*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

I can honestly see how Warne fans feel that he 'doesnt get his dues' because Warne is amongst the greatest of spinners in cricketing history. He is simply unfortunate enough to be born in the same era as Murali - who IMO is the best spinner the world has ever seen handily.
He has better control than Warne- you can say that he gets played defensively but even in ODIs, where batsmen try to hit out as much as they can, Murali is significantly more economical than Warne. Not to mention, Murali does almost everything better than Warne does, while having vastly inferior support crew. Just about the only thing in his favour is that his home pitches suit him a bit more than Warne. But that factor cannot be helped- thats your fate. But when seen in 'alien' overseas conditions, Murali is also superior to Warne.
You can only compare against teams they both have played and as such, you have to disregard their performance against Australia and Sri Lanka. In all other nations combined, Murali does better. To me, its quite clear that while Warne is an alltime great bowler, Murali is a once-in-a-lifetime kinda bowler.

 

[Francis]

But when seen in 'alien' overseas conditions, Murali is also superior to Warne.

Lol, all I'll say is not even close. Warne's strike-rate in overseas games drawfs Murali's by a mile. Even C_C's beloved averages suit Warne. In overseas games Warne has a better average, and is a mile ahead in strike-rate it isn't funny. Warne also has played many more games than Murali. We'll see what Murali's average looks like when he's played that much. Warne's taken the most wickets in a calendar year five times, in eras with Akram, Donald, Ambrose etc.

Murali fans (I am one to some extent) just live and breath on stats and while it may suprise them, I'd be willing to wager there's more people thinking Warne is greater than Murali than the other way around.

Warne's at no handicap being in the same era at Murali. Many think Warne's the best bowler ever.

Something I did want to bring up is how odd it is that in places like England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa... from what I've heard, Warne is rated better. Yet in the sub-continent in places like India, Pakistan and of course, Sri Lanka... Murali is rated higher.

It proved nothing either way... I just find it interesting how there's almost a territorial thing going on there...

 

[C_C]

Lol, all I'll say is not even close. Warne's strike-rate in overseas games drawfs Murali's by a mile. Even C_C's beloved averages suit Warne. In overseas games Warne has a better average, and is a mile ahead in strike-rate it isn't funny. Warne also has played many more games than Murali. We'll see what Murali's average looks like when he's played that much. Warne's taken the most wickets in a calendar year five times, in eras with Akram, Donald, Ambrose etc.

Err no.
Actually, if you look in overseas conditions against the teams they BOTH have played against, Murali's average is better than Warne's. And Warne taking most wickets in a calendar year is simply because Australia plays more tests per year than Sri Lanka.

And if you wager that there are more people thinking Warne is superior to Murali, you'd be dead wrong. Most people in the subcontinent rate Murali better and that alone is far far greater fanbase than what Warne has.

Murali is at a serious disadvantage than Warne - just about the only thing that suits him is that his home conditions favour him slightly more than it does for Warne. Everything else, Warne has the easier life - He has better infrastructure to back him, almost always has runs on the board from his batsmen to give him a free reign and a much much better bowling cast around him. Yet, Murali does better than Warne- significantly so.

 

[Francis]

Err no.
Actually, if you look in overseas conditions against the teams they BOTH have played against, Murali's average is better than Warne's. And Warne taking most wickets in a calendar year is simply because Australia plays more tests per year than Sri Lanka.

If I recall that's not true. But even if it is, Warne's strike-rate is just ridiculously better it aint worth arguing.

And if you wager that there are more people thinking Warne is superior to Murali, you'd be dead wrong. Most people in the subcontinent rate Murali better and that alone is far far greater fanbase than what Warne has.

OK Mr. Technicallity. I'd wager the percentage of people in each country would favour Warne, for example. 96% in Australia might think Warne's better. As might 94% in England. As might 92% in NZ. As might 90% in SA. Whereas with Murali, 88% in Pakistan might think he's better etc.

