these factors are cumulative.)
Last edited:
akilana
International 12th Man
ifs and buts..
Bang and Zimb should be removed because they weren't strong teams and Warne didn't play them enough.
Why shouldn't we remove Murali's record vs Australia because Australia was one of the greatest team in the history and Warne didn't play them not even once so that gives Warne a big advantage.
What rubbish.
Btw, it's scary to imagine how worse Warne's overall record would be if he was to bowl at Australia more often.
Bang and Zimb should be removed because they weren't strong teams and Warne didn't play them enough.
Why shouldn't we remove Murali's record vs Australia because Australia was one of the greatest team in the history and Warne didn't play them not even once so that gives Warne a big advantage.
What rubbish.
Btw, it's scary to imagine how worse Warne's overall record would be if he was to bowl at Australia more often.
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
JBH, bowlers with a difference of 7-8 SR points have comparable records? Stretching the bounds of credulity there.
Also, the tests he played post 2007 should be looked at. He played India and Aus away and he was never good there to begin with. The Pakistani pitches seems valid though; some mammoth scores in that one.
Not wanting to remove the minnows is just a straw that's being clutched to make Murali look better than he is.
Also, the tests he played post 2007 should be looked at. He played India and Aus away and he was never good there to begin with. The Pakistani pitches seems valid though; some mammoth scores in that one.
Warne didn't bowl to Aus and Murali didn't bowl to SL. Both formidable opponents at home. Difference is, Murali was crap in Aus to the point that even average spinners have better records and Warne is far and away the best visiting bowler to SL during their careers.
Not wanting to remove the minnows is just a straw that's being clutched to make Murali look better than he is.
Last edited:
JBH001
International Regular
I would have thought it obvious why the SR difference of 7 is not statistically significant, especially in conjunction with the er difference, hence I did not make it explicit. Warne had far greater support in this period than Murali, as seen for instance by a look at McGrath's figures during the period in question. McGrath, at this time, had an average of 20 with an er of 2.4 and a sr of 49. If you look at the list of Murali's support bowlers during that time, even Vaas, you get an average of 42 with an er of 3 and a sr of 84. A list of overseas performances by other SL bowlers shows high er which indicates batsmen usually taking the safe option against Murali and thus the higher SR.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
This is a good example of how it's important to exercise caution when listening to a leading player praising the great players of his own generation. Lara began that interview trying to make the point that Murali was by far the tougher opponent, and by the end of it he's saying that Warne has the edge. And if he was asked about the inconsistency, I'd bet my life that he'd reply "Murali was tougher at first, Warne was tougher when you'd played yourself in, and so overall they were equal". Which means that he's managed to say, within the space of 90 seconds, (a) Murali was better, (b) Warne was better, and (c) they were equal. Praise duly dished up to his fellow greats; fanboys on each side given ammunition which, taken out of context, appears to support their preconceptions; no-one offended; a general rosy glow all round. What a diplomat.
Now, leaving all the eyeball-gougingly tedious "who's better" nonsense aside, I have to say this was a really interesting interview.
Now, leaving all the eyeball-gougingly tedious "who's better" nonsense aside, I have to say this was a really interesting interview.
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Let's be frank: as long as you're comparing a fast bowler with a fast bowler and a spin bowler with a spin bowler; bowlers with comparable averages but 7-8 points difference in SR, in Tests, really aren't performing on the same level.
The support argument doesn't really explain it because the difference is so large. And has already been argued a zillion times; whilst there are disadvantages there are also advantages to it. It's even harder to believe since Murali bowls such a big proportion of his team's innings that if batsmen are passing him by with that kind of ease then it brings in question the quality of his bowling, and specifically his wicket-taking ability. Frankly, I think Murali was a bit too good to be passed over like that for so many overs across a decade.
Plus, an ER of 2.94 (Vaas' ER) is not bad in the 00s at all. Heck, that's better than Warne had in the above analysis. In fact, the difference between Murali's and Vaas' ER is 0.15 - and that simply is not enough to explain them taking advantage of Vaas and passing over Murali. What more; Vaas' ER suffers less away from home than Murali who goes from 2.3 to 2.79 - Vaas goes from 2.53 to 2.94.
