Kumble vs Warne

[SJS]

Tests


Source :

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

One day stats are equally interesting.

There is daylight between the leader Tendulkar with 50 MOM awards(339 games) and the next Jaysuriya 35(332)

The top bowler ,not taking Kallis with 24(203) as a pure bowler, is Akram with 21(from 356). I doubt if there is more than 1 as a batsman followed by Waqar at 17(262)

Warne is the top spinner with 13(194) followed by Murali 9(237)

 

[a massive zebra]

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).

14 in 91 matches is a better ratio than 16 in 114. I find it hard to believe Kumble has only won 5 MoM awards.

Grant Flower has won as many MoM awards as Kumble, Gavaskar and Javed.

 

[SJS]

14 in 91 matches is a better ratio than 16 in 114. I find it hard to believe Kumble has only won 5 MoM awards.

Grant Flower has won as many MoM awards as Kumble, Gavaskar and Javed.

I am not sure there were any MOM awards in the early part of Gavaskar's career, were there ??

 

[a massive zebra]

I am not sure there were any MOM awards in the early part of Gavaskar's career, were there ??

I don't know, but Botham has 12.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I use a substantial amount of evidence to back it up.[/SIZE]

A substantial amount of unfair evidence would be a truer statement.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Have you ever considered that it may just be that Warne is a good bowler and not an incredibly lucky piethrower who benifits from being in a good team?

 

[Tom Halsey]

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

He wasn't losing an argument, he was making a very good point that you continually ignore.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

How in the name of Planet Earth does it prove it?

Next thing you know, you'll be tryig to claim that the fact that Dennis Lillee had a better bowling average than Kabir Ali was all because he bowled in a better attack.

 

[a massive zebra]

Have you ever considered that it may just be that Warne is a good bowler?

I have never denied that. He's better than merely 'good'.

and not an incredibly lucky?

You cannot have the amount of success Murali has had for many years all over the world in an average team without being a freakishly superb bowler. He is only lucky to those that cannot except the fact that anyone could possibly be better than their idol - the match fixing, two-timing, junkie.

piethrower ?

That does not affect whether he is better than Warne or not. Stats and performance do. And give me the proof he chucks or just give it a break, because there are so many people who seem to think Murali chucks yet will never back it up with evidence.

who benifits from being in a good team?

I have already explained why Warne benefits from being in a good team. No point in repeating it again.

 

[a massive zebra]

How in the name of Planet Earth does it prove it?.

I explained that in the post.

Next thing you know, you'll be tryig to claim that the fact that Dennis Lillee had a better bowling average than Kabir Ali was all because he bowled in a better attack.

Or maybe it was because he was a much greater who had a much longer, much more successful career.

 

[marc71178]

14 in 91 matches is a better ratio than 16 in 114.

Not when you're the only good player on the side.

 

[a massive zebra]

Not when you're the only good player on the side.

He's not the only good player in the side. Are De Silva, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene, Sangakarra, Vaas etc not good players? These guys might not be of the same standard as Murali but they all deserve respect.

You can look at it both ways, the award is invariably given to someone from the winning side, and as Australia win far more often he gets more opportunities to win the award.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

your point? or the statisticians point?

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.

because statisticians know so very much about cricket dont they?
seriously how many times do i have to say it? 2 bowlers who have close statistics can never be compared by who averages 2 runs more or who has an SR of 2 balls less, thats a very foolish way of looking at it. statistics can be a damn lie, and they have been on many many occasions in the past.
you confirm pretty much everything i thought about you, in that you dont watch the game and make opinions on it, but you go on not even what the experts think(which would be bad enough in itself) but what the statisticians think. i would recommend that you think on your own for a change....

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

and maybe just maybe that might be because marshall was a superior bowler? far more people rate marshall as a better bowler than hadlee not because he averages 1 run less, but because they knew what he was capable off. good bowlers can take wickets irrespective of the bowling attack that they are in, and im quite confident that marshall would have averaged just as good had he played for NZ.
and the point that you continue to ignore, a theory that you havent managed to find fault in yet, is that if you have less support, who is most likely to take the wickets? think, apply your mind and decide if you had 3 bowlers who couldnt take a wicket to save their life and 1 that was extremely good who would the batsmen get out to?

Ambrose vs Akram

the same what? akram had just about as much support as ambrose did if you ask me.

