Kumble vs Warne

[a massive zebra]

And a lot of the less runs could be attributed to the fact that in the SL attack batsmen only have the 1 outstanding bowler to face, so can try to play him out and attack the others - against Australia there's no such luxury so they do have to try and get the runs against the better bowlers.

Yeah but if that was true then Warne should have a better strike rate if he was as dangerous because the batsmen play him with less caution, actually its worse.

Anyway lets get back on track, Kumble vs Warne.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Not saying Kumble is better than Warne but ive always liked the way Kumble seems to out think the batsmen with regards to wicket taking whereas warne can do that but can also rely on the fact that he turns it a country mile, something which kumble cannot seem to do.

He doesn't always turn it a country mile - but he has the ability to do it. He regulates the amount he spins each ball, and is far cleverer now than he used to be WRT this. Of course, he still rips the odd ball miles.

 

[twctopcat]

I'm just saying that IMO Kumble does more with what he's got compared to the talent that Warne has, he's a bit more wily.

 

[Dar]

I suppose the big difference is the performance away from home where warne is considerably better.

Kumble is still an incredible bowler and a match winner as well. Like the other guy said. Kumble in India, Warne everywhere else

 

[biased indian]

Kumble is a very good bowler, but Warne outplays him. Kumble gets a hell of a lot of help from the Indian pitches, and Warne has to contend with brilliant batsmen against spin on them, and did very well to take 6/125 IMO. The Aussies aren't as good at playing spin.

one not so bad inngs is that u all need to make warne better than kumble
what about the figures of the every other test match warne played aganist india

warne is better than kumble no doubt on a scale of ten i would give
9 for warne and 7.5 for kumble.

 

[SJS]

I think the real proof of who is better between bowlers, particularly if they are contemporaries , is for the batsmen who have faced both to say, who they would rather face or who they find greater difficulty handling.

I suspect if you take out Indian and Australian Batsmen and pitches (for obvious reasons) a larger number of batsmen around the world will vote for Warne as the more problematic (for them) of the two.

All other debates whether based on career stats or 'loyalties' will never conclude anything nor change anyone's 'fixed' opinions.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah but if that was true then Warne should have a better strike rate if he was as dangerous because the batsmen play him with less caution, actually its worse.

and maybe just maybe that might have to do with murali being able to bowl on those dust bowls at home?
if you want to look at SR's then why not do a more even comparison, lets look at their SR's away from home shall we?
Murali has an SR of 64.34 away from home, while warne has an SR of 57.84 away from home. Everything can be looked at both ways, which is why it would be better off to consider them to be equal.
of course i wouldnt be surprised at all if you completely ignored my post, and then came up with the exact same futile argument(s) in another murali/warne thread.

 

[Smudge]

Let us also bear in mind that Warne has taken 6 wickets in one test against Zimbabwe and has never played Bangladesh, while Muralitharan has played about 16 tests against those two sides and took 107 wickets.

While you can only play who is put in front of you, Muralitharan has had more opportunities to pick up a swag of wickets against the minnows.

 

[a massive zebra]

and maybe just maybe that might have to do with murali being able to bowl on those dust bowls at home?
if you want to look at SR's then why not do a more even comparison, lets look at their SR's away from home shall we?
Murali has an SR of 64.34 away from home, while warne has an SR of 57.84 away from home. Everything can be looked at both ways, which is why it would be better off to consider them to be equal.

Your quote of Warne's strike rate away from home is wrong, unless you include neutral matches, which would be incorrect because the opponents are also playing away. Anyway, as I have said many times Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If the two bowlers were of equal ability Warne would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end, and opponents can play Murali defensively and score runs off the other bowlers). Actually Murali's is better against every team but one.

of course i wouldnt be surprised at all if you completely ignored my post, and then came up with the exact same futile argument(s) in another murali/warne thread.

Was there any need for this. And its not a futile argument but a very well supported one that provides very strong evidence that Murali is superior. I do not just say Murali is miles better, end of. I use a substantial amount of evidence to back it up.

Let us return to the Kumble vs Warne debate.

 

[SJS]

Without going into his bowling action, I think Murali is a better bowler.

All of us have our own opinions and our own reasons for the same. I think when I look at them and put myself in the batsman's position, I feel Murali will be the more difficult of the two to handle.

This is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with their respective statistics.

 

[marc71178]

Your quote of Warne's strike rate away from home is wrong, unless you include neutral matches, which would be incorrect because the opponents are also playing away.

But it's not in Australia, so thus it counts as away from home.

 

[a massive zebra]

But it's not in Australia, so thus it counts as away from home.

But you do not have the disadvantage of going to the opponents back yard. They are as foreign to the conditions as you.

 

[tooextracool]

Your quote of Warne's strike rate away from home is wrong, unless you include neutral matches, which would be incorrect because the opponents are also playing away.

okay then lets look at their respective records away from home without neutral games then shall we?
warne has a SR of 61.2 and murali has an SR of 64.3, again this contradicts your point.

