*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Ikki]

Ikki you might as well argue for Shoaib Akhtar being the best ever fast bowler were it not for his injuries.

The fact that Warne did get badly injured probably meant that he was a Shoaib Akhtar of the spinners in a sense and Murali was probably McGrath. I know I am exaggerating the comparison by a fair bit but those Warne injuries don't earn Warne any brownie points. Just as getting injured at the peak of his career doesn't earn Imran any brownie points nor do they earn Shoaib any for being injured for the most part of his career.

But Warne wasn't Akhtar. He had a long career and even prima facie is one of the greatest bowlers of all-time and arguably the greatest spinner of all-time. Akhtar, even if you regard his injuries was not. It's when you account that for a few years he struggled for form and fitness that it makes you appreciate Warne's feats more.

It's not that his injuries should gain him brownie points, but they should give greater perspective towards his record. For example in his WIndies record away, he played only 2 series: one very good, one very bad - the very bad one being in this period. It makes him look like a muppet against WIndies in WIndies if you go by pure averages. However, the context shows that this bad series was the only bad series he ever had against them home or away. The same for NZ; never one bad series bar for the one in this period.

I remember I did an analysis comparing Warne and McGrath in terms of series averaging -30. Warne was more consistent than McGrath; and was even more consistent when you consider said period was the one where several of his +30 averaging series came.

It's all for context and no one is saying anything like a Akhtar IS the greatest when you think what he could have done without injuries. Warne's already done enough.

 

[Ikki]

Well said. Since I mostly watch cricket for good bowling I would say that nothing beats watching a good leggie bamboozle the batsman except a fast bowler steaming in and making the batsman jump around in the crease.

Although this is a digression, I disagree with Bagapath. Both Murali and Warne can compare to the great fast bowlers. You can't compare their stats on the face of it and conclude the fast bowlers have better numbers. Spinners come on later, do not get to use the new ball, often have to face more settled batsmen than fast bowlers and are asked to bowl more. That stuff is worth at least 2-3 runs and 2-3 balls on each batsman.

 

[smash84]

Although this is a digression, I disagree with Bagapath. Both Murali and Warne can compare to the great fast bowlers. You can't compare their stats on the face of it and conclude the fast bowlers have better numbers. Spinners come on later, do not get to use the new ball, often have to face more settled batsmen than fast bowlers and are asked to bowl more. That stuff is worth at least 2-3 runs and 2-3 balls on each batsman.

Spinners usually also come on late into the attack because the new ball is very difficult to spin. It is quite slippery and the spinners risk being taken to the cleaners if they come on a little too early when the ball is new and hard.

 

[GotSpin]

Spinners usually also come on late into the attack because the new ball is very difficult to spin. It is quite slippery and the spinners risk being taken to the cleaners if they come on a little too early when the ball is new and hard.

It's not that bad bowling spin with a new ball. Get a little extra bounce.

 

[smash84]

It's not that his injuries should gain him brownie points, but they should give greater perspective towards his record.

But Ikki my point is that you should give the same leeway to every fast bowler. Aren't you being selective by giving this leeway to only Warne and not to other bowlers???

 

[bagapath]

Although this is a digression, I disagree with Bagapath.

what do you disagree with? I didnt say anything worth objecting to....

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Avada, no one said Warne's away record v Windies > myrtle's away record v Windies. Geez you're a crap poster.

Excellent-resort to name calling when you are losing the argument to cover up the fallacies of Warne,a proven drug cheat and match fixer.If ACB hadn't brushed things under the carpet he would have got at least a 2 yr ban which would have ended his career.

Now coming back to murali vs warne-

1.Murali was rated the best all time test bowler by wisden.
2.Murali does better in more countries away from home,thd same argument you make for your other hero but refuse to acknowledge here.
3.Murali gets more top order wickets and his value of wickets>Warne's.
4.Extrapolate Warne's Bangladesh,Zim record to whatever number murali played against them.Do the same for Murali and england.then see who comes out on top(i know you will chicken out of doing this)

 

[Ikki]

But Ikki my point is that you should give the same leeway to every fast bowler. Aren't you being selective by giving this leeway to only Warne and not to other bowlers???

It really depends who you're talking about and the injury. If you're talking about Lillee who as it is is already in the pantheon of pace bowler greats; yes you do. If you're talking about Akhtar, what can you possibly say? He really hasn't played that much. It's like saying Shane Bond would have been the greatest without his injuries. That's just a bridge too far. It's a fair point to say they were negatively affected but what is the claim being made wrt them?

