Do you consider Malcolm Marshall...

[Anil]

not gonna disagree with your argument. pretty much my thoughts. but dont you think the numbers are very good for this quartet? cant really imagine how they could have done better to be more qualified and placed on par with the west indian bowlers.

i acknowledge the impressive winning streaks that the aussies accumulated in the past few years but in my opinion, from a bowling point of view, it was 90% mcgrath-warne and around 10% any two of gillespie, lee, kasprowitz, bichel, macgill et al...that is not much of a quartet to me...

 

[Migara]

My version or my opinion? For me, spinners striking wickets is totally different to pacers doing so. These strikers face unset batsmen and have naturally more wickets to aim for (10). They rarely if ever have a containing role like a spinner who will try to slow the run rate down without even trying to take a wicket. Also the conditions for different bowlers

I completely agree with this point of yours and actually I had made it as a comment there.

The WI and Australia to a large extent have been heavily pace friendly wheres places in the sub-continent have been largely dead. Or for example someone like Murali has played so much of his career in pretty much a dust-bowl at home and that helps his striking heavily, whereas in Australia Warne really only has one pitch where that situation is replicated.

This is the usual rant made by most of the people. While Murali has averaged 22.2 with SR of 56.1 in Sri Lanka against test class opponets (i.e. sans BAN and ZIM), the spinners of teams san BAN and ZIm averages 40.84 with SR of 84.3 in SL. In the same time all the Lankan spinners have averaged 29.89 with SR of 71.1. When Murali's stats are removed, it comes to the value of Avg of 40.9 at SR of 94.1 for other SL bowlers since Murali's debut. I coud not see the reason for any spinner to average 40+ on a dust bowl.

Now if we take a close look at spinners bowling in SL and has more than 15 wickets (of course BAn and ZIM excluded), the top three are Mendis 18.4, Warne 20.5 / 21.5 (including / not including the test against Pakistan), Murali 21.1, Vettori 23.3, KJ Silva 27.7, P STrang 28.8. All the rest of the spiners are not effective in SL. Especially when career averages of Saqlain, Harbhajan and Kumble compared to their feats in SL it's mind boggling how unresponsive are SL pitches to some spinners.

If you do the same for West Indian pitches in 1970-1996 era, you would see the same results. Opposing fast bowlers not doing well there. And astonishingly best bowlers (by average) in SL and even in Pakistan are fast bowlers themselves. The rant about helpful pithces is not much of a value, mostly what matters is who is at the other end. No matter how helpful the pitch for a spinner, if SIdhu is at the batsman's end.

 

[Ikki]

I completely agree with this point of yours and actually I had made it as a comment there.

This is the usual rant made by most of the people. While Murali has averaged 22.2 with SR of 56.1 in Sri Lanka against test class opponets (i.e. sans BAN and ZIM), the spinners of teams san BAN and ZIm averages 40.84 with SR of 84.3 in SL. In the same time all the Lankan spinners have averaged 29.89 with SR of 71.1. When Murali's stats are removed, it comes to the value of Avg of 40.9 at SR of 94.1 for other SL bowlers since Murali's debut. I coud not see the reason for any spinner to average 40+ on a dust bowl.

Now if we take a close look at spinners bowling in SL and has more than 15 wickets (of course BAn and ZIM excluded), the top three are Mendis 18.4, Warne 20.5 / 21.5 (including / not including the test against Pakistan), Murali 21.1, Vettori 23.3, KJ Silva 27.7, P STrang 28.8. All the rest of the spiners are not effective in SL. Especially when career averages of Saqlain, Harbhajan and Kumble compared to their feats in SL it's mind boggling how unresponsive are SL pitches to some spinners.

If you do the same for West Indian pitches in 1970-1996 era, you would see the same results. Opposing fast bowlers not doing well there. And astonishingly best bowlers (by average) in SL and even in Pakistan are fast bowlers themselves. The rant about helpful pithces is not much of a value, mostly what matters is who is at the other end. No matter how helpful the pitch for a spinner, if SIdhu is at the batsman's end.