The support argument doesn't really explain it because the difference is so large. And has already been argued a zillion times; whilst there are disadvantages there are also advantages to it. It's even harder to believe since Murali bowls such a big proportion of his team's innings that if batsmen are passing him by with that kind of ease then it brings in question the quality of his bowling, and specifically his wicket-taking ability. Frankly, I think Murali was a bit too good to be passed over like that for so many overs across a decade.
Plus, an ER of 2.94 (Vaas' ER) is not bad in the 00s at all. Heck, that's better than Warne had in the above analysis. In fact, the difference between Murali's and Vaas' ER is 0.15 - and that simply is not enough to explain them taking advantage of Vaas and passing over Murali. What more; Vaas' ER suffers less away from home than Murali who goes from 2.3 to 2.79 - Vaas goes from 2.53 to 2.94.
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Lara's already rated Warne better in the Ashes coverage back in 06. With the knowledge of that, it's not really imagining things to think by "Warne having the edge", after he makes a direct comparison, he is just reiterating that thought. If he had said "an edge" that would mean something totally different. By saying "the edge" he is referring to the defining "edge" between them.
That aside, I genuinely interpreted him saying that Warne was predictable at the start for him whereas Murali was the complete opposite. But that Warne never lost confidence in himself whilst Murali would and that character distinguishes Warne from Murali.
That aside, I genuinely interpreted him saying that Warne was predictable at the start for him whereas Murali was the complete opposite. But that Warne never lost confidence in himself whilst Murali would and that character distinguishes Warne from Murali.
Last edited:
akilana
International 12th Man
talk about double standard..
You didn't answer why you would not remove Murali's record vs Australia and is hellbent on removing records vs Bang and Zimb. It's because it suits your argument. You're trying to make Warne look better than he is and you'll manipulate the stats to achieve your goals.
Do you also take into consideration the pressure, the abuse and the mental torture the Australia public put on Murali when he was bowling at the best team in the world? Warne never saw anything like that in his entire career. Given that he was crap against India, he would have been ultra crap vs Australia.
If you want to remove Bang and Zimb because Warne never bowled enough at them, then remove the record vs Australia because he had a big advantage there.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I did explain it. I said B/Z are two incomparable sides in Test cricket during this period as they were so much weaker than everybody else. Even Australia being #1; they were by no means a different standard altogether from the rest of the pack.
If Murali had a poor record against Aus, but was the best spinner regardless of that fact; I indeed would have removed it. However, by doing so you are helping his record for being poorer than the average spinner in Aus. Conversely, doing well in SL is very hard for a spinner and Warne was the clear best.. By removing those, you are punishing someone for achieving something great.
If you could argue that Warne would be as worse as Murali in Aus had he faced his own attack and make sense; I'd put some weight to removing Aus. But you can't because heck, Vettori, Kaneria and Kumble were better than Murali in Aus against Aus; why wouldn't Warne be? Conversely, if you could convince me that Murali would achieve similar to Warne had he faced his own attack in SL; then that would add a lot of weight too. But you can't because besides the minnows and the closest test team of the time to the minnows (WIndies) he couldn't achieve what Warne achieved in SL against any other Test country that visited his shores.
Aside from all that, even when you remove Aus and SL along with the minnows; Warne still had the better away record.
It goes from:
Warne: avg. 22.41 sr. 44.1
Murali: avg. 28.58 sr. 61.4
to
Warne: avg. 22.74 sr. 44.9
Murali: avg. 26.57 sr. 58.3
Warne's stats were so good elsewhere even when you remove SL his record barely changes. Murali's does, but not near enough. So your claim about me wanting to fix the stats is non sense. I object to it because it makes little sense.
Last edited:
Highly likely that Akram must have mentioned Tendulkar if he has giving his interview to the Indian Media. I doubt if he changed his mind about Martin Crowe though. In this interview in 2004, well after he retired, he still goes out of his way to mention Crowe's name. Seemed more of an honest answer rather than a clichéd answer to please the media/public of a particular Nation. Inzi's opinion about Crowe too was pretty recent (in 2007, after he retired).
