Best Spinner ever

[The Sean]

But when you look just how many more wickets per match Murali averages, it shows that he is a helluva lot more than Warne.

It's actually just over one more wicket per match. Which is perfectly understandable given the competition for wickets that Warne faces among his team mates is and always has been much higher than what Murali faces.

 

[mohammad16]

have u ever realized that more competition doenst nessecary always mean more wickets

againts srilanka, teams just try to play out murali and attack the other bowlers

againts australia, u cant just play out all thier bowlers, u have to attack them all, ull notice that batsmen tend to be more aggresive againts warne then againts murali, and that induces more wickets for warne

sure competition is a factor, but not as big as poeple think

 

[JBH001]

How does reverse swing contravene the letter of the law?

Is it not the case that most times reverse swing is brought about by 'work' on the ball?
Otherwise why the furore about dirt in pockets, bottletops, thumbs, nails, and raised seams and so on and so forth?

I may be wrong about this - not for the first time, but if I am I would like to be enlightened.
Sometimes, I concede the pitch or the outfield tends to do the work for you - but otherwise a certain amount of work needs to be done on the ball, which is against the strict interpretation of the rules, and then the ball bowled at certain speeds and in a certain manner. Therefore it does take a certain amount of skill, too.

The doosra, at least on those occassions when it passes the 15 degree mark, can perhaps be seen in the same light.

But, as I said, I may be wrong.

 

[JBH001]

It's actually just over one more wicket per match. Which is perfectly understandable given the competition for wickets that Warne faces among his team mates is and always has been much higher than what Murali faces.

As i said, I rank them as equal.

But you also need to weigh in the fact that if so (as AMZ has said), Warne's econ and rpw and bpw should be lower or significantly better than Murali's - which it is not.

Also, I know many Aussie and Warne fans are ****-a-hoop over his bowling and the Aussie win and they should be, but England frankly batted like complete and utter idiots. The bowling was good, and the pressure tight, but none of it was outstanding or insurmountable - Strauss and Bell, and then Bell and Collingwood had things under wraps and under control if they wanted to play out for a draw. But after a shocking decision by Bucknor and poor judgement by Bell and a brain implosion by KP it all went pearshaped. I have seen Warne bowl far better spells for less reward - in this case it was not so much his bowling as the English lining up to gift their wickets to him, and to Lee and McGrath.

As I said, I rank them as equal now (and previously have ranked Warne as slightly better) because of Warne's mental nous and cricketing brain and my doubts as to some aspects of Murali's action. If however, Murali's action is accepted - doosra and all - then he is far and away the better bowler.
It literally becomes a no contest, despite the sycophantic fulminations of primarily Aussie and English fans, media, and commentators.

 

[JBH001]

But I think Muralitharan. Anyone have Murali and Warne`s stats against countries other than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe?

Yep, I did - post below from previous page.

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

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.

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 - this time, in the earlier post it did not include the second Ashes test, with the stats from the second Ashes test. I did remove figures against Zim and Bang because of the small sample and also because doing so leaves Warne's figures, more or less as they are, or actually better - in which case we would have to include Murali's figures too, and that would defeat the point of the exercise.
So, Warne's complete career figures:

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.

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

 

[marc71178]

Nevertheless, Warne was one of the best players in the game. He played a crucial role in the first innings keeping the runs down on a flat wicket

Funny that you say that - 53 overs at 3.15 an over.

In comparison, Giles bowled 42 overs at 2.45 an over and has been slated on here.

I have to say I've been unable to follow much of the game owing to impending exams, a lack of TV and the general timings of the game, but it does seem that there's inconsistencies going on here.

 

[adharcric]

Haha, geez there's some rubbish posts on this page. Reverse swing contravenes the rules? England as good as Bangladesh against spin? Did you see the way Pietersen played Warne? Or Murali six months ago, for that matter? I can't think of any Bangladesh player that can play the two best spinners of the last 50 years with utter contempt.

Overall, England are still poor against spin. Pietersen is an exception - a modern-day English batsmen who uses his feet well and plays spin with confidence.
Warne faced the best players of spin in India and didn't fare too well. I just can't call someone the greatest spinner ever when they get outdone by great batsmen this often.
Don't tell me Pietersen hasn't outdone Warne just because Warne bowled 'em yesterday.

Warne is a legend, an all-time great and a champion but he remains a notch below Murali for me.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Funny that you say that - 53 overs at 3.15 an over.

In comparison, Giles bowled 42 overs at 2.45 an over and has been slated on here.

I have to say I've been unable to follow much of the game owing to impending exams, a lack of TV and the general timings of the game, but it does seem that there's inconsistencies going on here.

