Kumble vs Warne

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Where exactly did I say that Murali was lucky? I was saying that Warne wasn't. However, Murali is infact lucky in that his statistics are way better than they should be because he gets dustbowls at home all the time.

 

[Tom Halsey]

None of my reasons have gone down the drain.

Yes they have, you just continually ignore the counter reasons we've provided.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Yes, but you've ignored our reasons behind the ones that do. HE PLAYS ON BLOODY DUSTBOWLS ALL HIS LIFE.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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

Another one gone.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.....

You missed another couple out, IIRC there were a couple in England in 2002.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I explained that in the post.

No, you infact explained to me how biased you are.

From that post, this is what it appears you are in effect saying:

Every stat that Murali is better in makes him better than Warne.

Every stat that Warne is better in can just be attributed to the fact that he benefits from being in a better attack. You didn't 'prove' that at all.

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

My Top 8 leggies would be


Shane Warne, Clarrie Grimmett, Tiger O'Reilley, Subash Gupte, Richie Benaud, Anil Kumble, Abdul Qadir, Mushtaq Ahmed.

 

[SJS]

My Top 8 leggies would be


Shane Warne, Clarrie Grimmett, Tiger O'Reilley, Subash Gupte, Richie Benaud, Anil Kumble, Abdul Qadir, Mushtaq Ahmed.

No Chandrashekhar ? You reckon even Mushtaq ahmed is a better bowler than him ?

 

[true indian]

kumble is the better spinner, by a long long way.

warne is just an overrated ordinary spinner who averages 50+ against india. even players like harbhajan and pathan easily hit 4s and 6s off his bowling. warne, just inflates his record by playing against teams who struggle against spin like england.

kumble, has taken 57 wickets in his last 8 tests. 39 wickets in 6 of these tests came away in 2 of the most toughest tours in aus and pak. kumble, has a better WPM(wickets per match) than warne. kumble, took only 85 tests to 400 wickets. warne took 92 long tests for his 400.

warne, has also benefitted immensely from biased umpiring as well. warne, is known to be a cheater and a doper. warne, has already been accused of having phone-*** and has even been banned for a year for taking banned drugs.

kumble, on the other hand has a 100% clean record.

 

[Neil Pickup]

 

[SJS]

DITTO !!

 

[true indian]

neil pickup and sjs, whats the meaning of this post ?

 

[twctopcat]

Are you trying to start a flame war of murali vs warne proportions??? I've already read your interesting "Kartik is the best left arm spinner in the world" so you're going to have lots of friends on this forum.

 

[honestbharani]

I think this Warne/Murali thing is getting debated a little too much. But yet, FWIW, here is my two cents:



Murali has been more consistent than Warne, a fact that cannot be denied. Warne at his best seems to have been better than Murali but then again, I will rather pick Murali at his worst than Warney at his worst. It is a bit like the Lara/Sachin comparison. Sachin has played a lot against sides like Zim to really make a lot of runs against them and he has been aided by the fact that the pitches in India are quite batsmen friendly. Lara, on the other hand, has played in a side that has depended on its quickies to do the damage and has therefore not played on wickets that help the batters as much. He has also not played an awful lot against sides like Zim (at least not as much as Sachin, as far as I can recall). But even giving into all these factors, one cannot take away the fact that Sachin seems more consistent than Lara. Similarly Murali is more consistent than Warne. I think Murali is like Sachin amongst the bowlers and Warne is like Lara.


Back to the topic, I think Warne is better than Kumble, although Kumble, the way he is bowling at present, will do much better in overseas conditions than he did in his past tours.

 

[Sanz]

neil pickup and sjs, whats the meaning of this post ?

It means that one has to be really blind (biased is an understatement) to say Kumble is better especially if it is said in the manner you have said it.

 

[a massive zebra]

I think this Warne/Murali thing is getting debated a little too much. But yet, FWIW, here is my two cents:

Warne at his best seems to have been better than Murali but then again, I will rather pick Murali at his worst than Warney at his worst.

No.

