Best Spinner ever

[steds]

He asked for what you think about them, not what you know about them.

 

[a massive zebra]

Those of you who said Murali, I want to know why.

When Wisden assembled exactly one hundred distinguished judges of the game for its 2000 edition and asked them to settle on five “Cricketers of the Century”, Shane Warne’s name was on that exalted list. In effect, the accolade named Warne as the greatest bowler of all time.

Five years on and Warne stands as the all-time leading wicket-taker in Test matches. He has taken more wickets than Lillee and Thomson combined. Wisden in 2005 called him the leading cricketer in the world. Yet there are grave doubts. Warne is hardly a bowling, or even a spinning, equivalent to Sir Donald Bradman. A detailed look at the statistics can do nothing but lead one to believe that Warne's unparalleled reputation is based more on style and charisma than genuine bowling substance. If the figures are to be trusted, Muttiah Muralitharan leaves Warne for dead and is easily the greatest spinner of our times.

1) Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (43 wickets at 47.18). Murali has done far better against them (67 wickets at 32.47).

2) Murali has a better average, strike rate, economy rate, and takes more wickets per match than Warne; despite the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team.

Mat O R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 107 5969.1 1554 14275 652 21.89 9-51 56 18 54.9 2.39
Warne 141 6581.5 1724 17460 683 25.56 8-71 36 10 57.8 2.65


3) Murali has a better record against all countries, except Pakistan who effectively fielded a youth team on Warne’s most successful tour there.

4) Murali is far more consistent. Warne has been known to be hit around occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he has very rarely been smashed around the park.

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
22 2 107 0 4.86 1st Test v SL in SL 1992 at Colombo (SSC)
30 2 104 3 3.47 3rd Test v Pak in Pak 1994/95 at Lahore
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
15.5 2 70 1 4.42 3rd Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Bridgetown
13 1 60 0 4.62 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1999/00 at Sydney
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur
24 4 84 1 3.50 3rd Test v Pak in Aus 2004/05 at Sydney
19.2 2 77 1 3.98 3rd Test v WI in Aus 2005/06 at Adelaide
20 1 112 0 5.60 1st Test v BD in BD 2005/06 at Fatullah

Murali
36 6 123 1 3.42 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
20 2 83 2 4.15 2nd Test v Pak in Pak 1995/96 at Faisalabad
54 3 224 2 4.15 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin
25 2 96 2 3.84 2nd Test v Ind in SL 2001 at Kandy
30 3 102 2 3.40 Only Test v Aus in Aus 2005/06 at Sydney
36 4 128 3 3.56 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2005/06 at Ahmedabad


5) Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because Australia have four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is exerted upon the batsman by the higher class Australian bowlers at the other end). For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee. Marshall had a better average because the other outstanding West Indian bowlers maintained penetration, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. However, Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate, which suggests strongly that he is a class above the Australian. Furthermore, when McGrath does not play, Warne averages a Kumblesque 28, and Murali has never had a bowler of anything like McGrath's quality to call upon.

6) A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. Of Shane Warne’s 683 Test victims, 36.7% have occupied numbers 8-11 in the batting order (the highest proportion among all bowlers with over 300 Test wickets), while the comparative figure for Murali is just 30.7% - a significant difference of 19.5%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head. A bowler who can trouble the likes of Bradman or Tendulkar surely deserves far more credit than a colleague feasting on the easy pickings of Mbangwa and Aislabie.

7) Although Warne has been less effective since his shoulder injury, even at his peak (1993-97) he was not as effective as Murali has been this century.

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 2000-2003 37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97 57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24

8) You could take a look at their respective records in the English county championship (correct to the end of the 2005 season):

Mat Balls M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 25 7695 391 2735 185 14.78 7-39 21 6 41.5 2.13
Warne 51 11837 423 5583 226 24.70 7-99 13 0 52.3 2.82

9) Murali on top form is more devastating than Warne on top form.

Best innings:

9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998
8/46 M Muralitharan v West Indies at Kandy, 2nd Test
8/70 M Muralitharan v England at Trent Bridge, 3rd Test, 2006
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001

Best Series:

Murali
Sri Lanka in Pakistan, 1999/00 [Series]
3 213.1 516 26 6/71 19.84 2.42 49.1 1 1
South Africa in Sri Lanka, 2000 [Series]
3 227.4 480 26 7/84 18.46 2.10 52.5 3 1
Zimbabwe in Sri Lanka, 2001/02 [Series]
3 203.1 294 30 9/51 9.80 1.44 40.6 2 1
England in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 231.4 320 26 7/46 12.30 1.38 53.4 1 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 209.1 649 28 6/59 23.17 3.10 44.8 4 1
Sri Lanka in England, 2006 [Series]
3 146.2 405 24 8/70 16.87 2.76 36.5 2 2
Warne
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1993 [Series]
6 439.5 877 34 5/82 25.79 1.99 77.6 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1994/95 [Series]
5 256.1 549 27 8/71 20.33 2.14 56.9 2 1
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2001 [Series]
5 195.2 580 31 7/165 18.70 2.96 37.8 3 1
Australia v Pakistan Test Series in Sri Lanka/U.A.E., 2002/03 [Series]
3 124 342 27 7/94 12.66 2.75 27.5 2 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 168 521 26 5/43 20.03 3.10 38.7 4 2
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2005 [Series]
5 252.5 797 40 6/46 12/246 19.92 3.15 37.9 3 2

10) One reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.