Different situations I'd say. Warne bowled 100+ deliveries around the wicket into Pietersen's pads and slowed his scoring significantly, and in reality one of the reasons Australia remained in the match is that England didn't really score quickly enough in their first innings. An extra 50-100 runs before the declaration would have made all the difference, but batting on any longer would have reduced England's chance of winning if they bowled well.

Regardless, what I was actually saying was that Warne did a defensive job for his captain and bowled a huge number of overs in an attempt to keep the runs down. The 30 odd overs he bowled into the rough reduced his chances of taking wickets, as well as Pietersen's scoring opportunities. Warne did bowl pretty poorly on the second day, but that doesn't have much bearing on anything I said. He was one of the best players in the match, Australia wouldn't have won without him, and you can't get either of those things from the fact that he took five wickets @ 40 in 85 overs, nor even 4/49 in the second innings.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Overall, England are still poor against spin. Pietersen is an exception - a modern-day English batsmen who uses his feet well and plays spin with confidence.
Warne faced the best players of spin in India and didn't fare too well. I just can't call someone the greatest spinner ever when they get outdone by great batsmen this often.
Don't tell me Pietersen hasn't outdone Warne just because Warne bowled 'em yesterday.

Pietersen certainly has the edge on Warne in this series. Last series was fairly even though, and Warne's knocked him over four times. It's fairly similar to his battle with Murali, really. Pietersen's got on top a few times and suffered on others.

As far as his record in India goes, there's no denying it's poor. I think there's a few reasons for this personally. Warne's worst period in his career was from 98-2002 or so, where he suffered a series of injuries of different kinds and struggled against all opposition, and he was unfortunate enough to tour India twice in this period. His other tour of India he did fine and averaged 30. He's played them twice at home too, once was in between the two poor tours, and the other was his debut series. Regardless of all that, it's not as though Murali's record in India is that much better. There's hardly any spinners with a good record in India in the last couple of decades, and the few that there are tend to be finger spinners, presumably because of how well the Indian batsmen play off their pads. Saqlain has a good record there for instance.

Anyway, this is Warne's record in India: 9 matches, 34 wickets @ 43.12, SR 81.03, ER 3.19

And this is Murali's: 8 matches: 31 wickets @ 39.58, SR 81.87, ER 2.90.

Murali's is marginally better yeah, but I wouldn't call it a huge gap. There's no doubt Indian batsmen play him well, but it's a bit silly to say that you simply "can't rate Warne that highly" because of his terrible record in India, but ignore Murali's. Same point remains as with their overall record really. If you rate Murali higher fair enough, but rating him better solely on the basis of his average being slightly lower is a bit absurd.

Anyway, I wasn't intending to get into another Warne v Murali debate to be honest, just to make a point about judging players on their averages alone. They're a useful guide in many ways, but you certainly can't use them as your basis to judge a player because there are simply so many situations in every match which they don't take into account.

 

[R_D]

Haha, geez there's some rubbish posts on this page. Reverse swing contravenes the rules? England as good as Bangladesh against spin? Did you see the way Pietersen played Warne? Or Murali six months ago, for that matter? I can't think of any Bangladesh player that can play the two best spinners of the last 50 years with utter contempt.

Yeah i watched Pieterson get bamboozled around his legs by Warne yesterday... just showed how good he really is against spin. Its not like Pieterson was totally dominating warne on the flat deck either.... its just that Warne was trying to bore him into getting out rather than taking his wicket with a good delivery.
You might have missed the 2nd innings how most of the Englishbatsman had no clue to Warne's bowling..... Even though Collingwood survived for so long... he wasn't sure what to do for most of his innings against Warne.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah i watched Pieterson get bamboozled around his legs by Warne yesterday... just showed how good he really is against spin. Its not like Pieterson was totally dominating warne on the flat deck either.... its just that Warne was trying to bore him into getting out rather than taking his wicket with a good delivery.
You might have missed the 2nd innings how most of the Englishbatsman had no clue to Warne's bowling..... Even though Collingwood survived for so long... he wasn't sure what to do for most of his innings against Warne.

And did you watch Pietersen hit back to back centuries against Murali, absolutely dominate his bowling and average 72 for the series? Or is Murali an average bowler because Pietersen made runs against him too?

 

[Anil]

Pietersen certainly has the edge on Warne in this series. Last series was fairly even though, and Warne's knocked him over four times. It's fairly similar to his battle with Murali, really. Pietersen's got on top a few times and suffered on others.