Murali is at a serious disadvantage than Warne - just about the only thing that suits him is that his home conditions favour him slightly more than it does for Warne. Everything else, Warne has the easier life - He has better infrastructure to back him, almost always has runs on the board from his batsmen to give him a free reign and a much much better bowling cast around him. Yet, Murali does better than Warne- significantly so.

We debated this a while ago and went in circles. You will forever be attached to your stats and will ignore many factors. You say Warne has more support than Murali? Everybody knows, because it's obvious, than there's no way Warne could have gotten 40 wickets in the Ashes if he had support. He was padding up wickets so badly on the fifth day of the fifth test it wasn't funny. His average was going into the 20s and a few tailenders got him down. The fact he had more time and more go at batsman was the reason his average went down from 25 to below 20 in the Ashes.

It's just plain obvious, there's no way Warne could have done that with support. Those extra wickets brought his average down when, averaging 25 in the Ashes, his impact wasn't any greater with the odd wicket here and there.

Yet when we discussed the matter you said HISTORICALLY it is impossible for somebody to actually do better if they don't have help. The fact that they have more time to bowl at people, the facts they have more overs, and more shot to bring an average down is IRRELEVANT, and isn't RELATIVE.

When it's blatantly obvious. It was argued against Hadlee in the 80s, argued against guys like SF Barnes. HISTORICALLY it happens and it continues to happen today.

To be honest I feel like it's pointless arguing with you because you don't see scenarios, you see stats. You don't see variables, you see set-ways.

Whereas everybody else here can acknowledge and understand that Warne did pad-up a few extra wickets that made his stats look a bit better... or at least they can acknowledge that it helps having less competition.

In light of this, I just think it's pointless arguing with you because you just can't see it when all else can.

So I'm done talking Warne/Murali with you.

 

[Sanz]

OK Mr. Technicallity. I'd wager the percentage of people in each country would favour Warne, for example. 96% in Australia might think Warne's better. As might 94% in England. As might 92% in NZ. As might 90% in SA. Whereas with Murali, 88% in Pakistan might think he's better etc..

Didn't you repeat again and again... :- "Murali fans (I am one to some extent) just live and breath on stats and while it may suprise them".

What an Irony !!! Thank you for being so objective.

PS :- At least Murali fans bring up stats that are real, unlike the imaginary stuffed you just tried to pull off.

 

[Dasa]

Didn't you repeat again and again... :- "Murali fans (I am one to some extent) just live and breath on stats and while it may suprise them".

What an Irony !!! Thank you for being so objective.

PS :- At least Murali fans bring up stats that are real, unlike the imaginary stuffed you just tried to pull off.

Extraordinary hypocracy there...

When it's blatantly obvious. It was argued against Hadlee in the 80s, argued against guys like SF Barnes. HISTORICALLY it happens and it continues to happen today.

Don't confuse pace bowlers with spin bowlers....pacers use the new ball, and have opportunity to take wickets then. Someone like Murali doesn't have quality pace bowlers taking top-order wickets with the new ball (and often has to bowl with a newish ball himself) and has to bowl at well-set batsmen.
But of course, ignore that since it won't support your theories.

To be honest I feel like it's pointless arguing with you because you don't see scenarios, you see stats. You don't see variables, you see set-ways.

Similar could be said of you...you don't see stats, you only see scenarios and those scenarios are invariably constructed so they support your points only, so are useless for comparison.

 

[C_C]

If I recall that's not true. But even if it is, Warne's strike-rate is just ridiculously better it aint worth arguing.

In the opposition's home, against all nations they have BOTH played against, Murali's record is slightly better than Warne's i beleive. As per strike rate- there isnt much difference but bowlers in better attacks have better strike rates because the batsman is forced to hit out.

OK Mr. Technicallity. I'd wager the percentage of people in each country would favour Warne, for example. 96% in Australia might think Warne's better. As might 94% in England. As might 92% in NZ. As might 90% in SA. Whereas with Murali, 88% in Pakistan might think he's better etc.

