Best Spinner ever

[silentstriker]

Read properly, quote properly and stop making errors. I said take his wickets from batsmen:

- 8-11
- Zimbabwe
- Bangladesh

And that is almost 40% of his wickets.

Try again.

Wait, why would the 8-11 thing even be an issue at all if Warne feasts on lower order wickets more than Murali?

Secondly, his average and strike rates are superior even when you exclude Zimabwe and Bangladesh.

 

[Ikki]

Wait, why would the 8-11 thing even be an issue at all if Warne feasts on lower order wickets more than Murali?

Secondly, his average and strike rates are superior even when you exclude Zimabwe and Bangladesh.

I was answering in response to another poster. Cliche arguments are that Warne feasts on lower order wickets when someone brings up the Zimbabwe and Bangladesh argument. The difference between his record and Murali's is roughly 6-7% which is meagre if you're trying to prove anything about superiority. But once you couple that record with the bucketloads of wickets he got from Bangladesh and Zimbabwe it only spells one thing:

P-A-D-D-E-D

And how is his strike rate and average lower when you exclude those two?

            Mat    O       R   W   BBI    BBM     Ave  Econ    SR  5 10

Zimbabwe    14  786.5  1467  87  9/51  13/115  [COLOR="Red"]16.86[/COLOR]  1.86   54.2  6  2

Bangladesh   6   238.5   626  50  6/18  10/98   [COLOR="Red"]12.52[/COLOR]  2.62  28.6  7  2

Murali's career average is 21.96. Look at the averages above - much lower don't you think? How could it get BETTER by removing them?

 

[silentstriker]

Murali's career average is 21.96. Look at the averages above - much lower don't you think? How could it get BETTER by removing them?

It doesn't get better but it remains better than Warne, which is what the point was. I don't rate Murali because he chucks, and Warne doesn't, but on stats Murali comes out ahead in virtually every way.

 

[Ikki]

It doesn't get better but it remains better than Warne, which is what the point was. I don't rate Murali because he chucks, and Warne doesn't, but on stats Murali comes out ahead in virtually every way.

And what is the difference for the love of God? 0.5%? Sheesh. Some people seem to lose all realism.

 

[silentstriker]

vs. England
Murali: 19.74 avg,
Warne: 23.22 avg

Advantage: Murali


vs. India
Murali: 32.48 avg
Warne: 47.19 avg.

Advantage: Murali

vs. NZ
Murali: 23.69 avg
Warne: 24.38 avg

Advantage: Murali

vs. Pakistan
Murali: 23.32 avg
Warne: 20.18 avg

Advantage: Warne

vs. SA
Murali: 22.22 avg
Warne: 24.17 avg

Advantage: Murali

vs. WI
Murali: 17.34 avg
Murali: 29.95 avg

Advantage: Murali

So the final score is: 5-1, Murali.

 

[silentstriker]

And what is the difference for the love of God? 0.5%? Sheesh. Some people seem to lose all realism.

So now your argument shifts to 'well he's not much better', right?

 

[Ikki]

So now your argument shifts to 'well he's not much better', right?

No. The point is much broader than this. Just to give you a window: last year when Francis was arguing this same thing, with C_C I think it was, WARNE had the better strike-rate. It's non-sense is fluffly.

Warne has to share his wickets, Murali does not. Warne has to make the batsmen play, Murali does not. It is not cut and dry to say one person is better because of a 0.5% difference.

He has a better average, some say that's AMAZING because he has to bowl so much, well my friend, it's not that remarkable if you see him getting nowhere earlier in the match and rounding it off eventually with a few wickets and bringing his average down. As I said, Hadlee may be a close representative to what Murali is and he himself said that by bowling enough wickets and keeping it tight wickets WILL come.

One thing you can't deny is what I said about regarding the origin of almost 40% of Murali's wickets and for me, they're so close that, that is what it boils down to - Murali's record is heavily padded.

 

[adharcric]

No. The point is much broader than this. Just to give you a window: last year when Francis was arguing this same thing, with C_C I think it was, WARNE had the better strike-rate. It's non-sense is fluffly.

Warne has to share his wickets, Murali does not. Warne has to make the batsmen play, Murali does not. It is not cut and dry to say one person is better because of a 0.5% difference.

Do you not get it? Warne has to share his wickets "per match", because there are only twenty to be taken, but he does not have to share his wickets "per over".
In fact, he should get more wickets "per over" because the batsmen don't have the option to simply play him out and attack McGrath and Gillespie on the other end.
If you haven't figured it out yet, this wickets "per over" thing is pretty much the strike rate. Murali's lack of support widens the narrow advantage he has over Warne strike-rate-wise. Please try to understand this before citing another piece of rubbish regarding how having support hurts your strike-rate.

 

[silentstriker]

No. The point is much broader than this. Just to give you a window: last year when Francis was arguing this same thing, with C_C I think it was, WARNE had the better strike-rate. It's non-sense is fluffly.

Warne has to share his wickets, Murali does not. Warne has to make the batsmen play, Murali does not. It is not cut and dry to say one person is better because of a 0.5% difference.

Its the .5 difference, better average, more wickets per test, better performance vs. virtually every opponent, and succeeding despite having worse bowling support.

 

[gunner]

take out both their averages against zim and bangla and then post their career stats

 

[silentstriker]

take out both their averages against zim and bangla and then post their career stats

vs. England
Murali: 19.74 avg,
Warne: 23.22 avg

Advantage: Murali


vs. India
Murali: 32.48 avg
Warne: 47.19 avg.

Advantage: Murali

vs. NZ
Murali: 23.69 avg
Warne: 24.38 avg

Advantage: Murali

vs. Pakistan
Murali: 23.32 avg
Warne: 20.18 avg

Advantage: Warne

vs. SA
Murali: 22.22 avg
Warne: 24.17 avg

Advantage: Murali

vs. WI
Murali: 17.34 avg
Murali: 29.95 avg

Advantage: Murali

So the final score is: 5-1, Murali.

 

[adharcric]

take out both their averages against zim and bangla and then post their career stats

read and then post

 

[Anil]

No. The point is much broader than this. Just to give you a window: last year when Francis was arguing this same thing, with C_C I think it was, WARNE had the better strike-rate. It's non-sense is fluffly.

Warne has to share his wickets, Murali does not. Warne has to make the batsmen play, Murali does not. It is not cut and dry to say one person is better because of a 0.5% difference.

what in the world does that mean?

warne has so much more quality support to put pressure on the batsmen, murali does not, warne is more often than not used in the role of a strike bowler, murali is strike bowler and stock bowler rolled into one most of the time, hence shoulders much more of a burden and yet delivers more magnificently....

 

[Ikki]

Do you not get it? Warne has to share his wickets "per match", because there are only twenty to be taken, but he does not have to share his wickets "per over".
In fact, he should get more wickets "per over" because the batsmen don't have the option to simply play him out and attack McGrath and Gillespie on the other end.
If you haven't figrured it out yet, this wickets "per over" thing I'm talking about is the strike rate.
Murali's lack of support widens the narrow advantage he has over Warne strike-rate-wise.

Exactly, how many damn overs do you think Murali is going to bowl by the end of his career? He's bowled 34 less matches and is only 4k bowls off Warne.

And mate, have you had a sniff of McGrath's and Dizzy's stats?

Simply having overs to ball is not the point. Depending on which situation, what the role is, Warne's changes inning by inning. Murali's got the same role. Give the guy the ball and let him bowl his brains out. When Warne is bowling openly and creatively of course he is going to get knocked a few more times, but he has to in order to compete in the wicket stakes. Those dudes (in his own team) ARE going to take wickets and there WILL be innings where he may not even get a wicket. Yet their differences are peanuts? FFS.

 

[silentstriker]

Exactly, how many damn overs do you think Murali is going to bowl by the end of his career? He's bowled 34 less matches and is only 4k bowls off Warne.

And mate, have you had a sniff of McGrath's and Dizzy's stats?

Simply having overs to ball is not the point. Depending on which situation, what the role is, Warne's changes inning by inning. Murali's got the same role. Give the guy the ball and let him bowl his brains out. When Warne is bowling openly and creatively of course he is going to get knocked a few more times, but he has to in order to compete in the wicket stakes. Those dudes (in his own team) ARE going to take wickets and there WILL be innings where he may not even get a wicket. Yet their differences are peanuts? FFS.

So basically, Richard Hadlee was overrated because he was in the same situation? And Dennis Lillee?

 

[silentstriker]

Exactly, how many damn overs do you think Murali is going to bowl by the end of his career? He's bowled 34 less matches and is only 4k bowls off Warne.

And mate, have you had a sniff of McGrath's and Dizzy's stats?

Simply having overs to ball is not the point. Depending on which situation, what the role is, Warne's changes inning by inning. Murali's got the same role. Give the guy the ball and let him bowl his brains out. When Warne is bowling openly and creatively of course he is going to get knocked a few more times, but he has to in order to compete in the wicket stakes. Those dudes (in his own team) ARE going to take wickets and there WILL be innings where he may not even get a wicket. Yet their differences are peanuts? FFS.

Actually, if he is not bowling well then he gets taken off so his stats don't suffer. If Murali isn't bowling well, there is no one to replace him, so has to deal with having bad stats. Murali should have much worse stats, but he has better stats.

 

[gunner]

read and then post

you should try reading yourself too

i didnt say 1 by 1 country stats

i meant over all career stats excluding both these teams

 

[silentstriker]

you should try reading yourself too

i didnt say 1 by 1 country stats

i meant over all career stats excluding both these teams

Add em up, take the average.

 

[adharcric]

you should try reading yourself too

i didnt say 1 by 1 country stats

i meant over all career stats excluding both these teams

Do you expect Warne to magically have better figures overall when Murali has better figures against nearly every country?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

One thing I always found interesting, while we're trotting out country-by-country stats, is that Warne's away average and his record in Sri Lanka are both better than Murali's, when you take away the minnows. This is despite presumably playing better players of spin there who are more familiar with the conditions most of the time - Sri Lankan batsmen.

Warne in Sri Lanka - 9 tests, 48 wickets @ 20.46
Murali in Sri Lanka excluding Bang/Zim - 50 tests, 311 wickets @ 22.13

Murali away excluding Bang/Zim - 38 tests, 209 wickets @ 26.11
Warne away excluding Bang/Zim - 73 tests, 372 wickets @ 24.56

One might assume, if you looked up the country-by-country stats, that Warne had better records IN most of these countries, while Murali has better records overall against them because he plays them a hell of a lot in Sri Lanka, where many opposing batsmen struggle to come to terms with the conditions, and both Warne and Murali thrive. In fact, he has played 61 of his 108 tests at home.