I am not going to really get into it. What we know is that Warne did better in Sri Lanka than Murali himself did and we all know that Australia is one of the worst places in the world for spin bowling. For Murali, Sri Lanka's really only hope, they made the pitches for him to succeed most. Even Lehmann was turning them well. For Warne, he was one of many players, and pitches were not prepared for his solitary liking. And this is not about Warne v Murali, but even still, Australia has been much more difficult to bowl spin at - Tests or FC cricket.

Yet this fact goes unnoticed in that statistical analysis, hence it is a huge flaw. A lot of these kinds of points can be made. When talking about other bowlers or batsmen failing on grounds that are usually suitable you should factor in that the home team is specialised to play on those pitches - the pitches are made for their benefit - so they will always be better suited.

It's no surprise that Malcolm Marshall will be even better suited to his home conditions than some other pacer - because not only are the pitches a natural help but he is used to the conditions even moreso. Just because Imran Khan has to learn to swing the ball to be successful doesn't make it any tougher to bowl on those dead pitches of years before.

And I just checked for spinners and pacers in Sri Lanka:

Spinners: 31.72
Pacers: 32.88

in India

Spinners: 32.80
Pacers: 33.05

in Australia:

Spinners: 35.28
Pacers: 30.26

In fact, the ONLY two countries where SPIN does better than PACE are Sri Lanka and India. And as you can see, the difference is much more in Sri Lanka than it is in India. The only other countries to have even higher averages than Australia for spinners are Zimbabwe and the West Indies. Even you have to accept this.

 

[Migara]

I am not going to really get into it. What we know is that Warne did better in Sri Lanka than Murali himself did and we all know that Australia is one of the worst places in the world for spin bowling. For Murali, Sri Lanka's really only hope, they made the pitches for him to succeed most. Even Lehmann was turning them well. For Warne, he was one of many players, and pitches were not prepared for his solitary liking. And this is not about Warne v Murali, but even still, Australia has been much more difficult to bowl spin at - Tests or FC cricket.

I think you grossly misunderstood what I am saying. For great spinners like Murali and Warne, the conditions does not matter much. More than conditions, what matters is the batsman who's facing them.

 

[Migara]

It's no surprise that Malcolm Marshall will be even better suited to his home conditions than some other pacer - because not only are the pitches a natural help but he is used to the conditions even moreso. Just because Imran Khan has to learn to swing the ball to be successful doesn't make it any tougher to bowl on those dead pitches of years before.

Now going with this argument, Warne would have used "tough" Aussie conditions to better use than others, hence and advantage over others while bowling in Australia?

 

[Migara]

And I just checked for spinners and pacers in Sri Lanka:

Spinners: 31.72
Pacers: 32.88

in India

Spinners: 32.80
Pacers: 33.05

in Australia:

Spinners: 35.28
Pacers: 30.26

In fact, the ONLY two countries where SPIN does better than PACE are Sri Lanka and India. And as you can see, the difference is much more in Sri Lanka than it is in India. The only other countries to have even higher averages than Australia for spinners are Zimbabwe and the West Indies. Even you have to accept this

Post 1992, the stats look like this
SL
overall: spin 31.40, pace 34.30
visiting: spin 44.12, pace 36.35

IND
overall: spin 32.78 pace: 35.91
visiting spin 38.66 pace 36.34

Aus
overall: spin 36.34 pace 33.14
visiting: spin 48.63 pace 41.10

This clearly shows spinners average in SL is low due to excellent work of Murali, and visiting spinners ahve found it tougher than pacers to bowl in SL. Similarly in India Kumble, Harbhajan, Raju and Chauhan caused that spinners avrage to drop. Once more, visiting spinners have found it tougher. And Australia, the story is the same. Actually visitng pacers have found SL and India better suited for fast bowling than Australia!!! Once again, the person who faces matters, more than the conditions

 

[Ikki]

Post 1992, the stats look like this
SL
overall: spin 31.40, pace 34.30
visiting: spin 44.12, pace 36.35