Anyway, as I have said many times Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If the two bowlers were of equal ability Warne would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end, and opponents can play Murali defensively and score runs off the other bowlers). Actually Murali's is better against every team but one..

and i have said time and time again that that is pure speculation, you cant prove conclusively that warne would average more or have a worse SR. playing for a better bowling attack only means that the batsmen are far more likely to get out to the other bowlers(considering they bowl before him) than they are in muralis case. murali is on many many occasions the only bowler capable of taking wickets in the SL side(given vaas' inconsistency) and therefore if the batsmen get out, its far more likely that they'll get out to him.
and yes muralis record is better against almost every other team, but what a fool like you continues to ignore is that HE PLAYS AT HOME ON DUST BOWLS!!
lets look at their records against each team away from home shall we?
Warne in england - 22.85 @ 58.8, murali in england - 21.54 @ 59.9
warne in india - 51.58 @ 94.7, murali in india - 48.73 @ 105.7
warne in NZ - 20.93 @ 54, murali in NZ - 29.38 @ 77
warne in SA - 23.04 @ 63.3, murali in SA - 26.02 @ 60.5
warne in WI - 39.64 @ 78.2, murali in WI - 18.24 @ 41.9
warne in Zim - 22.83 @ 53.1, murali in Zim - 27.53 @ 77.6

and from what i can see, they're split up evenly in averages, looking at SRs, warne has a better SR than murali in every country bar WI....which once again backs my argument above about murali actually benefitting from not having world class bowlers in the same side.
interestingly enough if you look at warnes record in SL, you will see that he has a better record in SL than murali himself does!(eliminating performances against zimbabwe and b'desh)

Was there any need for this. And its not a futile argument but a very well supported one that provides very strong evidence that Murali is superior. I do not just say Murali is miles better, end of. I use a substantial amount of evidence to back it up.

Let us return to the Kumble vs Warne debate.

you call this 'strong evidence'?? do you know what that means? i can argue each and everyone of your points if you want me to, believe me.
and no we're not going to return to the warne vs murali debate thanks to you....i want to get this whole thing cleared up because it wont be too long before you brought up the same 11 ridiculous reasons of why murali is better than warne in another thread.

 

[a massive zebra]

okay then lets look at their respective records away from home without neutral games then shall we?
warne has a SR of 61.2 and murali has an SR of 64.3, again this contradicts your point..

It doesn't contradict my point it supports my point - having better bowlers at the other end reduces your average, strike rate and wickets per match.

and i have said time and time again that that is pure speculation, you cant prove conclusively that warne would average more or have a worse SR. playing for a better bowling attack only means that the batsmen are far more likely to get out to the other bowlers(considering they bowl before him) than they are in muralis case. murali is on many many occasions the only bowler capable of taking wickets in the SL side(given vaas' inconsistency) and therefore if the batsmen get out, its far more likely that they'll get out to him..

Far from being pure speculation it is actually a well known fact among those who have a deep knowledge of statistics, proven by the studies of prominent statisticians such as Dr Charles Davis in The Best of The Best and Philip Bailey of the ACS. There are numerous examples of this. For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee - Marshall having a better average because the high class West Indian bowlers put greater pressure on the batsmen, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. Same with Lindwall vs Bedser, Ambrose vs Akram, Laker vs Tayfield, and many, many others.

but what a fool like you..

Please don't resort to insults just because you are losing an argument. Respectable people stear clear of this undistinguished commotion.

lets look at their records against each team away from home shall we?
Warne in england - 22.85 @ 58.8, murali in england - 21.54 @ 59.9
warne in india - 51.58 @ 94.7, murali in india - 48.73 @ 105.7
warne in NZ - 20.93 @ 54, murali in NZ - 29.38 @ 77
warne in SA - 23.04 @ 63.3, murali in SA - 26.02 @ 60.5
warne in WI - 39.64 @ 78.2, murali in WI - 18.24 @ 41.9
warne in Zim - 22.83 @ 53.1, murali in Zim - 27.53 @ 77.6

and from what i can see, they're split up evenly in averages, looking at SRs, warne has a better SR than murali in every country bar WI....which once again backs my argument above about murali actually benefitting from not having world class bowlers in the same side..

What planet are you on Anant? Far from proving your point about murali benefitting from not having world class bowlers in the same side, it actually proves my point about Warne benefitting. His strike rates are lower in four out of 6 cases because of the quality of his contemporaries. And the fact that Murali keeps the averages pretty equal (except in the cases of NZ & WI) is an amazing achievement on his part given the disadvantages he has to endure.

interestingly enough if you look at warnes record in SL, you will see that he has a better record in SL than murali himself does!(eliminating performances against zimbabwe and b'desh).

Barely, and this is more than explained by the quality of his contempories.

 

[Neil Pickup]

It doesn't contradict my point it supports my point - having better bowlers at the other end reduces your average, strike rate and wickets per match.

I find it hard to believe that it can do all three.

 

[thirdumpire]

Man of Match Awards

If Man of Match awards can be used along with stats for who is better, here are some facts :

Warne (16) , Murali (14), Kumble (5).

Wasim Akram holds record for most awards at 17.
Steve Waugh (16) is on top of the list amongst batsmen
Lara is 11 and Tendulkar is 10.

 

[SJS]

If Man of Match awards can be used along with stats for who is better, here are some facts :

Warne (16) , Murali (14), Kumble (5).

Wasim Akram holds record for most awards at 17.
Steve Waugh (16) is on top of the list amongst batsmen
Lara is 11 and Tendulkar is 10.

Very intersting.

Are these for tests or ODI's or both ?

 

[thirdumpire]

Tests


Source :

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Misc/MiscManOfMatch.asp

 

[Deja moo]

If Man of Match awards can be used along with stats for who is better, here are some facts :

Warne (16) , Murali (14), Kumble (5).

Wasim Akram holds record for most awards at 17.
Steve Waugh (16) is on top of the list amongst batsmen
Lara is 11 and Tendulkar is 10.

Are you sure thats right ? The way Kumble performs at home suggests to me that he might have more than just 5 .

 

[mavric41]

Are you sure thats right ? The way Kumble performs at home suggests to me that he might have more than just 5 .

There's a guy called Tendulkar that might have pinched a few.