As far as his record in India goes, there's no denying it's poor. I think there's a few reasons for this personally. Warne's worst period in his career was from 98-2002 or so, where he suffered a series of injuries of different kinds and struggled against all opposition, and he was unfortunate enough to tour India twice in this period. His other tour of India he did fine and averaged 30. He's played them twice at home too, once was in between the two poor tours, and the other was his debut series. Regardless of all that, it's not as though Murali's record in India is that much better. There's hardly any spinners with a good record in India in the last couple of decades, and the few that there are tend to be finger spinners, presumably because of how well the Indian batsmen play off their pads. Saqlain has a good record there for instance.

Anyway, this is Warne's record in India: 9 matches, 34 wickets @ 43.12, SR 81.03, ER 3.19

And this is Murali's: 8 matches: 31 wickets @ 39.58, SR 81.87, ER 2.90.

Murali's is marginally better yeah, but I wouldn't call it a huge gap. There's no doubt Indian batsmen play him well, but it's a bit silly to say that you simply "can't rate Warne that highly" because of his terrible record in India, but ignore Murali's. Same point remains as with their overall record really. If you rate Murali higher fair enough, but rating him better solely on the basis of his average being slightly lower is a bit absurd.

Anyway, I wasn't intending to get into another Warne v Murali debate to be honest, just to make a point about judging players on their averages alone. They're a useful guide in many ways, but you certainly can't use them as your basis to judge a player because there are simply so many situations in every match which they don't take into account.

if you want to make excuses for warne for his earlier poor showing in india, then excuses have to be made for the indian players' collective lack of form in 2004-'05 and that has to given as a major reason for his improved showing...

 

[R_D]

Murali's record in India is bit deceptive...He played 5 test in India before 97/98 and one of the series he avg 103 for 2 matches and there wasn't a single a result in that series.... all tests were draws. Murali certainly wasn't that good spinner pre 2000.
No other spinner has run through the india lineup like Murali did in 2005 in the 2nd test match at Delhi.. i couldn't beleive my eyes.
By the way overall Test records of Warne and Murali vs India are quite interesting.

Murali
Mat O R W BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
15 795.4 2176 67 8/87 11/196 32.47 2.73 71.2 4 1

Warne
14 654.1 2029 43 6/125 6/113 47.18 3.10 91.2 1 0
Not including Warne's debut horror show against India

12 586.1 1801 42 6/125 6/113 42.88 3.07 83.7 1 0

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

if you want to make excuses for warne for his earlier poor showing in india, then excuses have to be made for the indian players' collective lack of form in 2004-'05 and that has to given as a major reason for his improved showing...

I guess we can just disregard that entire part of his career then. I'm sure that will suit Warne fine.

 

[R_D]

And did you watch Pietersen hit back to back centuries against Murali, absolutely dominate his bowling and average 72 for the series? Or is Murali an average bowler because Pietersen made runs against him too?

Admitedly i didn't watch the series but there was a big hoo hay made of that one handed six by Pieterson i guess. Pieterson avg 72 for the series i don't see how that would make Murali look like an avg bowler, its not like he was bowling every single bowl to KP... what it does show though is how medicore Sri Lanka's overall bowling was. He made back to back Centuries against Sri Lanka, Murali is not the only bowler so i don't know what you're trying to get at by saying he scored back to back centruries against Murali... sure he's the only one who takes most of the wickets but not the only one who bowls.
Murali Avg 16.71 for the series and took 24 wickets.. further proof of English batsman inability to play spin.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Murali's record in India is bit deceptive...He played 5 test in India before 97/98 and one of the series he avg 103 for 2 matches and there wasn't a single a result in that series.... all tests were draws. Murali certainly wasn't that good spinner pre 2000.
No other spinner has run through the india lineup like Murali did in 2005 in the 2nd test match at Delhi.. i couldn't beleive my eyes.

I don't think their respective records in India are indicative of the abilities of either bowler, actually. Murali has only played India once when he was in good form and at the peak of his career, and he did fine. I think you can say the same thing about Warne. My point was merely that if you are going to take Warne's overall record in India and use it to discredit him as a bowler, you can quite easily do the same for Murali.

Regarding their overall records against India, Murali certainly has a fantastic record against them at home. Warne's only played India twice at home, one was his debut series and the other was in between his two horrible tours there. I think he'd have done better against them if they toured more often, but unfortuantely we'll never know. Warne may play one more series against India at home before he retires, but it's difficult to see him doing that well, given he'll be 39 or so.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Admitedly i didn't watch the series but there was a big hoo hay made of that one handed six by Pieterson i guess. Pieterson avg 72 for the series i don't see how that would make Murali look like an avg bowler, its not like he was bowling every single bowl to KP... what it does show though is how medicore Sri Lanka's overall bowling was. He made back to back Centuries against Sri Lanka, Murali is not the only bowler so i don't know what you're trying to get at by saying he scored back to back centruries against Murali... sure he's the only one who takes most of the wickets but not the only one who bowls.
Murali Avg 16.71 for the series and took 24 wickets.. further proof of English batsman inability to play spin.