IND
overall: spin 32.78 pace: 35.91
visiting spin 38.66 pace 36.34

Aus
overall: spin 36.34 pace 33.14
visiting: spin 48.63 pace 41.10

This clearly shows spinners average in SL is low due to excellent work of Murali, and visiting spinners ahve found it tougher than pacers to bowl in SL. Similarly in India Kumble, Harbhajan, Raju and Chauhan caused that spinners avrage to drop. Once more, visiting spinners have found it tougher. And Australia, the story is the same. Actually visitng pacers have found SL and India better suited for fast bowling than Australia!!! Once again, the person who faces matters, more than the conditions

You're wasting your time. First of all, the discussion had nothing to do with Murali specifically but about bowlers who will gain advantage in certain conditions whilst other bowlers won't. That is NOT accounted for IN that analysis. Again, Spin is STILL stronger than pace in Sri Lanka and India, showing that they are more ideal for spin. Murali has taken advantage of that and had made the gap between pace and spin even larger (he averages 19 at home and 26 away FFS). Even if the averages were level it'd be damning because on average pacers average lower than spinners so for spinners to be level in one country it clearly shows that it helped them. Very few spinners will average as low as pacers.

Secondly, my point was not regarding merely visitors but the bowlers who bowled at home...because they play half their Tests on pitches suited for THEM.

Thirdly, with regards to Warne and Murali, the point was Australia was much tougher to bowl spin in than Sri Lanka. You haven't/can't disprove that. hence that is an advantage the other doesn't get and it isn't rectified in that analysis.

I think you grossly misunderstood what I am saying. For great spinners like Murali and Warne, the conditions does not matter much. More than conditions, what matters is the batsman who's facing them.

Whilst they can spin the ball anywhere, there are still large varying degrees of benefit on certain pitches. Warne and Murali's performances in Sri Lanka and Australia is a great indicator.

Now going with this argument, Warne would have used "tough" Aussie conditions to better use than others, hence and advantage over others while bowling in Australia?

Whilst that may be true, you missed the point. Warne's tough home conditions are much tougher than Murali's home conditions. Warne plays only a small fraction of his career in Sri Lanka whilst the same goes for Murali in Australia. However, Warne plays half his career at home, whilst Murali does the same. See the difference? The analysis doesn't do anything to address these kinds of discrepancies. Whether it be Warne and Murali or Marshall and Imran.

For me, an analysis that is looking at SR but doesn't factor in the pitch is useless. I don't want another Warne v Murali argument. I just brought it up because it is an obvious example. Get over it. Finito.

 

[bagapath]

now, where do you guys place malcolm marshall in your list of favorite bowlers?

 

[Richard]

I'm not like some people in being offended by my threads being taken off the exact title topic, but FFS Murali-vs-Warne stuff cropping-up ANYWHERE other than THE thread is annoying. Can someone move the above posts there?

 

[Ikki]

I'm not like some people in being offended by my threads being taken off the exact title topic, but FFS Murali-vs-Warne stuff cropping-up ANYWHERE other than THE thread is annoying. Can someone move the above posts there?

The posts have nothing to do with Murali and Warne debate. It's about a statistical analysis someone on Cricinfo made to show Marshall was the best striker ever. I highlighted it's big flaws and gave a couple examples. You can untie the knot in your knickers now.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'm not like some people in being offended by my threads being taken off the exact title topic, but FFS Murali-vs-Warne stuff cropping-up ANYWHERE other than THE thread is annoying. Can someone move the above posts there?

Its called hijacking.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

1.Imran Khan
2.Richard Hadlee
3.Malcolm Marshall
4.Wasim Akram
5.Muttiah Muralitharan

 

[Richard]

The posts have nothing to do with Murali and Warne debate.

Err - no, of course it's not.

Yes, I'm afraid it is. What started it may not have been intended to start Warne-vs-Murali stuff, but it did and the above posts are fairly patently obviously Warne-Murali posts and as such belong in the thread.

 

[Ikki]

EDIT

I decided not to really respond to your non-sense. I already explained the posts/side-argument. Someone who
It is not your job to say what post goes where. But I don't expect someone who makes the same arguments ad nauseam in almost every thread to understand.

 

[Richard]

It's my job to suggest what goes where, same as every other poster on this forum. If people who have the powers to move posts wish to move, that's their job.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There are more mods on this forum than there were on Brighton beach in 1964, surely at least one must be able to think for themselves without people screaming merge everytime there's more than one thread on a subject.