Can Ashwin beat Murali's 800?

[OverratedSanity]

Bedi was essentially the Ashwin of his time, Qadir wasn't that great away either.

Nah, way better overseas record.

 

[trundler]

They were, which is what makes Barne's hard to gauge. For all we know he could have been a better version of Fazal Mahmood who feasted on friendly conditions. We know Ashwin is a mediocre bowler because we've seen him, despite his deceptively good stats.

And Bradman dominated England in that 974 runs came against England, the top-side as opposed to SA for Barnes. Barnes did feast on SA's batting.

 

[trundler]

Nah, way better overseas record.

There's still a considerable disparity if I'm not wrong. I have no doubt that Bedi was better.

 

[harsh.ag]

Barnes' stats aren't that good when compared to his peers. It was just a different era. He is noted for his skills. But would generally only find a place in World ATG XIs with 5 bowlers.

 

[cnerd123]

Tend to think that the changes to cricket were far more significant before WWI than since then, which probably doesn't help Barnes's case.

The other issue is that Bradman statistical dominance is by a far bigger margin than Barnes's.

TBF batting is very different to bowling. Like, it's easier to average 100 with the bat than 10 with the ball - as a bowler you're relying on fielders to be placed in the right place to stop the ball/take catches, umpires to given decisions, and a guy like Barnes could get all the top order guys out and then have his partners wipe out the tail. Plus there is no limit to how many runs a batsman can score. I think since both disciplines are so inherently different, trying to use batting/bowling average when evaluating how far ahead they are of their peers doesn't really work. It's not a like for like comparison. I don't think bowling averages vary with skill the same way batting averages can.

The questions should be was Barnes the very best of his peers, and if we adjust his numbers for era and quality of opposition do they still hold up. In most exercises they do. Plus he holds records that aren't likely to ever be broken. So there is a compelling argument to be made that's he's the best bowler of all time, and that should be enough to get him into an ATG XI. But, as you point out, the differences in cricket between then and now, and the ***iness of Bradman's numbers compared to his, also the weirdness of Barnes style (in how its described) with no real footage/similar bowlers to go off...all of it puts doubts in the mind.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Even without minnows, Murali has better stats. And sorry for bringing the tired argument that England were minnows in playing spin in most of Warne's career. If Murali played similar number of tests against WI, SAF, ENG and NZ, he would have ended up with 900 instead of 800.

Not sure where this comes from. The other biggest leg-spinner during Warne's career, Kumble, averages 41 in England (career avge: 29).

They may have been slightly worse at playing spin than some other sides, but an argument that "England were minnows in playing spin" just isn't true. They were bad at playing Warne.

 

[trundler]

Yeah, I don't think there can be bowling equivalent of Bradman because there aren't not-outs to boost your average, only 10 wickets up for grabs, and wickets depending on a host of factors as ***** mentioned. WPM depends too much on external factors to be a useful measure of a bowler's quality, unlike runs per match, averages for batsmen etc. Also, bowling is far more subjectively judged than batting. How the **** does anyone compare Trueman and Lillee? There are more contrasting styles for bowling and different approaches than batting.

And regarding how good he was relative to his peers, I think Steyn averaging 22 today is surely as impressive as Barnes averaging 16 on crap pitches a hundred years ago.

 

[Burgey]

People compare trueman and Lillee because they both bowled outswing at 85-90mph.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's not even taking into account how more professional and involved professional cricket is these days. It wouldn't surprise me, if you transplanted 1920s International cricketers into today, if their skills were not even match up to first class standard. Whether or not that's something you hold against them though is another discussion entirely.

 

[trundler]

People compare trueman and Lillee because they both bowled outswing at 85-90mph.

There's no way to know who's better unless you've watched both though. Maybe Trueman and Ambrose gets my point across better since they're vastly different. I'm just saying there's no definite way of saying who's better than whom.

 

[trundler]

That's not even taking into account how more professional and involved professional cricket is these days. It wouldn't surprise me, if you transplanted 1920s International cricketers into today, if their skills were not even match up to first class standard. Whether or not that's something you hold against them though is another discussion entirely.

Agreed. A hundred years ago you had Hobbs throwing his wicket away to the most deserving bowler. We just assume their talent with a more modern approach would translate into success today.

 

[Migara]

Not sure where this comes from. The other biggest leg-spinner during Warne's career, Kumble, averages 41 in England (career avge: 29).

