*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Shri]

Okay, what I see here is Ikki saying Warne is better than Murali. Why doesn't everyone just say its a fair enough opinion but agree or disagree with him and leave it at that? So ****ing painful to see arguments going on for pages and pages based on decimal differences.

 

[Ikki]

Whilst I hold that opinion, that isn't exactly what I am setting about arguing right now. People restarted the thread claiming that Murali was objectively better and implied there was no argument based on stats. Worse, they belittled Warne in saying he is rated more because of his Hollywood act rather than the substance of his bowling. I am just showing how easy it is (and despite all the arguing, it really is a simple point to grasp) to show Warne superior to Murali on a statistical level.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

1st Test: Pakistan v Sri Lanka at Karachi, Feb 21-25, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

anything comparable?no?thank you very much.

This argument is getting very tedious because ur way too biased and keep making excuses and manipulating stats to favor warne.

1.warne was not voted number 1 bowler by wisden as u claimed...murali was
as i showed u...such an analysis is far more objective than ur twisted stats and parameters.

2.Murali has dominated great players of spin unlike warne.FACT

3.Murali did not have to resort to masking agents to hide enhancers.FACT

4.Murali didnt sell info to bookies.FACT

5.If u include odi too murali pwns warne.

Keep crapping,twisting facts and name calling.Doesnt change the facts!

 

[Ikki]

OK mate.

 

[Shri]

Does it really matter? We all know its just a matter of preference when it comes to these too. Warne could well be better numerically by a point or so but it seems silly getting worked up about it, unless you are trying to land a job with statsguru.

 

[Ikki]

Mate, I study Law; I hate numbers!

 

[Shri]

I studied visual communication - because I hate numbers.

 

[GotSpin]

1st Test: Pakistan v Sri Lanka at Karachi, Feb 21-25, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

anything comparable?no?thank you very much.

This argument is getting very tedious because ur way too biased and keep making excuses and manipulating stats to favor warne.

1.warne was not voted number 1 bowler by wisden as u claimed...murali was
as i showed u...such an analysis is far more objective than ur twisted stats and parameters.

2.Murali has dominated great players of spin unlike warne.FACT

3.Murali did not have to resort to masking agents to hide enhancers.FACT

4.Murali didnt sell info to bookies.FACT

5.If u include odi too murali pwns warne.

Keep crapping,twisting facts and name calling.Doesnt change the facts!

Has to be said, but your grammar makes me want to smash my head into a wall. FACT

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm a statistician. I hate you all.

 

[smash84]

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.

.

So basically you are only considering players who had an injury in the middle of their career and then recovered.......that only leaves a handful of players like Imran, Ambrose (IIRC), Lillee.....can't think of too many off the top of my head........I guess this injury point has a lot of weightage in your analysis where others probably might disagree and you are willing to give Warne some leeway where others might not. Fine by me.

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.

oops sorry mate I thought you were arguing that Warne was the outright best ever. I too wouldn't rate Murali as the outright best ever but neither can Warne be called the outright best ever IMO. There is a very fine line between the two IMO and no one of them comes outright on top.

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

Obviously. Just as it is yours to rate him as you do. FTR though if I were to choose between Warne and Murali I would choose Warne not only because I have a bias for leggies but also because Warne as a personality brought so much to the game. In my book the greatest cricketer of the last 30 years has been Imran, that man had pretty much everything a cricketer can ask for (and I will admit that I am massively biased there because not only have I seen the guy play on the field but have also been able to witness his influence on society off the field as well. I am talking about his playing days and not after he entered politics). But Warne, Murali, Viv Richards, and Tendulkar follow closely and given the choice who I would want to watch amongst these guys I would pick Warne.

I'm a statistician. I hate you all.

 

[miscer]

im here to inject some mathematical logic into this thread (srs).

The fact that Warne had better bowlers in his team does not affect his bowling average. All it affects is his 5 wicket and 10 wicket hauls and total number of wickets. Why? Im glad you asked!

Let me turn away from cricket for a moment and give you a simple darts-based example.

Suppose I am on a dart throwing team and Im a pretty good dart thrower, on average I hit the bulls eye 1/2 times. But my team is fkin awesome. And the rules of the competition states the match is over as soon as your team hits 5 bulls-eye. Everyone get's 2 shots and you keep switching till your team hits bulls-eye.

That means on average ill hit 1 bulls-eye every turn (since i get 2 shots) (warne gets x overs), so regardless of the skill of my teammates, only my skill matters in the throws I throw (or the overs Warne bowls) so he will take the same number of wickets per ball or wicket per run that he would without good teammates if he keeps playing matches and allows his average and SR to settle to a long run normal for him.