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

oh am i?? look carefully, ive managed to turn things around from '11 reasons why murali is better than warne' to ' 1 reason why murali is better than warne'.....and if you look carefully enough ive managed to use stats to show you that warne actually is a better bowler than murali. but given im not as shallow as you are, i dont rate my bowlers on averages, i watch them bowl which is why i consider them to be equal....as do most other people on these forums.
you are clutching desperately on your last reason, and the stats show that warne has a better average and SR, even if we do agree that warne would be worse off had he not had any support, then you cannot assume that hed be so far worse that his stats would be worse than muralis, it might only go upto making them equal

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.

and if you look closely, you'll see that thats not the point i was disproving...you said that murali was better against every team except one....ive shown that to be complete and utter rubbish.

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.

actually id say averaging nearly 5 runs more than warne in zimbabwe is quite a big difference. its also interesting that as bad as warne has been against india, and one of your arguments is that murali has been considerably better off than warne against india, its strange how murali actually has a worse SR in india than shane warne isnt it? of course you would once again use the same argument that youve used everywhere, that warne has had more support, if he doesnt get much support then howcome those averages increase so dramatically despite getting the same amount of support when murali plays at home?
bowlers can take just about as many wickets with or without support, as ive said before someone like warne would probably get less off an opportunity to bowl abroad because on most occasions the fast bowlers would be getting the wickets instead of him.

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

barely yes, but its another one of your 11 reasons thats gone down the drain....

 

[tooextracool]

I explained that in the post.

then im afraid you have no idea what the word 'proof' means.
'proof' is not what some random statistician who probably never watched a game of cricket shared his opinion on i can assure you, that is just about as valid as my theory is,except that i actually watch cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

You cannot have the amount of success Murali has had for many years all over the world in an average team without being a freakishly superb bowler

unless you play half your matches on dust bowls(im not denying that murali is a very good bowler here)

He is only lucky to those that cannot except the fact that anyone could possibly be better than their idol - the match fixing, two-timing, junkie.

actually that is an extremely stupid statement to make.....i doubt thered be a sole person who supports warne because hes a match fixer and a druggie, people support him because of his bowling skills and his charisma.
that statement shows the contrary, it says to me that you cannot accept(perhaps you'd like to learn the meaning of 'except') the fact that a druggie and a match fixer is just about as good a bowler as someone who isnt one......

That does not affect whether he is better than Warne or not. Stats and performance do. And give me the proof he chucks or just give it a break, because there are so many people who seem to think Murali chucks yet will never back it up with evidence.

yes this is precisely what you should be saying to yourself!!
stats show warne to be a better bowler, so going solely on stats you should assume that warne is a better bowler than murali.
and just like the people who seem to think murali is a chucker without backing it up with evidence, you seem to think murali is a better bowler without backing it up with evidence(well at least evidence that cant be looked at both ways)

I have already explained why Warne benefits from being in a good team. No point in repeating it again.

nope, just because hes in a better team he cant be castigated for it, hes come oue with better stats on similar terrain so hes certainly proved that despite playing for a better team(however thats supposed to help) he can back it up and average better than murali.

 

[a massive zebra]

because statisticians know so very much about cricket dont they?

Clearly a lot more than you.

seriously how many times do i have to say it? 2 bowlers who have close statistics can never be compared by who averages 2 runs more or who has an SR of 2 balls less, thats a very foolish way of looking at it.....

Well thats exactly what you were doing with their away stats, which are closer than those that I quoted.

statistics can be a damn lie,

Not when they have both played 90+ matches. Anomalies even out over time.

you confirm pretty much everything i thought about you, in that you dont watch the game and make opinions on it, but you go on not even what the experts think(which would be bad enough in itself) but what the statisticians think. i would recommend that you think on your own for a change....

Another mindless personal insult that wasn't required.

and the point that you continue to ignore, a theory that you havent managed to find fault in yet, is that if you have less support, who is most likely to take the wickets? think, apply your mind and decide if you had 3 bowlers who couldnt take a wicket to save their life and 1 that was extremely good who would the batsmen get out to?....

I haven't argued with this because it is the point I was making all along. Playing for a better team will lower your average, strike rate and wickets per match.

oh am i?? look carefully, ive managed to turn things around from '11 reasons why murali is better than warne' to ' 1 reason why murali is better than warne'.....?....

What a load of rubbish. You have argued against one of the reasons. And I have countered your arguments perfectly adequately. You haven't argued against:

Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (29 wickets at 55.44). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94).

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 never 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 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
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur

Warne takes a lot of his wickets against the tailenders, whereas Murali takes more of a variety. A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 8 to 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?