The point with Warne is to show that in said period he was a shadow of himself - not just against India, but others too (India actually didn't hit him as badly as NZ and WIndies did in that period). Benaud recalls that when they had opened Warne's shoulder up it was hanging by a string. How can you look at those performances the same way knowing that?

Also, I find it curious how if a batsman takes advantage of an old/injured/out of form bowler then those runs mean less or nothing and yet if you say that the bowler in question shouldn't be judged so harshly because of those same injuries you're met with objection.

Spinners usually also come on late into the attack because the new ball is very difficult to spin. It is quite slippery and the spinners risk being taken to the cleaners if they come on a little too early when the ball is new and hard.

Gives them better bounce and zip off the pitch. I think the balls move faster in the air too. When Warne has been given the ball early he's done really well. Pretty sure Murali has done pretty well coming in earlier than usual too.

what do you disagree with? I didnt say anything worth objecting to....

Sorry, lazy reading. I thought you had separated the spinners and the pacers because you thought they were different. The dangers of posting when you should be sleeping.

 

[Ikki]

Excellent-resort to name calling when you are losing the argument to cover up the fallacies of Warne,a proven drug cheat and match fixer.If ACB hadn't brushed things under the carpet he would have got at least a 2 yr ban which would have ended his career.

Building strawmen and attributing arguments I haven't made to me is as bad as calling me a name, for me. Since your arguments really are tedious and have already been argued against, this will be my last post to you unless you actually bring something novel and with intelligence. I'm not holding my breath.

Now coming back to murali vs warne-

1.Murali was rated the best all time test bowler by wisden.
2.Murali does better in more countries away from home,thd same argument you make for your other hero but refuse to acknowledge here.
3.Murali gets more top order wickets and his value of wickets>Warne's.
4.Extrapolate Warne's Bangladesh,Zim record to whatever number murali played against them.Do the same for Murali and england.then see who comes out on top(i know you will chicken out of doing this)

1 - Warne was rated the highest bowler of all time and #4 cricketer of all time according to Wisden. Was rated the highest bowler of all time and #4 cricketer in ESPN's Legends of cricket. Was rated the highest bowler of all time and #4 cricketer in CW's top 50. Was voted in Benaud's all-time XI ahead of Murali. Was voted ahead of Murali in ESPN's all-time XI and the only player bar Sobers and Bradman to get maximum points.

2 - Warne did better in Aus, SL, SA, Ind and ZIM. If you count the neutral tests, he did better v PAK as well. And likewise, was about a hair away in both Eng and NZ. You should read this thread.

3 - Warne gets only ~5% less top order wickets than Murali - despite having substantially more competition for those top order wickets.

4 - Yes, let's extrapolate Warne's 1 test v Zim and 2 tests v Bang because that is the smart thing to do.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Building strawmen and attributing arguments I haven't made to me is as bad as calling me a name, for me. Since your arguments really are tedious and have already been argued against, this will be my last post to you unless you actually bring something novel and with intelligence. I'm not holding my breath.



1 - Warne was rated the highest bowler of all time and #4 cricketer of all time according to Wisden. Was rated the highest bowler of all time and #4 cricketer in ESPN's Legends of cricket. Was rated the highest bowler of all time and #4 cricketer in CW's top 50. Was voted in Benaud's all-time XI ahead of Murali. Was voted ahead of Murali in ESPN's all-time XI and the only player bar Sobers and Bradman to get maximum points.

2 - Warne did better in Aus, SL, SA, Ind and ZIM. If you count the neutral tests, he did better v PAK as well. And likewise, was about a hair away in both Eng and NZ. You should read this thread.

3 - Warne gets only ~5% less top order wickets than Murali - despite having substantially more competition for those top order wickets.

4 - Yes, let's extrapolate Warne's 1 test v Zim and 2 tests v Bang because that is the smart thing to do.

1.I love the reference to benaud's and espn's 11 from a guy who vehemently argued against a similar point by me in some thread about best batsman of the 90s saying that those are only opinions and don't matter any more than ur opinion or mine.Even ignoring the obvious customary bias that we have come to expect from u,wisden did vote murali as the number 1 test bowler...

2.I love how you included zim for warne now that it suits ur argument

pak will most certainly have to be given to murali.Warne has not played on the horrible pitches like sl pak karachi 09...not even close.

Its funny how you mention warne is only a hair's breadth away in nz and eng but readily include india for warne as if they are miles apart there...muralis record was far better than warnes until the latest tour against ind at their best and an atrocious ahmedabad pitch.if you want to get even more pedantic murali on average has faced stronger ind batting lineups.Overall ind dominated warne but never really got hold of murali who has owned ind many many times.In general murali was much better against the best players of spin.