Last edited:
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Well he may have said that to an Australian audience, during Warne's glorious valedictory series. I can't help wondering what he'd have said had he been addressing a Sri Lankan audience during Murali's farewell?
Warne's fans will tend to hear what they want to hear; Murali's fans likewise. And Lara's interview was an absolute masterclass in pleasing them all. I really do take my hat off to him.
akilana
International 12th Man
Australia were miles away from the rest of the team. SA who were the second best team got beaten by Australia regularly and sometimes by innings. The difference between B/Z and England was much smaller than the difference between SL and Australia. You won't remove England because it won't suit your argument.
Yes Murali had a poor record in Australia but was the best spinner regardless of that fact. Given how Bang tonked Warne, you're doing a disservice to Murali by removing his record against them.. meaning punishing him for achieving something great.
Given that Murali has was ahead of the aforementioned bowlers against the rest of the countries, it's reasonable to assume he would done better than those bowlers in Australia. But it wasn't to be..were they ever called for chucking in Australia? were they abused by the PM? were they abused by fans? Were they tortured mentally and scrutinized?
Ya Warne's record away from home looks good and it has to be. Australia were a dominant team and they won almost everywhere. That means the batsmen always put good score on the board, putting a lot of pressure on the opposition even before a ball being bowled. He also had good support from other bowlers so it became easier to hunt as a group.
SL was/are an average away team and even Vaas is less effective so Murali often didn't have enough runs on the board and had to bowl out of his skin to win matches. Given that they were average as team, the opposition had the freedom to play Murali more freely. For example, Sehwag got a few big hundreds against Murali. If he had another good bowler to dismiss Sehwag earlier, Murali's record wouldn't have suffered. Ya being in a good team with good bowlers mean you have to share wickets but you have more opportunity to take 20 wickets and do them cheaply.
akilana
International 12th Man
Agree. I saw a Murali's interview to an Indian Tamil channel during the IPL season. He said he couldn't split Lara and Sachin.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Ikki, one out of every (about) 20 posts you make on CricketWeb is in this thread. You pretty much just come here to talk about Warne and Ponting these days. Why do you devote so much of your time to it? Surely you've said everything that needs saying in this thread by now.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Being beaten is different to facing a team where the opposition's batsmen barely have averages above 20-30 and bowlers who'll get shellacked for days on end. Win/Loss is not really the issue here.
But he wasn't. I just named you 3 spinners, who Murali was clearly better than, who performed better than him in Aus.
It's not reasonable because, guess what, they played in Aus and Murali did worse than them. We are specifically talking about Australia. Murali doing better in England than an average spinner has no bearing on what happened in Australia. The reality is, spinners do poorly in Aus...but Murali did far worse than would be normal under those conditions.
It is good...but more importantly it is better than his home figures. Winning away is the toughest thing you can do because no matter how good you are the opposition is going to be more accustomed to playing in their own conditions.
I've already touched on the support argument - go see the pack v lone wolf thread.
Anyway, the point was to show you that the figures do not change drastically even if you do remove Aus or SL. This for your false claim that I feared it showing Warne up or something.
Yes, he would have to bowl better for his team to win. No doubt. However, we are not talking about win/loss. We are talking about averages and strike rate. Bowling alone means you can bowl more overs, with less competition and have a greater pool of wickets to take. In the pack v lone wolf thread I showed: bowlers with little support are much more likely to gain bigger hauls. These bigger hauls contribute a large proportion to a bowler's record that ultimately affect his record more positively.
Your example re Sehwag has some merit but is short-sighted. Sehwag is only 1 wicket; there are 10 others to take. All Murali has to do is take other people's wickets (of which he can take more of with the lack of competition) to account for the runs he's conceded off Sehwag. Conversely, if Warne is conceding runs and his teammates are taking wickets; he has less of a pool to average out those runs conceded in that game. See, there is a positive and a negative for both.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Possibly; only Lara knows. I remember HB (big Lara fan) saying Lara thought it also - can't remember for sure.
Last edited: