Best Spinner ever

[vic_orthdox]

i don't think so...in fact that would just be another excuse(a really lame one) to cover up his failure there....in any case, he's failed against india in australia as well....

You're a product of where you come from.

EDIT: That's in reference to Warne, BTW, not saying anything about Anil.

 

[Anil]

You're a product of where you come from.

may be true in a general way but doesn't really stand as a response to my statement...

 

[Anil]

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.

one might assume wrong....

Mat Ave SR
in England 22 21.94 52.3
in England 6 19.20 48.2
in India 9 43.11 81.0
in India 8 39.58 81.8
in New Zealand 9 21.30 51.4
in New Zealand 4 29.38 77.0
in Pakistan 3 28.00 60.5
in Pakistan 7 21.48 50.1
in South Africa 12 24.31 60.3
in South Africa 6 26.02 60.5
in West Indies 7 39.64 78.2
in West Indies 4 18.24 41.9

murali has the better away average in 4 of the 6 locations outside of zim, bang, sl and aus and in three of these places, he has the better strike rate as well....

 

[Jono]

Fair average in the Windies for Murali.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I went for Warne. As an Aussie I may well be biased by national sentiment and the fact I've seen vastly more of Warne bowling, but he remains the greatest bowler I've seen and the one I'd pick if I had my choice of watching anyone in the world at the moment.

Personally, and without at all wishing to be offensive to anyone, I do think that Murali delivers the ball with an illegal action. I know that it is not illegal according to the new laws, but I disagree with those laws. I don't consider Murali a cheat, because I accept that is the only way he can deliver the ball, and that he's not deliberately seeking an unfair advantage, but it does affect my view of him. Although I think people who go to matches he plays at and yell "no ball" at him are cretins...

I only read this far into the thread, and this sums up my view perfectly.

 

[Jono]

I only read this far into the thread, and this sums up my view perfectly.

Even the use of the word 'cretin'

 

[vic_orthdox]

SilentStriker, why such concern over Murali's doosra when he was arguably bowling better when he didn't use it regularly? You say that your judgement of him depends on the legality of the doosra, making it sound as though it's the key to his bowling.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

one might assume wrong....

Mat Ave SR
in England 22 21.94 52.3
in England 6 19.20 48.2
in India 9 43.11 81.0
in India 8 39.58 81.8
in New Zealand 9 21.30 51.4
in New Zealand 4 29.38 77.0
in Pakistan 3 28.00 60.5
in Pakistan 7 21.48 50.1
in South Africa 12 24.31 60.3
in South Africa 6 26.02 60.5
in West Indies 7 39.64 78.2
in West Indies 4 18.24 41.9

murali has the better away average in 4 of the 6 locations outside of zim, bang, sl and aus and in three of these places, he has the better strike rate as well....

Fair enough. I guess Warne has the better average away from home because of his record in Sri Lanka compared to Murali's record in Australia then? Warne also had one really great series against Pakistan on neutral territory that wouldn't count for any of those stats.

 

[adharcric]

Some of you have said that Murali's action is illegal and at the same time that you are not considering the ICC laws. Please define "illegal".

 

[JBH001]

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.

Thats an interesting argument Faaip.
I guess what you mean is that the number of Murali's home tests skew the stats in his direction? I can see how that would work, and to a certain extent it does work.
But as Anil has shown Murali's figures even overseas are usually better than Warne's.
It is only in NZ that Warne has a clear advantage over Murali - elsewhere Murali is either better, or equal to Warne. I guess what it means is that Murali's woeful record in Australia really skews his overseas stats against him - I think he averages 60 in Oz with 8 wkts in 3 tests. Though even then, that was with the help of the recent test where he took 5 wkts in the test - however, even then, he was not playing for his country (ICC XI vs Aus XI).

Interestingly Warne had average figures against Sri Lanka (worst after India) and poor figures in Sri Lanka until his comeback 2003/04 series, iirc. He took 26 wickets in the series and bowled beautifully and brilliantly. Ironically Murali also bowled exceptionally in the series, also taking 26 wickets in the series at nearly identical avg and sr, iirc.

The difference was the support cast of bowlers, and the fact that Australia was the best side in the world, with a great batting line-up. They won the series 3 - 0, I think.

As I said, if one accepts Murali's action (doosra and all) then I find it difficult to comprehend how one can reasonably stack Warne as his equal. Warne has been part of one of the greatest ever cricketing sides, he has bowled in tandem with over the years one of the best attacks of all time (including arguably the best pace bowler of all time at the other end), and been supported by a team stacked with superstar batsman who usually rack up big scores at a very quick pace. And yet, his figures are at best only just comparable to Murali's and are usually markedly inferior - despite the fact that Murali has none of those aforementioned advantages in his favour.

 

[Anil]

Fair enough. I guess Warne has the better average away from home because of his record in Sri Lanka compared to Murali's record in Australia then? Warne also had one really great series against Pakistan on neutral territory that wouldn't count for any of those stats.

ok i didn't count the neutral ground one...there are actually three neutral tests against pakistan where warne has actually great stats...

v Pakistan 3 matches 27 wickets 12.66 ave 27.5 SR

in Sri Lanka 1 match 11 wickets 17.09 ave 30.0 SR
in U.A.E. 2 matches 16 wickets 9.62 ave 25.8 SR

murali's bad record in australia compared to warne's excellent record in sri lanka would probably explain why the overall away record sans zim and bang is slightly in warne's favour....

