Well, it was 2 tests which is what a series against BD was through that period. Murali had like 4 tests against them in BD. And it is upto you to read what you want from any sample size. And if you actually saw the game, its not just sample size anymore, is it? I feel they played him comfortably enough and were actively attacking him and he did not look like he had answers until the others got wickets or he got them out slogging. I mean, its funny how the sample size argument is toted out to excuse failures but same can't be used to explain successes? Or even Murali's failures in Australia...
If you can't see the obvious bias in these "arguments"..... And that is what I was pointing out.
And 4 innings > 1.
Hick also took 5 wickets against India that series, bur none of that nullifies my actual point. Warne was smashed in 2 tests where Murali rolled over them in 4, playing for a much less accomplished side. Why is it fair that this needs to be "removed" when comparing the two?
Murali played 11 Tests against Bangladesh, and took 11% of his wickets against them (you limiting it to "in BD" is a completely nosnensical criteria clearly chosen to make your argument seem less spurious). That is as significant a sample as you're going to get, and he has the same again against Zimbabwe.
You are drawing false equivalencies. 11 Tests is a significant sample. 2 is not. It's not rocket science.
And even if we forget about your ridiculous claim that England in the 90s were worse at playing spin than Bangladesh in the 00s, or even if we
pretend against all indications and evidence that it's true, it still doesn't do anything to support the reason you brought it up in the first place.
You were trying to claim that Warne's stats benefit from beating up on England in the 90s. Yet, for the 3rd time in this thread now, I will again point out that Warne averaged
24.28 against England in the 90s. He objectively, and statistically, did not get any significant advantage out of playing them a lot.
So you can forget about that whole line of argument, that you've already comprehensively lost, because even if you were right, it's completely irrelevant to your argument anyway.
No one has to "remove" anyone's stats against anyone. If you want to rate Murali highly because of the beating up of minnows part of his career that's fine, but it's perfectly reasonable and sensible for someone else to consider it something that bares consideration because it clearly has had a massive statistical influence on his career. None of which you can say about Warne v England. It's a really bad false equivalency.