BUT since he has great teammates that means he will have fewer 5 and 10 wicket hauls and wickets in general since his team mates are more likely to take wickets (or hit bull-eye in our example). Also if you say well if it affects his wickets doesnt that mean his average would be lower? No, because his skill is still the same so itd take him more overs and more runs given away to take the wickets his team mates didnt.

In before too long didnt read.

 

[Teja.]

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.



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

Man, If a bowler takes say, 4 wickets a match for 10 years @ 22, You'd probs consider him an ATG. Waqar for a period of five years took six wickets a game @ about 18-19(The SR is craazy though not relevant) and then for the next five years became a bowler who took about 3.5 wickets a game @ 28-29. Overall, averaging 21 for that decade and averaging about 4.7wpm, better than some ATG bowlers. As long at his peak he was good enough to statistically compensate for the rest of his career, I wonder why he shouldn't be rated with the top bunch of names.

 

[Top_Cat]

im here to inject some mathematical logic into this thread (srs).

The fact that Warne had better bowlers in his team does not affect his bowling average. All it affects is his 5 wicket and 10 wicket hauls and total number of wickets. Why? Im glad you asked!

Let me turn away from cricket for a moment and give you a simple darts-based example.

Suppose I am on a dart throwing team and Im a pretty good dart thrower, on average I hit the bulls eye 1/2 times. But my team is fkin awesome. And the rules of the competition states the match is over as soon as your team hits 5 bulls-eye. Everyone get's 2 shots and you keep switching till your team hits bulls-eye.

That means on average ill hit 1 bulls-eye every turn (since i get 2 shots) (warne gets x overs), so regardless of the skill of my teammates, only my skill matters in the throws I throw (or the overs Warne bowls) so he will take the same number of wickets per ball or wicket per run that he would without good teammates if he keeps playing matches and allows his average and SR to settle to a long run normal for him.

BUT since he has great teammates that means he will have fewer 5 and 10 wicket hauls and wickets in general since his team mates are more likely to take wickets (or hit bull-eye in our example). Also if you say well if it affects his wickets doesnt that mean his average would be lower? No, because his skill is still the same so itd take him more overs and more runs given away to take the wickets his team mates didnt.

In before too long didnt read.

Ignores team dynamics a bit doesn't it? No batter or bowler operates in a vaccum, how they're doing and how the team is doing will affect how you're doing unless you're some sort of automaton freak who can operate at peak ability without any regard to the form of your NZ team-mates.

And let's not forget, when you bowl isn't up to you, it's up to the captain so there's going to be times when you're not bowling in conditions which suit you, etc. Of course, the assumption is over a long enough career, these things will tend to smooth out but I don't reckon it always does and regardless, lends further credence to the notion that you then can't drill down too far in analysing these data.

Plus, in darts, no-one else uses your darts. The same cannot be said of the ball in cricket if you're a bowler.

 

[ankitj]

im here to inject some mathematical logic into this thread (srs).

The fact that Warne had better bowlers in his team does not affect his bowling average. All it affects is his 5 wicket and 10 wicket hauls and total number of wickets. Why? Im glad you asked!

Let me turn away from cricket for a moment and give you a simple darts-based example.

Suppose I am on a dart throwing team and Im a pretty good dart thrower, on average I hit the bulls eye 1/2 times. But my team is fkin awesome. And the rules of the competition states the match is over as soon as your team hits 5 bulls-eye. Everyone get's 2 shots and you keep switching till your team hits bulls-eye.

That means on average ill hit 1 bulls-eye every turn (since i get 2 shots) (warne gets x overs), so regardless of the skill of my teammates, only my skill matters in the throws I throw (or the overs Warne bowls) so he will take the same number of wickets per ball or wicket per run that he would without good teammates if he keeps playing matches and allows his average and SR to settle to a long run normal for him.

BUT since he has great teammates that means he will have fewer 5 and 10 wicket hauls and wickets in general since his team mates are more likely to take wickets (or hit bull-eye in our example). Also if you say well if it affects his wickets doesnt that mean his average would be lower? No, because his skill is still the same so itd take him more overs and more runs given away to take the wickets his team mates didnt.

In before too long didnt read.

On face of it, bowlers bowling along side good bowlers will have fewer 5/10 wicket hauls, I agree. But don't agree with the bolded part. They are likely to have better strike rates as their opponent batsmen do not have the option of playing them defensively and attacking others. This will mean they have a poorer ER. Combined effect of the two is that your average should remain unchanged.

That's as far as you look at it only mathematically. Of course, there's then the advantage of taking lesser burden and therefore getting tired less and being fresh more often. Playing in a good bowling attack you may get breaks when you are getting totally whacked or you are in poor form on the day. So overall, I tend to think playing with a better attack helps your average. Happy to see the other side too.

And I don't think dart one is a good analogy. As much as I like maths and logic, I think analogies seldom make a good point and work more to detract from the main issue.