Although Warne has been less effective since his shoulder injury, even at his peak (1993-97) he was not as good 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

You could take a look at their respective records in the English county championship:

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 19 1049.1 322 2195 149 14.73 7-39 17 6 42.2 2.09
Warne 24 962.5 259 2682 113 23.73 6-34 8 0 52.7 2.69

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.

Murali was recently voted the best bowler ever in an objective Wisden analysis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2572069.stm

and if you look carefully enough ive managed to use stats to show you that warne actually is a better bowler than murali. ....

No you have shown that their away records are similar, and I have explained that given that Murali plays for a much worse team, the fact that his record is similar shows he is the better.

i watch them bowl which is why i consider them to be equal....

Contradicting yourself there, you just said

Warne actually is a better bowler than Murali....

as do most other people on these forums.....

Because they have not investigated it like I have.

you are clutching desperately on your last reason, and the stats show that warne has a better average and SR, even if we do agree that warne would be worse off had he not had any support, then you cannot assume that hed be so far worse that his stats would be worse than muralis, it might only go upto making them equal

Utter rubbish. As shown above I have many other reasons, and the stats show Murali has a better average and strike rate.

barely yes, but its another one of your 11 reasons thats gone down the drain....

None of my reasons have gone down the drain.

 

[a massive zebra]

actually that is an extremely stupid statement to make.....i doubt thered be a sole person who supports warne because hes a match fixer and a druggie, people support him because of his bowling skills and his charisma.
that statement shows the contrary, it says to me that you cannot accept(perhaps you'd like to learn the meaning of 'except') the fact that a druggie and a match fixer is just about as good a bowler as someone who isnt one.......

I never said that people support warne because hes a match fixer and a druggie. People support him because of his bowling skills and his charisma. What I was is saying is that people cannot accept that anyone could possibly be better than him, irrespective of reality.

stats show warne to be a better bowler, so going solely on stats you should assume that warne is a better bowler than murali.
and just like the people who seem to think murali is a chucker without backing it up with evidence, you seem to think murali is a better bowler without backing it up with evidence

Complete garbage again. Nearly all the stats show Murali to be the better bowler. I have explained the reasons behind the few that don't.

 

[Arrow]

Murali is a chucker so this debate is irrelavent.

 

[NikhilN]

I think overall warne is better then kumble

 

[tooextracool]

Clearly a lot more than you.

because? just because you worship some mathematician, it doesnt make him know more about cricket than me. my opinion is just about as valid as his is, and considering ive probably watched far more cricket than he has, i would say that i dont give 2 ***** about what he thinks, and neither would any cricket expert. i do not rely on what other people think about someone, i watch the game to judge how good a player someone is.

Well thats exactly what you were doing with their away stats, which are closer than those that I quoted. .

yes i know because someone like you doesnt understand the importance of watching cricket. sometimes you've got to beat people at their own game, and ive done that quite successfully.

Not when they have both played 90+ matches. Anomalies even out over time.

no they do not, because that would make players like kallis better than richards and steve waugh, and perhaps one of the biggest injustices( although hes only played 63 games, but i wouldnt be surprised if he maintained that until 90 matches) jayawardhene would be better than martin crowe and geoff boycott, shaun pollock better than hadlee.....

Another mindless personal insult that wasn't required.

that is far from an insult, ive just said something that you really need to do.....nonetheless i dont think i need to recall the times when you have called me a 'fool' for no apparent reason either.

I haven't argued with this because it is the point I was making all along. Playing for a better team will lower your average, strike rate and wickets per match.

and if he takes more wickets than he would actually have taken had he had support wouldnt that rise his average even further?
if you take more wickets per match, its highly unlikely that you are going to come out with a higher average trust me on this one...

What a load of rubbish. You have argued against one of the reasons. And I have countered your arguments perfectly adequately. You haven't argued against:

err you have countered my argument by bringing in another one of your arguments.....and im sure that if i counter another argument, youd counter that one with a whole different argument. you stated something that was false, ive showed you why it was, and then you stated a whole new reason why murali should be better....that im afraid is not a counter, its a different argument completely.
nonetheless i shall attempt to argue all the other arguments that are left....

Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (29 wickets at 55.44). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94).

actually murali has done far better against them at home, in india he has been just as abysmal, averaging 49 odd with an SR of 106.
im afraid warnes home conditions arent anywhere near as suitable to the ones murali gets at home for him to compete while playing against india.

EDIT:after warnes recent performances in india he actually averages better than murali does in india.