And this surprises you because ?
The western nations are far more cohesive than the subcontinent,where there's always been a million different opinions about other things. You'd find that the reason the west has a very well defined mainstream culture is indirectly tied to the draconian religious regimes imposed on it in the past- something thats lacking in the subcontinent.

We debated this a while ago and went in circles. You will forever be attached to your stats and will ignore many factors. You say Warne has more support than Murali? Everybody knows, because it's obvious, than there's no way Warne could have gotten 40 wickets in the Ashes if he had support. He was padding up wickets so badly on the fifth day of the fifth test it wasn't funny. His average was going into the 20s and a few tailenders got him down. The fact he had more time and more go at batsman was the reason his average went down from 25 to below 20 in the Ashes.

I find your this line of argument to be quite ridiculous. Bowlers who bowl in a superior attack almost always end up with better averages, simply because the batsman cannot afford to play the 'main threat' out or be ultra-cautious against him. They have to take chances.Warne averages better with McGrath, Gillesipe, et. al around than without them. Same was Wasim averaged better with Waqar and Imran in the team than without and how the WI bowlers such as Marshall-Garner-Holding etc. averaged better playing with each other than without.
Besides, Warne picks up more tail-end wickets than Murali anyawys. Its much much moer difficult for a bowler to average well when they are practically alone as opposed to having excellent teammates to exert pressure from the other end and unsettle batsmen.
I am primarily a bowler when i play cricket and i appreciate the idea of having quality support. Often enough a batsman who's prodded and poked to a good bowling partner of mine would be a lot more hesistant against me than if i was being backed up by alsorans.
It is much like the way the wolves hunt in packs and which is why the lone wolf is far more dangerous than a packwolf.

And dont be condescending about 'everyone agrees on this' - you'd find that people who follow cricket actively mostly consider Murali to be a better bowler than Warne.

The western nations are quite blatant in promoting their own , largely through a much better established media suggestability. Which is why players from the subcontinent or the caribbean, despite achieving better than their english-aussie counterparts, tend to get slotted below or on par with them. That trend has existed throughout cricket's history and is quite obvious really.
Besides, i do see scenarios - i am a lot less suggestable from the media than most are- i tend to form my own opinions based on my own reasoning, rather than succumb to a faulty but more prevalent understanding.
When a bowler achieves more than another, despite being seriously disadvantaged in almost every single way to his counterpart, he is a superior bowler. Period.
Murali rarely gets torn apart by tailenders and he isnt treated even remotely with the same disdain by players like Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid etc. as Warne is.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think that there are idiots on both sides - and most of them seem to post on here at some time or another.

Shut up, people, let it die naturally.

 

[Francis]

Didn't you repeat again and again... :- "Murali fans (I am one to some extent) just live and breath on stats and while it may suprise them".

What an Irony !!! Thank you for being so objective.

PS :- At least Murali fans bring up stats that are real, unlike the imaginary stuffed you just tried to pull off.

I bring up facts, I use facts, I don't LIVE on stats. I don't think Malcolm Marshall is better than Richard Hadlee because his average was 2 runs better. 2 runs means nothing to me. I use stats to back up points, but Marshall is better for me for other reasons...

Imaginary? Well that's descriptive. Wanna tell me which stats I'm making up. The only one I can think of that I may have gotten wrong is that Murali has a better away average... which I believe I read a month ago but didn't bother checking.

Don't confuse pace bowlers with spin bowlers....pacers use the new ball, and have opportunity to take wickets then. Someone like Murali doesn't have quality pace bowlers taking top-order wickets with the new ball (and often has to bowl with a newish ball himself) and has to bowl at well-set batsmen.
But of course, ignore that since it won't support your theories.

