Best Spinner ever

[Ikki]

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 (wicets/match)). Your football example doesn't take that into account because all four placekickers are independent from one another and don't influence each other's probabilities of scoring.

I definately wouldn't rate them the same. That's me. As I said, one has a chance to fix his mistakes, the other doesn't.

Yes it doesn't take that into account, because in cricket there are only 11 wickets to take. So when others ARE taking wickets it DOES influence your probability of taking wickets. And something you can't measure in stats is momentum. When a bowler is on a run or streak he is more likely to take most of the wickets. In the Australian team there a few bowlers who can take that momentum. Warne has another all-timer on the other bloody end taking almost as many as he will. And it goes both ways. Warne puts pressure on one end while McGrath takes the wickets on the other end.

 

[Ikki]

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

Dude, Murali has 137 wickets from the two worst test sides in cricket. If that isn't going to bring him - or you - down to Earth I don't think anything will.

 

[Dasa]

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.

So I suppose Mark Waugh was a better batsman than Bradman, after all, he made more runs. And I suppose Kapil Dev was a better bowler than Richard Hadlee - again, more wickets.

Dude, Murali has 137 wickets from the two worst test sides in cricket. If that isn't going to bring him - or you - down to Earth I don't think anything will.

No-one in this thread (or pretty much anywhere) is rating a bowler on the sheer number of wickets they take. What matters is the bowling average, and to a lesser extent, strike rate. On these counts, Murali is statistically superior to Warne. You can still prefer Warne over Murali (like some prefer Lara over Tendulkar, or Richards over Chappell), but statistically one is clearly superior. Seems simple enough to understand, but in your words, you can "keep yourself deluded", dude. You're creating a straw man that you can take down easily because you seem unable to address the points people are actually making.

 

[Ikki]

So I suppose Mark Waugh was a better batsman than Bradman, after all, he made more runs. And I suppose Kapil Dev was a better bowler than Richard Hadlee - again, more wickets.

Yeah, that's the way I expect you to take it . Whilst no one is near Bradman's average, Murali's and Warne's aren't that far apart - except that Murali has a crapload of wickets from the worst teams...

Simply playing less games is one thing. Playing more games against the weaker competition is another.

 

[Ikki]

No-one in this thread (or pretty much anywhere) rates a bowler on the sheer number of wickets they take. What matters is Average, and to a lesser extent, Strike Rate. On these counts, Murali is statistically superior to Warne. Seems simple enough to understand, but in your words, you can "keep yourself deluded". You're creating a straw man that you can take down easily because you seem unable to address the points people are actually making.

Haha coulda fooled me mate. I wonder why Murali is always whinging about the record then?

 

[adharcric]

Of course, if CA had scheduled 50 extra matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, it wouldn't be Warne's fault that the matches scheduled for him were against those options.

You know what, you have a blind spot for anything anti-Warne regardless of how much merit it has. Not worth a debate. End of story.

 

[Dasa]

Haha coulda fooled me mate. I wonder why Murali is always whinging about the record then?

You're unbelievable. Unless you're a complete dolt, it's quite obvious what point I (and others are making), yet you still choose to ignore it. adharcric is right, it's not worth debating with you.

 

[Ikki]

Of course, if CA had scheduled 50 extra matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, it wouldn't be Warne's fault that the matches scheduled for him were against those options.

You know what, you have a blind spot for anything anti-Warne regardless of how much merit it has. Not worth a debate. End of story.

Point is: you take those two out and the statistics will show that Warne and Murali are very even in some instances, in few instances Murali is better and in fewer instances Warne is better. But the difference in wickets will be quite large. So all those things being so close yet the wicket haul will favour Warne more heavily.

Let Murali play better opposition regularly, try and fix his action and then we'll talk about this. I said it before, but I'll say it again, Warne is a legend - the greatest ever.

 

[JBH001]

Dude, Murali has 137 wickets from the two worst test sides in cricket. If that isn't going to bring him - or you - down to Earth I don't think anything will.

Again, here are the comparative figures with Zim and Bang removed from Murali's stats.

----------------------------------------------------

Well, 20 of Murali's test matches have been played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and his record against them is considerably better than his overall record.

Even so, Zimbabwe needs to be broken down into the pre Mugabe and post Mugabe phase - as in the pre Mugabe phase they did have a good test side with decent batsmen and bowlers and I would hardly classify them as minnows.