They may have been slightly worse at playing spin than some other sides, but an argument that "England were minnows in playing spin" just isn't true. They were bad at playing Warne.

They were much worse playing Murali, and I think was clueless against Kumble on Indian tracks. However, they were the worst players of spin I have seen for a test side. Bangladesh, even as far back as in 2000 had some very gritty players against spin. Zimbabwe had Andy Flower, and others fought it out. SAF and NZ fought very hard. WI had Lara and Hooper who were magnificent in playing spin, although others were trash. England only became better after Trescothick and Thorpe started making runs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They were much worse playing Murali, and I think was clueless against Kumble on Indian tracks. However, they were the worst players of spin I have seen for a test side. Bangladesh, even as far back as in 2000 had some very gritty players against spin. Zimbabwe had Andy Flower, and others fought it out. SAF and NZ fought very hard. WI had Lara and Hooper who were magnificent in playing spin, although others were trash. England only became better after Trescothick and Thorpe started making runs.

I think you are getting a lot of this from your own personal experiences rather than the actual big picture. As far as I'm concerned how England played spin in Asia is irrelevant when discussing Warne because he never bowled to them in Asia.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Murali playing more against minnows though genuinely affects his statistics. Against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe he played a whopping 25 Tests and took 176 wickets @ 15. Compared to Warne who played I think, 3 Tests, against both combined.

Of course you can't control who you play but it inevitably affects stats.

It's also undeniable that Murali benefited from being a spinner playing in a spinner's country. His away bowling average is almost 28. (Warne's away average is 25, same as his home average, a country that is notoriously harsh on spinners).

I'm not saying that Warne was a definitively better bowler than Murali and that everyone should think that. But IMO he was a more valuable player, and anyone saying that Murali is comfortably better than Warne in any context is, quite frankly, on crack.

 

[trundler]

This is about as fruitful a discussion as arguing about Imran with smali.

 

[Jack1]

Murali playing more against minnows though genuinely affects his statistics. Against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe he played a whopping 25 Tests and took 176 wickets @ 15. Compared to Warne who played I think, 3 Tests, against both combined.

Of course you can't control who you play but it inevitably affects stats.

It's also undeniable that Murali benefited from being a spinner playing in a spinner's country. His away bowling average is almost 28. (Warne's away average is 25, same as his home average, a country that is notoriously harsh on spinners).

I'm not saying that Warne was a definitively better bowler than Murali and that everyone should think that. But IMO he was a more valuable player, and anyone saying that Murali is comfortably better than Warne in any context is, quite frankly, on crack.

Murali bowled 331.1 balls per game and Warne 280.7.

Murali had a higher workload. The bowlers at the other end also weren't creating the same pressure for Murali as they were for Warne. Warne also played in a better side that created more scoreboard pressure with the bat and more pressure from the other end with the ball. Warne also had better fielders and a better keeper. He also had less work load, therefore less fatigue and fresher in general when he had the ball in hand. There are plenty of factors at play here. They are quite difficult to compare and I'm not really sure definitively who the better bowler is. Warne's body struggled with the workload he had throughout his career, and Murali's workload was quite a lot higher percentage wise.

Warne didn't have to play against Australia either, who dominated with bat and ball throughout much of Warne's career.

 

[Migara]

I think you are getting a lot of this from your own personal experiences rather than the actual big picture. As far as I'm concerned how England played spin in Asia is irrelevant when discussing Warne because he never bowled to them in Asia.

English struggled against Murali even in England. Actually Murali has better stats than Warne in England. English may have been trash against spin or they must have been superb, but Murali did better than Warne in England.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

FFS, no touring spinner has better Average and SR than Murali in England.

 

[Migara]

It's also undeniable that Murali benefited from being a spinner playing in a spinner's country. His away bowling average is almost 28. (Warne's away average is 25, same as his home average, a country that is notoriously harsh on spinners)..

This includes a higher percentage of matches against India and Pakistan, who played spin better. If Murali played the same percentage of matches as Warne did against each opposition, he would have had a lower away average.

 

[Daemon]

English struggled against Murali even in England. Actually Murali has better stats than Warne in England. English may have been trash against spin or they must have been superb, but Murali did better than Warne in England.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

FFS, no touring spinner has better Average and SR than Murali in England.

Doesn't that support the point that they weren't very good v spin?

 

[Borges]

Actually Murali has better stats than Warne in England.

True. Looking at these numbers, it is safe to say that England were real minnows against spin during Warne/Murali time.