Best Period:
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

Best Series:
Murali
Sri Lanka in Pakistan, 1999/00 [Series]
SL 3 213.1 516 26 6/71 19.84 2.42 49.1 1 1
South Africa in Sri Lanka, 2000 [Series]
- 3 227.4 480 26 7/84 18.46 2.10 52.5 3 1
Zimbabwe in Sri Lanka, 2001/02 [Series]
SL 3 203.1 294 30 9/51 9.80 1.44 40.6 2 1
England in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
SL 3 231.4 320 26 7/46 12.30 1.38 53.4 1 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
Aus 3 209.1 649 28 6/59 23.17 3.10 44.8 4 1

Warne
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1993 [Series]
Aus 6 439.5 877 34 5/82 25.79 1.99 77.6 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1994/95 [Series]
Aus 5 256.1 549 27 8/71 20.33 2.14 56.9 2 1
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1997 [Series]
Aus 6 237.1 577 24 6/48 24.04 2.43 59.2 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2001 [Series]
Aus 5 195.2 580 31 7/165 18.70 2.96 37.8 3 1
Australia v Pakistan Test Series in Sri Lanka/U.A.E., 2002/03 [Series]
Aus 3 124 342 27 7/94 12.66 2.75 27.5 2 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
Aus 3 168 521 26 5/43 20.03 3.10 38.7 4 2

Warne has had one truely amazing series, Murali has had two. Warne has taken more wickets in a series than Murali, but played twice as many matches in doing so. Murali has taken 25 wickets at under 20 in a series 4 times, Warne has done it twice.

 

[Neil Pickup]

 

[a massive zebra]

kumble is the better spinner, by a long long way.

kumble, has taken 57 wickets in his last 8 tests. 39 wickets in 6 of these tests came away in 2 of the most toughest tours in aus and pak. kumble, has a better WPM(wickets per match) than warne. kumble, took only 85 tests to 400 wickets. warne took 92 long tests for his 400..

But Kumble gets to bowl more because the other Indian bowlers don't take wickets a quickly, and his record is heavily skewed towards his performances at home. Warne has performed against more teams than Kumble, has a better average and strike rate, and even Kumble himself tried to learn from Warne.

warne, is known to be a cheater and a doper. warne, has already been accused of having phone-*** and has even been banned for a year for taking banned drugs.

kumble, on the other hand has a 100% clean record.

This has no relevance to whether Kumble is better than Warne or not.

 

[a massive zebra]

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.........

We are talking about Warne and Murali who played in the same era. You are comparing players from different era's which is completely different. Obviously worse players are going to average more now because there are currently about 5 world class bowlers. In the 1980s there were at least a dozen if not more.

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.......

No you still don't get it do you. Good bowlers in worse teams get more wickets per match because they bowl more; the other bowlers aren't taking wickets so they are given more responsibility. The lack of pressure put on by the weaker bowlers at the other end causes their average and strike rate to rise above the level it would if they played for a good team. Another reason why their strike rates are worse is they are often played defensively because they are the only threat, in a better team they are treated with less respect and so have a better strike rate. I have given dozens of examples to prove my point, yet you still fail to grasp it.

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........

No I have countered your argument by showing it is flawed...Warne is bound to have a better average and strike rate away from home because of the great bowlers he plays with. Even then average is not even one run better.

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

Ok maybe I shouldn't have said never but the fact remains that it happens to Warne far more often. Anyone can get hammered for a few overs, most of those you mentioned are short, and it is the long spells that can be far more damaging. And the fact is than Murali has only bowled 30 overs and gone at 3.5 an over twice, it has happened to Warne 6 times. A significant disparity of 300%. So my point still stands, just the word never needs modifying.

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

It is actually a 17% difference, which is significant. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway).

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?

Still the fact remains Murali was a better bowler at his peak than Warne. And if you are so biased as to ignore Murali's record at home, lets look at their away stats.

Murali 2000-2003 13 688.1 1660 70 23.71 6-39 5 2 58.99 2.40
Warne 1993-1997 19 880.4 2105 83 25.36 6-48 3 0 63.66 2.39

Murali wins on all counts, your argument is destroyed.

and incase you havent heard, a bowler who performs better consistently is far better than a bowler who doesnt.

Yes, and as I have shown, Warne has far more off days than Murali.

even if murali has been the better bowler in his prime than warne was, how does it say who the better bowler is?

What have you been smoking?

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.....

Yes I agree, but the disparity is huge, it is yet another fact that adds weight to Murali's case. And Warne has not performed particularly well against ''2nd grade cricketers'', so that shows how wonderful he is.

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..........

Murali has played all his matches in the 1st division, Warne has played half of his in the 2nd. And even if Murali bowls on easier pitches at home, if he averaged 23 away (like Warne), he would have to average around 5 at home to account for the huge difference, which clearly has not happened.

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

Which it is. They picked him out of personal preferance because he plays for a long established, more traditional, more fashionable team. This was based on hard evidence.

 

[twctopcat]

And the fact is than Murali has only bowled 30 overs and gone at 3.5 an over twice, it has happened to Warne 6 times. A significant disparity of 300%.

Sorry mate, isn't 6 compared to 2 in this case 200%? (not trying to be the pickup of numbers).