The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[mr_mister]

He is probably comparing stats from Aus Vs SL matches alone which is absolutely nonsensical given Aus was an ATG batting line up and SL during Warne's time put out one of their weakest batting line ups from memory in the noughties against them.

In '04 they had Jayasuriya, Attapattu, Jayawardene and Sangakkarra. Hardly scrubs. In this series Warne got 4 back to back five fers

 

[Malcolm]

He is probably comparing stats from Aus Vs SL matches alone which is absolutely nonsensical given Aus was an ATG batting line up and SL during Warne's time put out one of their weakest batting line ups from memory in the noughties against them.

Against spin ? Not really.

 

[Red]

No, Murali's record against India is far better.

No, if you read my post you can see I wrote "Warne's record against India in India is pretty much identical to Murali's"

People regularly use Warne's record in India against him, yet Murali's is very similar.

 

[Bolo.]

I think some people (and if I am honest, I probably agree) still think that Murali's action being cleared wasn't the right thing, but anyway. It does play into my thought processes, though. Personally I think that in a ATG team, you're gonna get a pretty similar output from either Murali or Warne with the ball, but I'd be inclined to go with a guy who mastered cricket's hardest art over one who had a lot of question marks over the legitimacy of his action.

In all this, I am not saying Murali wasn't a great bowler, he absolutely was. I just think Warne did a far more difficult thing at the same level of output, and is therefore a better bowler.

4 spinners have clearly mastered the art for my money. Murali plus three leggies. I don't think you should be crediting either in this way, but if you want to the credit clearly belongs to murali, not one of the other 3

I rate Murali on the same level as Warne ; coin toss really. After watching him bowl in that shoulder brace thingy there's no doubt in my mind that his action was clean. Afaic his wickets vs Zimbabwe/Bangladesh might raise eyebrows but you swap those tests for a team like NZ, Wi, RSA or England and he'd still probably end up with the same number wickets if only at a minuscule higher average. Murali was a fking beast!!

I barely care that Murali got cleared. Him demonstrating his mechanics is obvious enough (the brace and the shoulder thing). I assume all regular posters who think his action is dodgy have seen this? How do you think there is an issue after watching that?

 

[honestbharani]

In '04 they had Jayasuriya, Attapattu, Jayawardene and Sangakkarra. Hardly scrubs. In this series Warne got 4 back to back five fers

Sanga on debut and Jayawardene still in his early years and past his prime Jayasuriya. Only Atapattu and Tilakaratne were any good around then. Compare that to the prime Aussie golden generation batting line up.

 

[honestbharani]

Against spin ? Not really.

Yep, even against spin. And not to forget, the back-up of Warney was McGrath, Kasper and Gillespie at their peaks. Murali had Vaas who was close to peak but no one else, really.

 

[honestbharani]

4 spinners have clearly mastered the art for my money. Murali plus three leggies. I don't think you should be crediting either in this way, but if you want to the credit clearly belongs to murali, not one of the other 3



I barely care that Murali got cleared. Him demonstrating his mechanics is obvious enough (the brace and the shoulder thing). I assume all regular posters who think his action is dodgy have seen this? How do you think there is an issue after watching that?

Usually, bias. I actually have more time for folks who think Warne was the better spinner without resorting to the Murali's action non-issue.

 

[Spark]

I'm so glad that after 350 pages of this thread we've decided that the only way to analyse a batsman is "averages vs" and "averages in" in his cricinfo batting summary. Really captivating stuff here, exactly the reason we all watch this sport.

 

[sunilz]

Sanga on debut and Jayawardene still in his early years and past his prime Jayasuriya. Only Atapattu and Tilakaratne were any good around then. Compare that to the prime Aussie golden generation batting line up.

Sangakkara debuted in 2000, Jayawardene in 1997. That is enough time to get used to international cricket. Warne was a beast in 2004 series in SL.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sanga on debut and Jayawardene still in his early years and past his prime Jayasuriya. Only Atapattu and Tilakaratne were any good around then. Compare that to the prime Aussie golden generation batting line up.

Sanga was not on debut and mahela was 7 years into his career already

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm so glad that after 350 pages of this thread we've decided that the only way to analyse a batsman is "averages vs" and "averages in" in his cricinfo batting summary. Really captivating stuff here, exactly the reason we all watch this sport.

The most boring way you can analyze a batsmans ability and yet its the only thing some people do. Baffling.

 

[honestbharani]

Sangakkara debuted in 2000, Jayawardene in 1997. That is enough time to get used to international cricket. Warne was a beast in 2004 series in SL.