3.The lack of competition also adversely affects muralis sr.BTW do i take it that warne didnt bowl often at top bats and still averaged worse than murali overall.

4.it would have made sense to u had stats been in ur favor.A guy who has no problem comparing warne'7 handful of tests worth in sl to muralis half careers worth...!U know murali would come out on top if u were to extrapolate warne's zim-bang and murali's eng stats.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Building strawmen and attributing arguments I haven't made to me is as bad as calling me a name, for me. Since your arguments really are tedious and have already been argued against, this will be my last post to you unless you actually bring something novel and with intelligence. I'm not holding my breath.

Chickening out as usual and resorting to personal insults.No surprise there.Warne is a drug cheat and a fixer...no amount of bs on ur part can change that.

1 - Warne was rated the highest bowler of all time and #4 cricketer of all time according to Wisden. Was rated the highest bowler of all time and #4 cricketer in ESPN's Legends of cricket. Was rated the highest bowler of all time and #4 cricketer in CW's top 50. Was voted in Benaud's all-time XI ahead of Murali. Was voted ahead of Murali in ESPN's all-time XI and the only player bar Sobers and Bradman to get maximum points.

2 - Warne did better in Aus, SL, SA, Ind and ZIM. If you count the neutral tests, he did better v PAK as well. And likewise, was about a hair away in both Eng and NZ. You should read this thread.

3 - Warne gets only ~5% less top order wickets than Murali - despite having substantially more competition for those top order wickets.

4 - Yes, let's extrapolate Warne's 1 test v Zim and 2 tests v Bang because that is the smart thing to do.

1.I love the reference to benaud's and espn's 11 from a guy who vehemently argued against a similar point by me in some thread about best batsman of the 90s saying that those are only opinions and don't matter any more than ur opinion or mine.Even ignoring the obvious customary bias that we have come to expect from u,wisden did vote murali as the number 1 test bowler...

2.I love how you included zim for warne now that it suits ur argument

pak will most certainly have to be given to murali.Warne has not played on the horrible pitches like sl pak karachi 09...not even close.

Its funny how you mention warne is only a hair's breadth away in nz and eng but readily include india for warne as if they are miles apart there...muralis record was far better than warnes until the latest tour against ind at their best and an atrocious ahmedabad pitch.if you want to get even more pedantic murali on average has faced stronger ind batting lineups.Overall ind dominated warne but never really got hold of murali who has owned ind many many times.In general murali was much better against the best players of spin.

3.The lack of competition also adversely affects muralis sr.BTW do i take it that warne didnt bowl often at top bats and still averaged worse than murali overall.

4.it would have made sense to u had stats been in ur favor.A guy who has no problem comparing warne's handful of tests worth in sl to muralis half careers worth...!U know murali would come out on top if u were to extrapolate warne's zim-bang and murali's eng stats.

 

[Ikki]

1 - I'm not the genius who started comparing them based on ratings by others. You were, I just replied in kind.

2 - For someone who is so intent on point scoring that they'd list Eng (of all teams) & NZ for Murali when Warne has a similar record over more matches it deserves the petty point-scoring you've gotten used to. Also, removing them would take one away from Warne and one from Murali - which means it doesn't matter.

3 - It doesn't adversely affect his SR. And, it helps his proportion of non-tailenders - the point you tried to make. Warne did bowl to top and middle order batsmen, but he'll be able to take less of them when McGrath/Gillespie take openers so regularly. So a difference of ~5% is not really a talking point - in fact, it can be used for Warne since he did so well taking upper order wickets despite the competition.

4 - It would benefit Warne to extrapolate if he had better stats than Murali...it just wouldn't make a great argument as you're relying on 3 tests. Of course it would help Murali, he got to actually build a proper record against them...Warne didn't. If Warne had a reliable sample then extrapolation would be more accurate. What you're doing is akin to saying Ganteaume is better than Bradman.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2572069.stm

well done on ignoring the pts about ind and pak and against best players on spin in general.

3.It does affect his sr because batsmen can play him out and attack the weaker bowlers unlike against warne where they had to contend with quality at the other end as well.if the top bats were gone by the time warne came on to bowl then he didnt bowl at top bats as murali and still has an inferior record.Decide what u want to argue for.

4.if a 6 inn sample can be excused for warne then a 7 inn sample in aus can be excused for murali esp if u take into account the circumstances.