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Even the use of the word 'cretin'

Haha, well no. I'd never use cretin myself.

 

[Ikki]

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

Did about 40% of their wickets come from two shocking teams (Zimbabwe/Bangladesh) and the 8-11 batsmen? His [Murali] wicket haul is padded so much it's ridiculous.

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.

The point is Murali is rarely, if ever, replaced. If he is having a bad innings he usually rounds it off by taking wickets simply by bowling so much. Okay, if he is going to have it bad with a few batsmen, that may affect his record, but he eventually will be taking the mid to lower order wickets and, a wicket is a wicket, hence will even itself out again.

But if Warne is bowling bad in a game he simply won't have the opportunity to redeem himself. He has had such a great line-up beside him that if he fails the others WILL take the wickets.

But that can still happen even if he is bowling great. I've seen plenty of innings where Warne is bowling beautifully but everytime...bang, bang, bang bang - out at the other end and Shane ends up empty handed. Goes both ways mate.

 

[silentstriker]

Did about 40% of their wickets come from two shocking teams (Zimbabwe/Bangladesh) and the 8-11 batsmen? His [Murali] wicket haul is padded so much it's ridiculous.

And yet if you take out the two countries, his wickets/test is still higher. Stop harping on this when you can easily see that his record is still better after those two are removed.

 

[adharcric]

Did about 40% of their wickets come from two shocking teams (Zimbabwe/Bangladesh) and the 8-11 batsmen? His [Murali] wicket haul is padded so much it's ridiculous.

The point is Murali is rarely, if ever, replaced. If he is having a bad innings he usually rounds it off by taking wickets simply by bowling so much. Okay, if he is going to have it bad with a few batsmen, that may affect his record, but he eventually will be taking the mid to lower order wickets and, a wicket is a wicket, hence will even itself out again.

But if Warne is bowling bad in a game he simply won't have the opportunity to redeem himself. He has had such a great line-up beside him that if he fails the others WILL take the wickets.

You seem to be the only one on this forum who thinks that strike rate doesn't mean anything. Get over it.

 

[Ikki]

And yet if you take out the two countries, his wickets/test is still higher. Stop harping on this when you can easily see that his record is still better after those two are removed.

I'm not talking about his stats and what we may 'assume' off of them. I'm talking about the wickets he's taken. Now try 40% of 650 wickets. That's a ****load.

You seem to be the only one on this forum who thinks that strike rate doesn't mean anything. Get over it.

Ok, let me dumb it down for you. I'll use football as a simple example.

Say in a team you have 4 penalty takers who are allowed to take 5 each. Then another team only uses one player to take all 20

If Warne is in the first team and scores 1 goal out of his 5 shots it will equal the same strike rate as Murali - saying he is in the second team - who gets 4 out of 20 shots.

Now while Warne doesn't have the luxury of missing too many, Murali CAN make up for his errors. He can miss 16 shots and get the last 4 in a row.

If you don't concede that it goes both ways then I have nothing to say to you. Keep yourself deluded.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm not talking about his stats and what we may 'assume' off of them. I'm talking about the wickets he's taken. Now try 40% of 650 wickets. That's a ****load.

So discount them. And he still does better.

 

[Ikki]

So discount them. And he still does better.

Discount those wickets? He'd have to play into his forties just to get near Warne's wicket haul then. Even with them he's still less.

 

[adharcric]

Ok, let me dumb it down for you. I'll use football as a simple example.

Say in a team you have 4 penalty takers who are allowed to take 5 each. Then another team only uses one player to take all 20

If Warne is in the first team and scores 1 goal out of his 5 shots it will equal the same strike rate as Murali - saying he is in the second team - who gets 4 out of 25 shots.

Now while Warne doesn't have the luxury of missing too many, Murali CAN make up for his errors. He can miss 16 shots and get the last 4 in a row.

If you don't concede that it goes both ways then I have nothing to say to you. Keep yourself deluded.

There's a reason cricket and football are two different sports.

I would rate the guy who makes 1 out of 5 just as highly as the guy who makes 4 out of 20. That's not the issue. In cricket, having good support from the other bowlers means that the batsmen have to attack you as well and that increases your chances of taking wickets (when I say that, I mean wickets per over (strike rate), not per match (wickets/match)). Your football example doesn't take that into account because all four placekickers are independent of one another and don't influence each other's probabilities of scoring.

It does go both ways. For the no-support guy, you get more wickets/match. For the support guy, you get a better strike rate. That's why most people discount wickets/match. That gives you a comparison where having support DEFINITELY is a positive and the fact that Warne still comes out behind Murali is huge.

Now, you're probably going to ignore what I've said about wickets/match not mattering and come up another crap argument about how Murali gets more wickets per match because he has no support.

 

[adharcric]

Discount those wickets? He'd have to play into his forties just to get near Warne's wicket haul then. Even with them he's still less.

Now you're going to reward Warne for playing more matches against non-minnows? Lovely.