Kumble vs Warne

[a massive zebra]

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

Well its 3 times higher, put it that way.

 

[twctopcat]

Sorry, don't know why i needed to say that, was just reassuring myself.

 

[marc71178]

But Kumble gets to bowl more because the other Indian bowlers don't take wickets a quickly

Funnily enough, some people use that same argument with Murali and you pooh pooh it.

 

[a massive zebra]

Funnily enough, some people use that same argument with Murali and you pooh pooh it.

Obviously you can't read...

For the 1000th time

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..

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.

And before you say I have changed my view, he following was posted in February.

Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because Australia's other bowlers are better and far more often all he would have to do is clean up the tail). Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate. ..

 

[honestbharani]

Obviously you can't read...

For the 1000th time






And before you say I have changed my view, he following was posted in February.

makes sense. Of course, I always prefer Murali to Warne, simply because IMHO, he gets tonked around less and therefore, even at his worst, he still gives control for a captain.

 

[Deja moo]

Zebra makes some very valid points.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

err murali and warne havent exactly played in the same era. you yourself have said later that warne's prime was in the 90s while muralis prime happened in the 00s. same era then?
and again even the averages of players in the same era have discrepancies, lara may average significantly lower than sachin, but most people rate them as equal.

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.

again all this is just a theory, it isnt a fact. a theory as ive said before can be said to work the opposite way too. if other bowlers in the side are so useless that you are the only wicket taker then obviously you get more chances and more overs to bowl at the batsman, and since the other bowlers arent as capable of taking wickets you get the opportunity to take those wickets. if you have more quality bowlers, there is more competition, thereby reducing your chances of taking wickets.

I have given dozens of examples to prove my point, yet you still fail to grasp it.

you provided some of the most stupid examples possible. saying that hadlee took more wickets per match but marshall averaged less because he played for a side with a better bowling attack is ridiculous, because you are making the claim that hadlee was a better bowler than marshall something which no one whos watched the both of them bowl would say,and certainly isnt anywhere near 'proof' anyways.
the akram vs ambrose comparison was even more ludicrous, both had just about as much support.

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.

then im afraid you cant read, i shall however attempt to show you what ive argued again....
one of your arguments was that murali had a better average, SR and average, when i showed you that if you made an even comparison i.e. look at their respective records away from home, youd find that murali had a higher SR.
then you switched arguments and went to the only argument that you are hanging onto right now. which is "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."
then you went on to say that murali had a better average against every team bar 1. of course when i looked at their away records against those teams and found that to be completely incorrect you again switched to the same argument"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."
as you can see quite clearly ive disproved every one of your arguments, bar 1 of course that you still cling onto, of course the fact that that argument cannot in theory be proved either way suggests to me that you cant make any sort of ridiculous claim in that direction.

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.

there are about 100 arguments that i could make against this ludicrous claim.
1)first of all how does this prove who the better bowler is? since when have we decided to use who gets hit for more than 3 runs an over the most often is the better bowler?
2) i'd like to remind you that i didnt exactly search through every murali game to see in how many he got walloped and how many he didnt. i just produced enough to show you that hes been hammered quite often too. im quite sure that there are other games in which hes been hammered that i missed out.
3) also it must be said that warne has played quite a few more games than murali has, and therefore its quite likely that hes had more bad games than murali has too
4) i'd say anything beyond 20 overs is long enough to say that someone has been rubbish in a spell or not. 30 overs is just one of your pathetic excuses to come up with any form of argument against warne.
5) amazing how you managed to modify your argument again and change it being hammered to anything over 3.50 runs an over. regardless if you look carefully, shane warne actually has 5 spells not 6 where hes gone for more than 3.50 and bowled more than 30 overs.

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.

my stats show that warne has taken 36% of his wickets off tailenders, while murali has taken 30.6 wickets off the tail. that isnt anywhere near 17% AFAIS

Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway).

err no, how many times have we seen the 8-11 batsmen turn a game around? one of the significant reasons why india were such a poor team abroad was because nos 8 to 11 couldnt contribute even 30 runs to the total. and australia have shown time and time again how significant tail contributions can be.