I assure you that Pietersen played Murali extremely well. I don't think he made Murali look average, since he's a fantastic bowler and one of the best ever, but he certainly had the best of him in the first and second tests. Murali dismissed him cheaply in both innings of the final test IIRC. It's not like he made the runs against other bowlers either. He faced nearly half his deliveries from Murali every time, and scored faster off Murali than the other bowlers, similar to the way he plays Warne.

Here's the stats from his centuries. In his 158 in the first test, Pietersen faced 66 balls from Murali and scored 54 runs, including a six and 6 fours. He didn't bat in the second innings. In the second test, Pietersen scored another century and faced 58 balls from Murali, scoring 56 runs before Murali eventually dismissed him for 142. Murali also got him in the second innings for 13. In the third test, Pietersen scored 41, and took 19 in 14 balls from Murali, before Murali got him out for the third time in the series. Murali also got him in the second innings for 6, as he took 8/70 and won the match.

 

[R_D]

I don't think their respective records in India are indicative of the abilities of either bowler, actually. Murali has only played India once when he was in good form and at the peak of his career, and he did fine. I think you can say the same thing about Warne. My point was merely that if you are going to take Warne's overall record in India and use it to discredit him as a bowler, you can quite easily do the same for Murali.

Regarding their overall records against India, Murali certainly has a fantastic record against them at home. Warne's only played India twice at home, one was his debut series and the other was in between his two horrible tours there. I think he'd have done better against them if they toured more often, but unfortuantely we'll never know. Warne may play one more series against India at home before he retires, but it's difficult to see him doing that well, given he'll be 39 or so.

Fair enough.
My original point was about few people discrediting Murali for taking alot of his wickets against Bang and Zimb. He has a pretty good if not better record than Warne against most other nations as well. It be undertandable if he had medicore record against other nations to hold it against him. The English team well i consider them to be good as bangladesh against spin, now they have KP who can take the attack upto Warne but you could put a case that Warne's had truck loads of free wickets against Eng just like Murali has against Zimb and Bang.

 

[Anil]

I guess we can just disregard that entire part of his career then. I'm sure that will suit Warne fine.

i'm sure it will... but let's not disregard the fact that he has been a pretty comprehensive failure in india and against india except for one moderate series(let's not dilute the facts with excuses, he was still taking wickets by the truckload against his english and south african bunnies during that period(1998 - 2002, i think you said?), wasn't he?)...while murali has done very well against them in sri lanka and has done better than warne against them in india...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

i'm sure it will... but let's not disregard the fact that he has been a pretty comprehensive failure in india and against india except for one moderate series(let's not dilute the facts with excuses, he was still taking wickets by the truckload against his english and south african bunnies during that period(1998 - 2002, i think you said?), wasn't he?)...while murali has done very well against them in sri lanka and has done better than warne against them in india...

He didn't really play them in the period between the tours. He did have a good Ashes series after the 2001 tour of India though, and has really only had one poor series in his career against any opposition since then, which was against New Zealand. Between the Indian tours, he only averaged below his career average in a series twice, once against Zimbabwe (from one test), and once against Sri Lanka.

Otherwise he averaged 54 against India, 55 against England (one test), 134 against the West Indies, 30 against Pakistan, 41 against India, 27 against New Zealand and 50 against India again. After the tour of India in 2001 he had a good Ashes series, and in the five years since then he has only averaged over 30 in a series three times. Once was immediately afterwards against New Zealand, once in India again (30.07), and once against South Africa at home last year.

In fact, between that '98 tour of India and his first success in test cricket against the West Indies in 1992, he had only averaged over 30 in one series, which was against Sri Lanka in 1996.

Warne also went through his most serious injuries in this period and missed large amounts of cricket. Even leaving India aside, it's obviously his worst period in test cricket by a long way. Excluding this year (which hasn't finished yet obviously), Warne has averaged over 30 in six years in his career. One was his debut year in 1992, another was 1996 when he only played four tests, and the other four are 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Simply put, while Warne's record against India is very poor, it is entirely centred around this period of his career. Of his five series against India, three are in this period, one is his debut series and the other one is pretty good. I think if he'd only played New Zealand or Pakistan in this period his record against them would be pretty bad too, and I don't think it it's stretching things very much at all to suggest that if Warne had played India more regularly, or at least over a larger spread of years rather than three times in four years and almost never otherwise, his record would be better. Even if it wasn't, it would certainly be a fairer representation. It's not so much about making excuses for his poor performance, because even in 2004 Indian batsmen played pretty well and I doubt he'd average less than 30 in India at any point, but pointing out that Warne's record in India isn't a particularly complete representation of his career.