 

[Ikki]

Warne did better against Pak away from home - in fact, he creamed them. And he did bowl on docile pitches. I have to include India if you're including NZ and ENG - that is if you're talking about how close they are and not that Warne played much more against them. You're the one with the petty point scoring so you shouldn't complain when it's returned to you.

3 - If batsman can play out a bowler who bowls about 55 overs a match then that bowler has problems other than lacking competition. That's not what happened though and it really doesn't affect his SR overall. Murali takes more wickets per match and more big hauls than Warne and the more big hauls you have in proportion to matches played the better your figures will be - including SR.

4 - It's not a 6 inning sample; it is 2 and 4. Murali played 5 tests against Aus; his bowling is part of the reason Aus only had to bat once in some of them.

 

[smash84]

The point with Warne is to show that in said period he was a shadow of himself - not just against India, but others too (India actually didn't hit him as badly as NZ and WIndies did in that period). Benaud recalls that when they had opened Warne's shoulder up it was hanging by a string. How can you look at those performances the same way knowing that?

Ikki it doesn't matter if his shoulder was hanging by a string or a shoe string but the fact remains that because of that injury Warne was a pretty ordinary bowler during that year. Waqar lost so much after his injury. In fact he was never the same again but he was still decent. Waqar too had done quite a bit to show that he deserved an ATG status. So it is not that I start using Waqar's performances selectively and proclaim him as the clearly better than others.

Also you might as well argue that Warne never maintained good enough fitness levels which is why his shoulder was hanging by a shoe-string in the first place. So Warne's record has to reflect that lack of fitness which it does.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki it doesn't matter if his shoulder was hanging by a string or a shoe string but the fact remains that because of that injury Warne was a pretty ordinary bowler during that year. Waqar lost so much after his injury. In fact he was never the same again but he was still decent. Waqar too had done quite a bit to show that he deserved an ATG status. So it is not that I start using Waqar's performances selectively and proclaim him as the clearly better than others.

Waqar did suffer and never regained form. That's why he isn't considered along the usual names - or why I think anyway. If Waqar had played 10+ years and had suffered in the end of his career where his stats were pulled down dramatically, then it'd be a far more interesting point to consider.

Warne however suffered, recovered, and was the best he'd ever been. That's why this thread exists and why Murali isn't outright the best ever.

As an aside; I don't know why Waqar usually isn't spoken of as highly as he should be regardless of his injuries. He was incredible and his stats are still incredible.

Also you might as well argue that Warne never maintained good enough fitness levels which is why his shoulder was hanging by a shoe-string in the first place. So Warne's record has to reflect that lack of fitness which it does.

Not sure those injuries related to fitness. It's your prerogative to rate him as you do mate.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

But warne didnt play pak on those featherbed pitches in pak murali did.Murali got the worse deal both in terms of pitches and quality of batting line ups.that murali was far better against the best players of spin is beyond question.

If ur scoring runs freely at 1 end theres no pressure on the batsman.surely thats elementary.

Now saying that its 5 tests is misleading.Its only 7 inn spread out over a large period.Warne's b'desh sample is more reliable than that.

If you look at common teams murali pwns warne in wi.every other place the diff is only 1-2 pts either way with the only diff being warne feasting on substandard eng batting far more than murali did.

 

[Ikki]

1 - 2nd Test: Pakistan v Australia at Rawalpindi, Oct 5-9, 1994 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo - unfortunately, Warne only got to play his 1 series against Pak in 94. After that it was neutral tests, albeit in conditions that were more like Pak than Aus.

2 - Murali bowls, batsmen have to react - that is pressure. That is elementary. If the bowlers can pass off Murali so easily, as you suggest, then that should count against him. Batting is not just about scoring runs off balls, it is also about not getting out to balls you can't score runs from.

3 - It's 7 innings of 5 tests. Which means in 3 of them he didn't bowl a second innings. It was because he was shellacked and Aus didn't need to bat again. That's not something you can count for Murali. Murali actually bowled more in Aus than in NZ.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63706.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/291338.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63707.html

4 - We standardised and looked at common teams away; Warne was better when we apportioned matches to Murali's breakup and the opposite occurred when we did it for Warne. It was pretty close either way. Keep in mind, doing this removes Warne's best figures and Murali's worst.

Really, if you have read this thread - nay, the past few pages - none of this should need explaining. If you'd save your energy and actually read the points made rather than create strawmen or put words into other people's mouths you might learn something.

 

[Shri]

One question Ikki, why do you waste so much time typing the same thing over and over? Quote your own posts accordingly and this will be faster.

 

[Ikki]

I know aye, I should just create a word document which has all these points so I can copy-paste. I remember A Massive Zebra doing something like that.