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.

err no, because warne's prime was between 93-95 rather than 93-97. he had an extremely poor year in 96. and if you look at his overall stats from 93-95, he averaged 21.7, however if you looked specifically at his away record he still averaged 24.03, certainly not too far away from muralis performance in his prime.

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

you have? then maybe you should learn to count. ive shown you that both of them have had a similar number of off days, before you changed the argument by talking about off days where they went for over 3.50 runs an over and bowled more than 30 overs. bad days i must remind you is not just about whether you got hammered out of the park, bad days is when you dont get wickets.

What have you been smoking?

so if bowler 1 starts off with 4 pathetic years and then is slightly better than bowler 2 in their respective primes, despite the fact that the bowler 2 has actually performed better for the rest of those years, bowler 1 must be considered better

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.

ahh yes of course, so the fact that graeme hick has performed far better than every other english cricketer has against those same second grade cricketers speaks volumes about who the better player is doesnt it? and harmison not performing against 2nd grade cricketers goes to show how wonderful he is too.

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.

oh and who is to say that if warne had played on the same wickets as murali he wouldnt have averaged just about the same as murali?

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.

and as i have said 1 billion times before, statistics is not 'hard evidence' either, statistics can be a bloody lie, and certainly anyone who doesnt know how to use it(like you) only make things even worse.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Um... because he plays way over half his matches on dustbowls.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Similarly, comparing players who play on different pitches is different.

 

[Tom Halsey]

No you still don't get it do you.

You're the one that doesn't get it.


If one plays on pitches that spin from Day 1, he's obviously going to have better stats. Anyway, you appear to be missing the fact that in Sri Lanka, they have plenty of bowlers who take wickets anyway - spinners. So he gains no advantage from that anyway.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

No it is not destroyed because you can't get away with bowling tripe early in your career. Warne (first few Tests aside) hit his straps straight away. And, out of those away stats, how many times have the respective players played against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Murali has played all his matches in the 1st division, Warne has played half of his in the 2nd.

Point being? The difference between 1st and 2nd in the CC is not huge.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Erm, I don't see how you're so sure.

I'd be surprised if many people worldwide are biased towards someone like Warne.

 

[SJS]

err murali and warne havent exactly played in the same era. you yourself have said later that warne's prime was in the 90s while muralis prime happened in the 00s. same era then?
and again even the averages of players in the same era have discrepancies, lara may average significantly lower than sachin, but most people rate them as equal.



again all this is just a theory, it isnt a fact. a theory as ive said before can be said to work the opposite way too. if other bowlers in the side are so useless that you are the only wicket taker then obviously you get more chances and more overs to bowl at the batsman, and since the other bowlers arent as capable of taking wickets you get the opportunity to take those wickets. if you have more quality bowlers, there is more competition, thereby reducing your chances of taking wickets.





you provided some of the most stupid examples possible. saying that hadlee took more wickets per match but marshall averaged less because he played for a side with a better bowling attack is ridiculous, because you are making the claim that hadlee was a better bowler than marshall something which no one whos watched the both of them bowl would say,and certainly isnt anywhere near 'proof' anyways.
the akram vs ambrose comparison was even more ludicrous, both had just about as much support.







then im afraid you cant read, i shall however attempt to show you what ive argued again....
one of your arguments was that murali had a better average, SR and average, when i showed you that if you made an even comparison i.e. look at their respective records away from home, youd find that murali had a higher SR.
then you switched arguments and went to the only argument that you are hanging onto right now. which is "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."
then you went on to say that murali had a better average against every team bar 1. of course when i looked at their away records against those teams and found that to be completely incorrect you again switched to the same argument"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."
as you can see quite clearly ive disproved every one of your arguments, bar 1 of course that you still cling onto, of course the fact that that argument cannot in theory be proved either way suggests to me that you cant make any sort of ridiculous claim in that direction.