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 never 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 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
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur

this really is the pinnacle of stupidity out of all the arguments that you have made. every bowler has a bad day, we all know that, the fact that you could only come up with 9 innings from over 200 just shows how dire this argument really is. id like to know when ER's go to show who the better bowler is in test matches, because if im not mistaken, the average and the SR are the only real considerations that can be used to judge a better player.
i shall also like to inform you that any cricket expert never says 'never', its a very bold statement that can come back to haunt you big time. since you are no expert you've fallen into that trap, and i shall venture to prove you wrong for the umpteenth time.....
15.1 2 58 1 3.82 1 D 3rd Test v Aus in SL 1992 at Moratuwa
36 6 123 1 3.42 1 L 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
11 0 42 0 3.82 3
20 2 83 2 4.15 4 W 2nd Test v Pak in Pak 1995/96 at Faisalabad
54 3 224 2 4.15 2 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1 L 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin
14 3 50 1 3.57 1 D 1st Test v Zim in Zim 1999/00 at Bulawayo
25 2 96 2 3.84 2 L 2nd Test v Ind in SL 2001 at Kandy

so very good point you made there.....

Warne takes a lot of his wickets against the tailenders, whereas Murali takes more of a variety. A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 8 to 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?

dont know how this high proportion comes up, its about 5% more, that isnt significant at all. its not like the 5% means that he cannot trouble tendulkar or lara.....regardless i shall use the counter argument, what is the point of getting lara or tendulkar if you cant get walsh and srinath out?

Although Warne has been less effective since his shoulder injury, even at his peak (1993-97) he was not as good 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

yes we all know that, ive already explained why before, murali plays half his games on spinner friendly wicket, how many times do i have to say this?
and incase you havent heard, a bowler who performs better consistently is far better than a bowler who doesnt. even if murali has been the better bowler in his prime than warne was, how does it say who the better bowler is?it doesnt allow anyone to get away with bowling rubbish early on in his career.

You could take a look at their respective records in the English county championship:

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 19 1049.1 322 2195 149 14.73 7-39 17 6 42.2 2.09
Warne 24 962.5 259 2682 113 23.73 6-34 8 0 52.7 2.69

because county records against 2nd grade cricketers proves a lot doesnt it? i think the comparison is between who is better at the international level rather than who is better at the county level.
regardless i wouldnt be surprised if the pitches that murali got to play on offered far more for the spinners than the pitches warne player on did either.....

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.

then im afraid you venture into the non-watching yet again....
2 things you should know
1) the ball that murali bowled to butcher(i shall not venture into the qadir one since i didnt watch it, and im pretty certain you didnt either given that you dont watch cricket) was actually playable, butcher had kicked every other ball that murali bowled in that area before that, but due to a lack in concentration he played it on the back foot and perished. butcher himself admitted this at the end of the days play. warnes ball to gatting was without doubt unplayable,gatting got onto his front foot and did what any player should do, unfortunately the ball was just too good.
2) the reason why warnes ball is rated better is because of the situation,decide for yourself which one is better.....someone who bowls his first ball in foreign territory in an ashes series by dismissing gatting and changing the series completely after that, or someone who bowls a very good ball,despite bowling over after over before that and being kicked away and struggling to take wickets before he finally comes up with a wicket that isnt even match altering?

Murali was recently voted the best bowler ever in an objective Wisden analysis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2572069.stm

point being? many many experts have picked warne ahead of murali, yet on those occasions you have pointed it out as bias.....

No you have shown that their away records are similar, and I have explained that given that Murali plays for a much worse team, the fact that his record is similar shows he is the better.

similar how? warne has a better SR against every team bar WI. and ive shown you why just because he plays for a worse team, it doesnt mean that he should be averaging lower.....

Contradicting yourself there, you just said

then im afraid you cant read. i said that using your argument, which is all based on statistics, warne is actually a better bowler than murali(however insignificant the difference maybe), but because im not as shallow as you are and rely on watching cricket more than stats, i consider them to be equal.

Because they have not investigated it like I have.

you mean by watching more cricket they know less than you?
as ive said before, your job of looking at stats and deciding who is the better player can be done by my maid, so if you feel proud of yourself by coming up with such a brilliant investigation then good for you.

Utter rubbish. As shown above I have many other reasons, and the stats show Murali has a better average and strike rate.

err what? stats show that murali has a better average and SR at home......away warne has both a better average and a much better SR. interestingly enough warne has a better average and SR in SL that murali himself does.....

None of my reasons have gone down the drain.

count again now, and tell me how many more reasons youve got left....