 

[Ikki]

So basically you are only considering players who had an injury in the middle of their career and then recovered.......that only leaves a handful of players like Imran, Ambrose (IIRC), Lillee.....can't think of too many off the top of my head........I guess this injury point has a lot of weightage in your analysis where others probably might disagree and you are willing to give Warne some leeway where others might not. Fine by me.

No, just players who had a period of time where they weren't themselves rather than a significant part of their career. The thing with Waqar is he has 2 completely different phases to his career. If you think Waqar would have continued to have done as well as he would have for the first part of his career; you are basically calling him the greatest bowler of all time. It depends what your claim is with regards to the injury.

With Warne, all I am saying is that he never had a series before or after his injuries against NZ and WIndies where he performed badly...bar that period. Also, that but for his injuries he would have done better against India (I am not saying he would have done excellently or even very good...just better).

oops sorry mate I thought you were arguing that Warne was the outright best ever. I too wouldn't rate Murali as the outright best ever but neither can Warne be called the outright best ever IMO. There is a very fine line between the two IMO and no one of them comes outright on top.

This is a stance I have no problem with. I have a problem with saying there is "objectively" no statistical argument to Warne being superior - which seems ironically subjective in itself.

Obviously. Just as it is yours to rate him as you do. FTR though if I were to choose between Warne and Murali I would choose Warne not only because I have a bias for leggies but also because Warne as a personality brought so much to the game. In my book the greatest cricketer of the last 30 years has been Imran, that man had pretty much everything a cricketer can ask for (and I will admit that I am massively biased there because not only have I seen the guy play on the field but have also been able to witness his influence on society off the field as well. I am talking about his playing days and not after he entered politics). But Warne, Murali, Viv Richards, and Tendulkar follow closely and given the choice who I would want to watch amongst these guys I would pick Warne.

I am guessing you're Pakistani? I'd imagine if I were Pakistani Imran would be the greatest thing ever too. We are biased by those whom we have watched or heard about, there is nothing really wrong about that IMO until someone tries to make an argument based on pure bias and little logic.

Man, If a bowler takes say, 4 wickets a match for 10 years @ 22, You'd probs consider him an ATG. Waqar for a period of five years took six wickets a game @ about 18-19(The SR is craazy though not relevant) and then for the next five years became a bowler who took about 3.5 wickets a game @ 28-29. Overall, averaging 21 for that decade and averaging about 4.7wpm, better than some ATG bowlers. As long at his peak he was good enough to statistically compensate for the rest of his career, I wonder why he shouldn't be rated with the top bunch of names.

I've actually raised this point...why isn't he rated highly now or even amongst his contemporaries? Whilst I watched cricket back when Waqar in his peak I was younger and most of my memories of him are as a diminishing force. A good thread to open and argue IMO.

I'm a statistician. I hate you all.

LOL

 

[honestbharani]

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.

This. Listen to the man who does stats for a living, people!!!

 

[ankitj]

This. Listen to the man who does stats for a living, people!!!

In that case, listen to me too

 

[Howe_zat]

Listen to the man who does stats for a living, people!!!

*Raises hand*

...

*Gets scared off*.

 

[honestbharani]

In that case, listen to me too

well... I would love to see you and TC argue on the relative merits of cricket status as a wholistic measure of players' performance and ability...

 

[Teja.]

I've actually raised this point...why isn't he rated highly now or even amongst his contemporaries? Whilst I watched cricket back when Waqar in his peak I was younger and most of my memories of him are as a diminishing force. A good thread to open and argue IMO.

Among fans, Waqar is rated very highly when his name is mentioned but his name is not simply not mentioned enough, just like Shaun Pollock and Alan Davidson.

Among Contemporaries(and also a lot of fans), and I state in advance this is entirely my opinion, There is a tendency to rate cricketers not based on their effectiveness(tangible or intangible) as a cricketer but rather how complete they were, which is complete crap, IMHO. Why should Ambrose be a better bowler than McGrath because he bowled a better yorker and Tendulkar be a better batsman than Ponting because he can open his wrists with higher frequency against the spinners? If it does increase their efficiency, Then it is a different matter but completeness for the sake of completeness is BS. Waqar, is one of the worst sufferers of the completeness argument as he was just mean place with incredible swing and bowled more 'boundary balls' than your average ATG. Even with Batsman, They tend to rate bowlers who seem to penetrated your technique and outthink-ed you to take your wicket rather than, you know, just take your wicket. It becomes an even more worse call to measure the quality of batsmen by asking the bowlers who bowled to them about who the tougher opponent was, The bowler is gonna pretty much 10 times out of ten rate the batsman who can hit a swinging-yorker for four rather than a batsman who has a better ability of making runs, It is possible that the same batsman might be the answer to both questions, but yeah.