there are about 100 arguments that i could make against this ludicrous claim.
1)first of all how does this prove who the better bowler is? since when have we decided to use who gets hit for more than 3 runs an over the most often is the better bowler?
2) i'd like to remind you that i didnt exactly search through every murali game to see in how many he got walloped and how many he didnt. i just produced enough to show you that hes been hammered quite often too. im quite sure that there are other games in which hes been hammered that i missed out.
3) also it must be said that warne has played quite a few more games than murali has, and therefore its quite likely that hes had more bad games than murali has too
4) i'd say anything beyond 20 overs is long enough to say that someone has been rubbish in a spell or not. 30 overs is just one of your pathetic excuses to come up with any form of argument against warne.
5) amazing how you managed to modify your argument again and change it being hammered to anything over 3.50 runs an over. regardless if you look carefully, shane warne actually has 5 spells not 6 where hes gone for more than 3.50 and bowled more than 30 overs.



my stats show that warne has taken 36% of his wickets off tailenders, while murali has taken 30.6 wickets off the tail. that isnt anywhere near 17% AFAIS



err no, how many times have we seen the 8-11 batsmen turn a game around? one of the significant reasons why india were such a poor team abroad was because nos 8 to 11 couldnt contribute even 30 runs to the total. and australia have shown time and time again how significant tail contributions can be.



err no, because warne's prime was between 93-95 rather than 93-97. he had an extremely poor year in 96. and if you look at his overall stats from 93-95, he averaged 21.7, however if you looked specifically at his away record he still averaged 24.03, certainly not too far away from muralis performance in his prime.




you have? then maybe you should learn to count. ive shown you that both of them have had a similar number of off days, before you changed the argument by talking about off days where they went for over 3.50 runs an over and bowled more than 30 overs. bad days i must remind you is not just about whether you got hammered out of the park, bad days is when you dont get wickets.



so if bowler 1 starts off with 4 pathetic years and then is slightly better than bowler 2 in their respective primes, despite the fact that the bowler 2 has actually performed better for the rest of those years, bowler 1 must be considered better



ahh yes of course, so the fact that graeme hick has performed far better than every other english cricketer has against those same second grade cricketers speaks volumes about who the better player is doesnt it? and harmison not performing against 2nd grade cricketers goes to show how wonderful he is too.



oh and who is to say that if warne had played on the same wickets as murali he wouldnt have averaged just about the same as murali?



and as i have said 1 billion times before, statistics is not 'hard evidence' either, statistics can be a bloody lie, and certainly anyone who doesnt know how to use it(like you) only make things even worse.

Well, well well.

I bet this is the longest post ever on this forum ever. (my response that is)



PS : Dont try to beat this record ....pleeeeeeeeeeeease. My server is toooooooooo slow to handle more of this.

 

[tooextracool]

actually some of my arguments with richard have had way way longer posts than that.

 

[SJS]

actually some of my arguments with richard have had way way longer posts than that.

Trust you to ruin my day

 

[tooextracool]

Trust you to ruin my day

nice try, but lets just leave the long and boring posts to me and richard shall we?

 

[marc71178]

If they're "long and boring", then why bother?

 

[tooextracool]

because this is not an entertainment forum?
seriously, i post here not to entertain you or anyone else, i post here to get my point across. and if i require long and boring posts to do so, then so be it. of course 'boring' is your opinion(and it is in the majority), but i dont think either richard or me found each others posts 'boring' and i think there was enough cricketing fact in both our posts for someone who has the aptitude to read long posts to find interesting. of course the fact that i was quoting richard and not you, also suggests that you dont even have to read it in the first place.

 

[SJS]

because this is not an entertainment forum?
seriously, i post here not to entertain you or anyone else, i post here to get my point across. and if i require long and boring posts to do so, then so be it. of course 'boring' is your opinion(and it is in the majority), but i dont think either richard or me found each others posts 'boring' and i think there was enough cricketing fact in both our posts for someone who has the aptitude to read long posts to find interesting. of course the fact that i was quoting richard and not you, also suggests that you dont even have to read it in the first place.

Maybe you have a point here TEC. Though one doesnt always agree. I have an humble suggestion though.

When you answer a long mail with another long one, why not try a different format. Make the answer look more like a complete whole rather than a bunch of disjointed (so it appears to others) rejoinders to individual sentences rather than a reasoned complete argument covering the entire post you are replying but still having its own continuity. This way others , if they want to read it, will be able to make better sense of it.