In any case, I nevertheless removed Murali's record against Zim and Bang.
Here are his revised test career stats against all nations except the above.
(not including current 1st test vs NZ)

88 Tests
29985 balls
12339 runs
520 wickets (5.9 wkts/test)
9/65 BBi
16/220 BBm
23.72 runs/wkt
57.66 balls/wkt
2.46 econ
43 5wi
13 10wm

These are Warne's total career figures.
Note, he played only 1 test versus Zimbabwe and his record his not much better than his career record, he has also played 2 tests against Bangladesh for a poorer record against them compared to his overall record.
Therefore Warne's figures against all test playing nations.
Warne's complete career figures:
(including 2nd Ashes test)

142 Test
40025 balls
17662 runs
694 wickets (4.88 wkts/test)
8/71 BBi
12/128 BBm
25.44 runs/wkt
57.67 balls/wkt
2.64 econ
36 5wi
10 10wm

Even removing the figures against Zim and Bang (though as I said Zim had a decent test side up until 2001 or thereabouts) Murali has better or equal figures in all departments.

-------------------------------------------------------

 

[Ikki]

You're unbelievable. Unless you're a complete dolt, it's quite obvious what point I (and others are making), yet you still choose to ignore it. adharcric is right, it's not worth debating with you.

Whatever mate. You're stuck on the numbers and, even with the differences being so small, you think it fit to just blurt out what you pompously imply to be the only answer. Sport is never as clear cut as these little figures and cricket is not an exception.

 

[Ikki]

Again, here are the comparative figures with Zim and Bang removed from Murali's stats.

----------------------------------------------------

Well, 20 of Murali's test matches have been played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and his record against them is considerably better than his overall record.

Even so, Zimbabwe needs to be broken down into the pre Mugabe and post Mugabe phase - as in the pre Mugabe phase they did have a good test side with decent batsmen and bowlers and I would hardly classify them as minnows.

In any case, I nevertheless removed Murali's record against Zim and Bang.
Here are his revised test career stats against all nations except the above.
(not including current 1st test vs NZ)

88 Tests
29985 balls
12339 runs
520 wickets (5.9 wkts/test)
9/65 BBi
16/220 BBm
23.72 runs/wkt
57.66 balls/wkt
2.46 econ
43 5wi
13 10wm

These are Warne's total career figures.
Note, he played only 1 test versus Zimbabwe and his record his not much better than his career record, he has also played 2 tests against Bangladesh for a poorer record against them compared to his overall record.
Therefore Warne's figures against all test playing nations.
Warne's complete career figures:
(including 2nd Ashes test)

142 Test
40025 balls
17662 runs
694 wickets (4.88 wkts/test)
8/71 BBi
12/128 BBm
25.44 runs/wkt
57.67 balls/wkt
2.64 econ
36 5wi
10 10wm

Even removing the figures against Zim and Bang (though as I said Zim had a decent test side up until 2001 or thereabouts) Murali has better or equal figures in all departments.

-------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but how much? 1% differences? 0.5% differenecs? Then take a look at the wicket hauls. Tell me the differences then. Statistics are fine to imply a prediction - when he actually gets there let me know.

 

[JBH001]

never mind - I am going on a road trip for 3 days.

So, it is time to consign another Warne vs Murali thread to the dustheap.
Hope we do not have one more of these for a while...

 

[Anil]

Point is: you take those two out and the statistics will show that Warne and Murali are very even in some instances, in few instances Murali is better and in fewer instances Warne is better. But the difference in wickets will be quite large. So all those things being so close yet the wicket haul will favour Warne more heavily.

Let Murali play better opposition regularly, try and fix his action and then we'll talk about this. I said it before, but I'll say it again, Warne is a legend - the greatest ever.

let kazholic come in with an unprejudiced mind, less of the blind warne love and then people will not walk away from arguments with him. true, you've said it before, you'll say it again and again and again....no one really cares you know.....

 

[Ikki]

let kazholic come in with an unprejudiced mind, less of the blind warne love and then people will not walk away from arguments with him. true, you've said it before, you'll say it again and again and again....no one really cares you know.....

It's fine, as I said before, we all have our preference and if you don't think others have a bias you're mistaken. I don't consider Murali's action acceptable, but I didn't say let's half the value of his wickets because of it, did I?