Sanga was not on debut and mahela was 7 years into his career already

Sanga was still keeping and was nowhere near the batsman he went on to be post that. Jayasuriya was nearing retirement. Jayawardene was still very much a blow hot blow cold batsman. Aussie line up was full of stars. I cannot believe it has to be spelled out that the Aussie batting line up in that series was >>> Sri Lanka's. And the bowling attack of Australia was also >> Sri Lanka's. If anything, it was the genius of Murali and Vaas and some solid knocks from Tilekaratne, Jayasuriya and Atapattu that ensured SL had chances to win all 3 tests. It was very comparable to the India in England series in 2018.

 

[Logan]

I'm so glad that after 350 pages of this thread we've decided that the only way to analyse a batsman is "averages vs" and "averages in" in his cricinfo batting summary. Really captivating stuff here, exactly the reason we all watch this sport.

We watch the sport because love cricket. That’s the biggest reason we get into meaningless debates about who is better.

Honestly it is the simplest way to analyse a batsman. Not all of us are DoG.

 

[Victor Ian]

For a decade and a bit he was ... and one of, if not the best 5th bowler ever too.

this thread should steer this way if it hasnt already.

 

[Red]

I'm so glad that after 350 pages of this thread we've decided that the only way to analyse a batsman is "averages vs" and "averages in" in his cricinfo batting summary. Really captivating stuff here, exactly the reason we all watch this sport.

The most boring way you can analyze a batsmans ability and yet its the only thing some people do. Baffling.

It's relevant when comparing players who played in similar eras in terms of how they fared. Sure, it's simple, but it's maths.

But please, regale us with more of your Cardus/Haigh level of cricket-analysis-fluent-poetry-prose. Add something decent to discuss, if you're soooo much above what others are discussing.

 

[Spark]

It's relevant when comparing players who played in similar eras in terms of how they fared. Sure, it's simple, but it's maths.

But please, regale us with more of your Cardus/Haigh level of cricket-analysis-fluent-poetry-prose. Add something decent to discuss, if you're soooo much above what others are discussing.

It detracts more than it helps. It imputes precision and certainty where none exist and creates false confidence. When you slice a batsman's record into such small pieces, the error margins on each number are so massive that it is statistically dishonest to draw firm conclusions from any of these numbers.

 

[stephen]

WHAT???????????????????

Warne
Matches : 9
Wickets : 48
Average : 20.46
SR : 39.67
5 WPI : 6

Murali
Matches : 73
Wickets : 493
Average : 19.57
SR : 50.8
5 WPI : 45

Now take out the wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and you'll find that he had 372 wickets at 22. So not only did Warne take his wickets at a lower average than Murali in Sri Lanka when playing them, but he did so even if you count Murali's wickets against all other top 8 opposition.

It's entirely fair to consider Murali to be better than Warne. It's entirely unfair to base it on their respective records against India. When they toured India both bowlers were similarly thrashed. When India toured them, one side prepared wickets to favor their team, the other side prepared wickets to neuter their bowlers enough so tests lasted 5 days.

 

[stephen]

And I should add that exceptional circumstances existed for most of the times Warne actually played India. It's a huge shame that Warne missed the home series in 03/04 because that would have been the only time he'd have played them at the peak of his powers at home (his shoulder needed reconstructing before the 98 series but he played on anyway despite barely having a tendon left).

I do feel that Warne retired in the 06/07 Ashes series too soon but I also feel that a part of it was to have a fairytale ending rather than to have to play India in 07/08. I think Tendulkar in particular totally psyched out Warne.

 

[h_hurricane]

Now take out the wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and you'll find that he had 372 wickets at 22. So not only did Warne take his wickets at a lower average than Murali in Sri Lanka when playing them, but he did so even if you count Murali's wickets against all other top 8 opposition.

It's entirely fair to consider Murali to be better than Warne. It's entirely unfair to base it on their respective records against India. When they toured India both bowlers were similarly thrashed. When India toured them, one side prepared wickets to favor their team, the other side prepared wickets to neuter their bowlers enough so tests lasted 5 days.

There is a myth going around that only teams from the subcontinent prepare pitches to favor the home team. Every side prepares tracks to favor the home team. No one wants to be nice to the touring team. Is it debatable ?

 

[stephen]

There is a myth going around that only teams from the subcontinent prepare pitches to favor the home team. Every side prepares tracks to favor the home team. No one wants to be nice to the touring team. Is it debatable ?

Australia prepares decks to last 5 days and it was worse since the turn of the century. The 2014/15 India series was the absolute worst case of that in living memory. It simply offered nothing to our bowlers mostly to guarantee 5 day tests after the retirement of Sachin, Sehwag and Dravid. Cricket Australia did not want Johnson to run through the Indian batsmen and turn the tests into 3 day affairs.

Even back in Warne's day, after 2000, Warne averaged substantially less overseas (24) than in Australia (30). Australia has never been good for spinners (which is why Murali had such a dire average here) but it's been utterly woeful for spinners since most of the main grounds switched to drop in pitches.

The backlash in the last couple of years about the MCG and Gabba is hopefully a reversal of that trend.