It doesn't matter. What Richard Hadlee said is right, if you put a ball on the right spot enough times, your bound to get wickets. That's what Murali does and as somebody who's watched him a lot in Sri Lanka, his spin is just borderline impossible on those pitches. Anytime you go for anything wide on those pitches you risk going out a lot more because you can't judge the spin well on those pitches. Murali has a lot going in his favour there.

Similar could be said of you...you don't see stats, you only see scenarios and those scenarios are invariably constructed so they support your points only, so are useless for comparison.

I use stats all the time, I've used them in this thread. What you've gotten wrong is that I argue scenarios... but use stats to tell the scenarios. Some people just use stats.


Oh and like I said, I'm done with C_C so I wont respond to him.

 

[honestbharani]

Can't you dexlete the errant xletter?

was running out of time at the cyber cafe. sorry.

 

[luckyeddie]

was running out of time at the cyber cafe. sorry.

Don't apologise - these gags don't write themselves, you know.

<muffled quack> O Rly?

 

[Sanz]

I use stats all the time, I've used them in this thread. What you've gotten wrong is that I argue scenarios... but use stats to tell the scenarios.

Scenarios that suit your argument.

Some people just use stats.

That's right..and you are one of them.

 

[Sanz]

Imaginary? Well that's descriptive. Wanna tell me which stats I'm making up.

"I'd wager the percentage of people in each country would favour Warne, for example. 96% in Australia might think Warne's better. As might 94% in England. As might 92% in NZ. As might 90% in SA. Whereas with Murali, 88% in Pakistan might think he's better etc.."

What Richard Hadlee said is right, if you put a ball on the right spot enough times, your bound to get wickets. That's what Murali does and as somebody who's watched him a lot in Sri Lanka, his spin is just borderline impossible on those pitches. Anytime you go for anything wide on those pitches you risk going out a lot more because you can't judge the spin well on those pitches. Murali has a lot going in his favour there.

That's why murali averages better in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, England, and West Indies. Let me guess all these boards conspire against Warne to make favorable pitch for murali.

Lastly, India have played him pretty well on those vitually 'Unplayable' pitches in SriLanka.

 

[Sanz]

you don't see scenarios, you see stats. You don't see variables, you see set-ways.

Actually, that is more or less same with you. You seem to have made up your mind about murali, because he gets more wicket because of the following set-ways:-

a. he doesn't have a mcgrath to share wickets
b. he bowls on those lankan pitches


You dont see any variable as all, you have ignored every other argument put here (last one I noticed was by Dasa) and went on with your accusations that murali fans are blah blah blah.

 

[Francis]

Getting a little personal and emotional aren't you Sanz?

Actually, that is more or less same with you. You seem to have made up your mind about murali, because he gets more wicket because of the following set-ways:-

a. he doesn't have a mcgrath to share wickets
b. he bowls on those lankan pitches

The difference between me and C_C is that I believe BOTH ways are possible. One way is to get wickets because you have help, like Warne. Another is to have as much time and overs as you like. When Warne got 40 wickets in the Ashes there were people, most people, who said while it was an amazing performance, he was the only person who could take wickets are therefore got more wickets. He went for more runs than he ever did, but the fact that he could bowl so much was of great help.

I mean most cricket fans that I know of can understand this. The reason I bowed out is because C_C doesn't understand it. He sees it as ridiculous. Now I have no problem with somebody saying Murali is greater. But I like it when people look at things objectively and look at all scenarios.

I'm not set in my ways because for the last two months I've tossed over who's better out of Hadlee and Marshall. Marshall's like Warne, he has help. Hadlee's like Murali, he had green pitches and more time to get wickets. The fact that for periods I've considered Hadlee better (although I don't know now) is proof that I accept both sides.

C_C does not accept both sides. I think two ways are possible. He thinks the other is ridiculous. And what annoys me about that is how blatantly obvious it is that so many players in history have gotten more wickets when they've had less help. Names like Lillee (during the 80s when Thommo wasn't much help), Alderman (1989 Ashes), Hadlee, Barnes, Warne (2005 Ashes), Murali and many others either have, for most of their career, or at parts, benefited by bowling with little help.