 

[Turbinator]

They are spinners that play for India.

Yup, what Steds said, please explain further.

 

[silentstriker]

He asked for what you think about them, not what you know about them.

I think that one uses his wrist to spin the ball, but uses more bounce and pace to get his wicket. While the other uses his fingers for the offspin and his elbow for the doosra.

Kumble is one of the top three spinners to play for India. Harbhajan also plays for India.

 

[silentstriker]

5) Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because Australia have four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is exerted upon the batsman by the higher class Australian bowlers at the other end). For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee. Marshall had a better average because the other outstanding West Indian bowlers maintained penetration, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. However, Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate, which suggests strongly that he is a class above the Australian. Furthermore, when McGrath does not play, Warne averages a Kumblesque 28, and Murali has never had a bowler of anything like McGrath's quality to call upon.

6) A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. Of Shane Warne’s 683 Test victims, 36.7% have occupied numbers 8-11 in the batting order (the highest proportion among all bowlers with over 300 Test wickets), while the comparative figure for Murali is just 30.7% - a significant difference of 19.5%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer.

I think this should really clinch it for a lot of people IMO, assuming he doesn't chuck I think you do have to rate him, by far, the best spinner of all time.

But unluckily for him, that assumption isn't always true.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah I have heard alot of people say that Murali's figures are only better than Warne's because of how the pitches r prepared in SL but i think the fact that Warne plays with a much better attack backing him up and the fact that he doesnt have to bowl to the best batting lineup in the world more than balances things out. Also some have said that Murali benefits from bowling to the lesser nations such as Zim and Bang. But having seen his performances against England (in England) and against RSa recently I am convinced that had he had more tests against these teams he still would have maintained his statistical supremacy over Warne.

 

[Turbinator]

I think that one uses his wrist to spin the ball, but uses more bounce and pace to get his wicket. While the other uses his fingers for the offspin and his elbow for the doosra.

Kumble is one of the top three spinners to play for India. Harbhajan also plays for India.

Speaking of bowlers, do you think Zaheer Khan, Sreesanth, and Pathan make a deadly pace attack?

 

[andmark]

I have realised what about batting

 

[Matt79]

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...

 

[Perm]

No matter what people try and tell me I'll always rate Warne above Muralitharan because of the issues over the doosra and the number of wickets Muralitharan has picked up against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. I'll not try and justify my decision with numbers because in this case it is a preferential decision that I would like Warne more than Muralitharan.

In saying all that, I was very disappointed with how negative Warne was yesterday when he came up against a batsman who can dominant him. Very disappointed indeed.

 

[Perm]

Speaking of bowlers, do you think Zaheer Khan, Sreesanth, and Pathan make a deadly pace attack?

Some friendly baiting going on here I see.

 

[silentstriker]

Speaking of bowlers, do you think Zaheer Khan, Sreesanth, and Pathan make a deadly pace attack?

I think the West Indian pace quartet at its peak was but a mere shadow of the greatness that these guys put on. In fact, the only reason they are ever rubbish is on purpose, to give the other sides a chance to win, otherwise it would be futile and the game would be no fun .

 

[adharcric]

I think the West Indian pace quartet at its peak was but a mere shadow of the greatness that these guys put on. In fact, the only reason they are ever rubbish is on purpose, to give the other sides a chance to win, otherwise it would be futile and the game would be no fun .

What are your comments on the blistering pace of Munaf Patel and Sreesanth?
Surely, Pathan's loss of pace isn't a problem ... after all, McGrath bowls at the same pace.

 

[silentstriker]

What are your comments on the blistering pace of Munaf Patel and Sreesanth?

I think that if it wasn't for the white racist white devils controlling the speed gun technology, surely they would both be clocked at 120mph+ with their slower ball.

Surely, Pathan's loss of pace isn't a problem ... after all, McGrath bowls at the same pace.

If I put a penny on good length, Pathan can hit it 100 times out of 100, but each delivery would be different. He can bowl both inswinger, outwswinger and a reverse swinging ball in the same delivery - such is the legendary control and ability of the man.

 

[adharcric]

That's enough for today SS. To be continued after the next Indian victory ...

 

[silentstriker]

That's enough for today SS. To be continued after the next Indian victory ...

Sorry mate, not making another one of these bets........ever. Every time I make another one of those posts, my soul dies a little bit inside.

 

[magsi23]

Those of you who said Murali, I want to know why.

How about the fact that he has taken 600+ test wickets?

 

[silentstriker]

How about the fact that he has taken 600+ test wickets?

News Flash: So has the other guy.

 

[Josh]

News Flash: So has the other guy.

lol

 

[luffy]

Can't vote for a chucker.