Best Spinner ever

[Nate]

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.

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

Champion.

 

[Anil]

pointing out that Warne's record in India isn't a particularly complete representation of his career.

certainly not and i've never said that it is, however people always seem to give spinners(especially warne) the benefit of the doubt if they don't perform in india and i would say the scales there are not so tilted in the home batsmen's favour....because while indian batsmen are supposed to be excellent players of spin, the pitch conditions in india favour spin bowling to an extravagant extent as well...so a champion bowler like warne would be expected to exploit the conditions better and make it more of a battle....and overall he has failed to do that....that is one of the reasons i admire bowlers like mcgrath and hadlee so much, going into totally unfriendly conditions like in india and bowling as superbly as they did....

 

[Matt79]

I'm not sure, but wonder whether its not a bit of a furphy that conditions in India should be considered favourable to Warne's style of bowling. If you look at where he's performed best it's been in Australia (which maybe is obvious) and otherwise in conditions not normally considered favourable to spinners - eg his best ground in Australia is the Gabba, considered a fast bowlers pitch normally. In contrast, few touring spinners ever do much good in Australia, including Murali to be honest. It might be that the pitches in India simply don't suit his bowling. Is this a reasonable theory or not?

 

[Anil]

I'm not sure, but wonder whether its not a bit of a furphy that conditions in India should be considered favourable to Warne's style of bowling. If you look at where he's performed best it's been in Australia (which maybe is obvious) and otherwise in conditions not normally considered favourable to spinners - eg his best ground in Australia is the Gabba, considered a fast bowlers pitch normally. In contrast, few touring spinners ever do much good in Australia, including Murali to be honest. It might be that the pitches in India simply don't suit his bowling. Is this a reasonable theory or not?

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....

 

[Ikki]

On Warne today, this is a perfect example of why you can't judge players solely on their statistical records.

In the match, Warne took 5 for 216 from 85 overs, which is around his normal rate of wicket taking, but with an average of 43 and a strike rate over 100. That makes it a pretty poor match by his standards. Only his economy rate was lower than his career record.

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, though overall he didn't bowl particularly well and got the worst figures of his whole career. His 4/49 in the second innings is a good set of figures, but doesn't tell the story of his impact at all. Without Warne, Australia wouldn't even have gotten close to winning the match. He only took the two top order wickets, but bowling non-stop from one end for the whole day and the pressure he exerted had a huge impact on England's negative style of play which eventually stopped them from setting a reasonable target and saving the game. When Warne's career is long over and people are writing about his achievements in the game, there's no doubt today's performance will be mentioned as an example of his brilliance, and the fact that his test average is higher than it was before the match doesn't have any bearing on that.

He took the first two wickets to fall to a bowler on the day, including the top scorer and the best batsman in the team, and his pressure caused a run-out, which Warne himself finished off with a direct hit from close range after Clarke's wayward throw. After lunch he came back and picked up two more wickets when the tail looked set to keep Australia in the field for long enough to earn the draw. To put it simply, 5/216 doesn't tell the full story of his impact, just like you'll see plenty of games where a player will take a sizable bag of wickets because nobody else is capable of taking them and have basically no impact on the outcome of the match. Both Warne and Murali have done this from time to time.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting Murali wouldn't be capable of any of the things Warne did today (though I do rate Warne's presence on the field and his ability to exert pressure higher), but it's things like this which make saying "X player has an average 2 runs better than Y player, therefore he is inarguably the superior player" pretty stupid, IMO.

Exactly. Great post.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Why? Because he has bowlers taking wickets he should have better economy? I'm sorry it isn't as simple as that. Warne has to MAKE THE BATSMEN PLAY to take wickets. He can't go on defensive and bowl the unhittable. Having bowlers like Dizzy and McGrath means you can't do that, you gotta take wickets while you can. Murali doesn't have this problem, he can bowl defensively and tight and will eventually knock off wickets. I mean take Hadlee's words for instance. He says that the key to his wicket taking was the long spells and pretty much keeping it in the same zone and it WILL result in wickets. Warne, as we know, isn't like that. His bowls are a work of Art , he is the variation king.

A lot of these stats go one way in favour of one bowler or can be interpreted another way to compare the other. It's also a joke to go after some reasoning like "the Bradman of bowling". There is just so much to pick at Murali's record, as well as Warne's.

As I've said before, if I want a bowler/cricketer in my team knowing this dude is going to play his guts out and till the last ball and will make something happen out of nothing, it's going to be Warne.