So that's why i've given up on him because I'm arguing something that someone cannot see, cannot understand, cannot perceive, cannot fathom.When we debated for ages a while back I tried to make it simple. I told him I can easily accept somebody saying Murali is better, but that it's important the balance each others advantages and disadvantages against each others. So many of Murali's great advantages he saw as disadvantages. So I quit.

You dont see any variable as all, you have ignored every other argument put here (last one I noticed was by Dasa) and went on with your accusations that murali fans are blah blah blah.

I didn't read anything from Dasa because I wasn't interested. Didn't know I was obligated to reply. And don't judge me either, my comments on Murali fans aren't accusations, they're observations. I've talked with many of them, and many of them live and breath on stats. Some say Murali absolutely kills Warne and it's not slightly close, which I thinks pretty ridiculous.

 

[Sanz]

my comments on Murali fans aren't accusations, they're observations. I've talked with many of them, and many of them live and breath on stats. Some say Murali absolutely kills Warne and it's not slightly close, which I thinks pretty ridiculous.

Accusations or observations, the fact is you have done the same, i.e. live and breath on stats that are figments of your imaginations, atleast Murali's fans bring up stats that are real.

As for your conversations with Murali fans outside of this forum, Well I dont know what you were discussing with Murali fans and I also dont know in what context they said 'Warnie isn't even close' esp if they live and breath cricketing stats, because one certainly cant say that on the basis of Stats and basically has to be a fan of Amit's level (someone please tell him about the enigma that amit is).

And to bring a conversation (which is outside of this forum where noone talks along those lines) out here and paint Murali fans on this forum as 'living and breathing on stats' is quite silly.

 

[Francis]

Wow you posted more posts and you're getting emotional for sure.

Scenarios that suit your argument.

Hahaha! That's the point isn't is? I have a point of view which I see as valid, so I use scenarios I see to prove my point. How terrible of me.

That's right..and you are one of them.

I use more than stats, I use stats, but I write about scenarios stats don't indicate.

"I'd wager the percentage of people in each country would favour Warne, for example. 96% in Australia might think Warne's better. As might 94% in England. As might 92% in NZ. As might 90% in SA. Whereas with Murali, 88% in Pakistan might think he's better etc.."

I never presented that as fact, I presented that as a guess... which you know. I wrote that because from the people I've talked to, Warne is well regarded in Pakistan, and rightfully so since he's torn them apart many times. In India he isn't because India killed him. In places like England, Warne's considered better by most.

I will say this though, in hind sight it was useless to say what I said and I'll retract it. But it was never presented as a fact, or else I never would have used the words "wager."

That's why murali averages better in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, England, and West Indies. Let me guess all these boards conspire against Warne to make favorable pitch for murali.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Warne gets wickets in many less deliveries. I've said it to C_C and I'll say it to you. 2 runs means nothing to me. In some cases Murali has half a run difference against teams when he's away. And you wonder why I say Murali fans live and breath on stats? Murali can have an average half a run better and they'll say like you did "Murali has better averages against other countires." Like half a run matter. Don't remember the last time a team lost by half a run.

Warne's strike-rate is much better against most of those countries. He gets those wickets much faster. It's simple math, if two guys have an average that's very close, and one is more economical (Murali), then the other is getting wickets faster. Murali's strike-rate is far far higher away from home and Warne's is much greater.

C_C thinks Warne gets these wickets because of his team-mates. Nobody bowls Warne's balls by Warne and when he bowls bad deliveries they get put away. You see this is where I am not a man of stats. I've seen Warne a lot... perhaps more than any other cricketer. And you know what? The only way you can get wickets off you bowling partner is if the batsmen need runs because one end is tied up. I understand that fine. But I've seen Warne/McGrath bowl session after session and the result is always the same. The batsmen don't try and hit them out of the park, they just stick in there as much as possible. I haven't seen many batsmen ever try and do something rash because of what happens up the other end. If Warne were a fast bowler who was taking advantage of the bad footwork caused by intimidating bowling at the other end, then that's different.