 

[adharcric]

Why? Because he has bowlers taking wickets he should have better economy? I'm sorry it isn't as simple as that. Warne has to MAKE THE BATSMEN PLAY to take wickets. He can't go on defensive and bowl the unhittable. Having bowlers like Dizzy and McGrath means you can't do that, you gotta take wickets while you can. Murali doesn't have this problem, he can bowl defensively and tight and will eventually knock off wickets. I mean take Hadlee's words for instance. He says that the key to his wicket taking was the long spells and pretty much keeping it in the same zone and it WILL result in wickets. Warne, as we know, isn't like that. His bowls are a piece of Art, he is the variation king.

A lot of these stats go one way in favour of one bowler or can be interpreted another way to compare the other. It's also a joke to go after some reasoning like "the Bradman of bowling". There is just so much to pick at Murali's record, as well as Warne's.

As I've said before, if I want a bowler/cricketer in my team knowing this dude is going to play his guts out and till the last ball and will make something happen out of nothing, it's going to be Warne.

Unfortunately, that holds no significance. Having support only hurts you in one way - your wickets/match ratio can be hampered.
Having support should translate into a better strike-rate but Murali comes out on top there as well. There's a reason people don't focus on wickets/match too much.

 

[Ikki]

Unfortunately, that makes no sense whatsoever.
Are you suggesting that you're more likely to pick up wickets (per a certain number of deliveries) if you have no support? That's rubbish.

The likelihood is that someone who bowls a long spell, bowling balls that are tight and safe, will eventually yield wickets. This has been discussed before where we referenced some of Murali's innings in which he started off poor but because he bowled so much he eventually evened out. Comprende?

 

[silentstriker]

The likelihood is that someone who bowls a long spell, bowling balls that are tight and safe, will eventually yield wickets.

So how come Murali's strike rate is better?

 

[adharcric]

The likelihood is that someone who bowls a long spell, bowling balls that are tight and safe, will eventually yield wickets. This has been discussed before where we referenced some of Murali's innings in which he started off poor but because he bowled so much he eventually evened out. Comprende?

No comprendo. Bowling "safe" balls will not give you a better chance of taking wickets per ball. It will actually give you a worse chance. Murali still has a better strike rate.

 

[Ikki]

So how come Murali's strike rate is better?

Has Sri Lanka played Zimbabwe or Bangladesh recently?

 

[silentstriker]

Has Sri Lanka played Zimbabwe or Bangladesh recently?

Its better excluding those countries.

 

[adharcric]

Has Sri Lanka played Zimbabwe or Bangladesh recently?

Before using your cliche argument, you should do your research.

 

[Ikki]

Its better excluding those countries.

How could it be? His record against both countries consists of Strike Rates that are much better than his overall career stats.

            Mat    O       R   W   BBI    BBM     Ave  Econ    SR  5 10

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

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

As I understand it the lower the striker rate the better . His career Strike Rate is 55.

 

[silentstriker]

How could it be? His record against both countries consists of Strike Rates that are much better than his overall career stats.

            Mat    O       R   W   BBI    BBM     Ave  Econ    SR  5 10

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

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

As I understand it the lower the striker rate the better . His career Strike Rate is 55.

54.2 is hardly 'much better'. Bangladesh S/R is much better but not enough to offset the difference between him and Warne.

 

[Ikki]

Before using your cliche argument, you should do your research.

Okay: almost 40% of Murali's wickets come from lower order batsmen (8-11), Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

 

[PhoenixFire]

That Strike Rate against the Zims is just silly

 

[Ikki]

54.2 is hardly 'much better'. Bangladesh S/R is much better but not enough to offset the difference between him and Warne.

His Bangladesh strike rate is VASTLY superior. And maybe you'd do better actually researching before making those kind of claims.

Really, gentlemen, I don't want to get into another Murali V Warne debate. Warne is the best for me, if Murali for you - that is fine.

 

[silentstriker]

Okay: almost 40% of Murali's wickets come from lower order batsmen (8-11),

Warne:
Top Order (1-3): 23.2%
Middle Order (4-7): 40.1%

Murali:
Top Order (1-3): 25.3%
Middle Order(4-7): 44%

Try again.

 

[Ikki]

Warne:
Top Order (1-3): 23.2%
Middle Order (4-7): 40.1%

Murali:
Top Order (1-3): 25.3%
Middle Order(4-7): 44%

Try again.

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.