But from what I've seen with my eyes for well over a decade isn't batsmen trying to hit Warne out of the park or take risks of go for extra shots in helping Warne get wickets. I've seen them play his balls on their merrits, and he bowls his balls, not his bowling partners.

Now I'm not saying your bowling partners can't help you. I accept that it is a scenario that has hapened A LOT in cricket. I accept that it isn't just possible, but probable in cricket. But with my eyes, I see Warne getting maidens a lot because batsmen don't go after him and insted of them losing more wickets because they're playing rash shots, I see their run-rate go down to some tight bowling. From what I've seen in Warne, with my eyes, he doesn't get a lot of wickets because of his bowling partner.

That's not something stats will show. And that's not something stats show with Malcolm Marshall.

My frustration is that a debate should be about possibilities, it should be about all possibilities. C_C sees only one side of the story and thus that makes him subjective.

Lastly, India have played him pretty well on those vitually 'Unplayable' pitches in SriLanka.

Indians play spin well, thanks for the update.

 

[Francis]

By the way I'm done with you Sanz. Your getting personal and emotional and if I'm honest, I'm starting to respond in kind and I'm sorry for that.

But all I want is a debate where all posibilities are accepted.

I accept it's possible for Murali to be at a disadvantage because he's by himself.
I accept he might have an advantage by being by himself.
I accept Warne might take wickets due to pressure.
I accept Warne might be at a disadvantage due to his competition.

Then what I do is balance these factors together by what I've seen with my eyes, which will always be more reliable than stats. I've seen Murali bowl in Sri Lanka and how well he does there... I've seen him struggle away. I've seen Warne get wickets off good bowling and nothing else. So I present my opinion and select the scenarios that explain what I see at the truth. That's debating.

It's just about possibilities.

So insult me all you like and take personal jabs at my arguments and continue to label me all you like Sanz. I'm done with this thread completely...

 

[luckyeddie]

My 2¢ - there is nothing left to gain in keeping this thread open - it has gone the way of all the other Murali v Warne threads that have ever been opened on this site - and I daresay all the others that are yet to be opened.

I guess it's like when the old Chinese guy Mr Wing said to Billy Peltzer's dad in Gremlins - "You are not ready"

 

[Sanz]

Warne's strike-rate is much better against most of those countries. He gets those wickets much faster. It's simple math, if two guys have an average that's very close, and one is more economical (Murali), then the other is getting wickets faster. Murali's strike-rate is far far higher away from home and Warne's is much greater.

Okay I mentioned, Pak, India, Bangladesh, England and WI. You came up with the Bold part which is warne's strike rate is much better against those countries, now I want you to take a look at the REAL stats from cricinfo and tell me that the following is WRONG :-

Overall (home and away)

Warne's strike rate against India - 91.2, Murali - 71.2
Warne's strike rate against WI - 62.7, Murali - 41.4
Warne's strike rate against Bangla - 47.6, Murali - 28.6
Warne's strike rate against Engl - 54.1, Murali - 66.8
Warne's strike rate against Pak - 45.0, Murali - 54.1

So Murali is better against 3, Warne better against 2.

Now since we were talking about away performances, how about looking at the 'away' strike rates :-

Warne's strike rate in India - 81.0, Murali - 81.8
Warne's strike rate in england - 52.3, Murali - 59.9
Warne's strike rate in Bangla - 47.6, Murali - 35.8
Warne's strike rate in WI - 78.2, Murali - 41.9
Warne's strike rate in Pak - 60.5, Murali - 50.1

Once again Murali is better in 3 countries, Warne is better in 2. Warnie clearly has better strike rate in England but he is only slightly ahead in India, something you probably would have said "like 8 deliveries are going to make any difference".

That's why I think you talk with with imaginary stats, murali fans (at least on this forum ) dont.