*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Ikki]

Ones that you haven't cherry picked.

And those would be?

 

[subshakerz]

Er no.

If you are taking into account B & Z, take into account how much bowling at home for most of your games has done to Murali's record. If you weigh things evenly, they're so close it'd hardly sway the discussion either way. Minus B & Z, exchange homes for Warne and Murali (of which in both cases Warne has a better record and it's slightly giving Murali more rope) and you will see that even a 'statistical' argument will not win it for Murali.

The only significant stat that Warne has over Murali is his superior record in Australia. Everything else points to Murali.

(By the way, Murali also has better records than Warne in England, New Zealand, West Indies, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. So if your implying that he is any less adaptable than Warne, stats are not on your side)

 

[shortpitched713]

And those would be?

See post above my previous one.

 

[Ikki]

The only significant stat that Warne has over Murali is his superior record in Australia. Everything else points to Murali.

(By the way, Murali also has better records than Warne in England, New Zealand, West Indies, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. So if your implying that he is any less adaptable than Warne, stats are not on your side)

Unfortunately, Murali's overall away record IS inferior. I wasn't trying to imply he was less adaptable, but he slightly is.

My post was about how his home figures inflate his figures, even when you take out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe due to the nature of the pitches. Warne and Murali bowl half, if not more, of their Tests at home. Warne is at a clear disadvantage here considering that apart from Sydney, and often Brisbane, there is no pitch that even compares with those in Sri Lanka. A testament to this disadvantage is illustrated by Warne's much better figures than Murali in Sri Lanka.

I will paste a spreadsheet that takes out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and also takes into account their home records. I'll switch them - even though this is actually worse for Warne as he does better in both Australia and Sri Lanka - just to give a bit of a picture.

As you can see, this route leads these results. The gap could actually be even bigger if you were to take Warne's career figures in Sri Lanka and still give Murali Warne's figures at home.

Also, another aspect between the two that doesn't get mentioned a lot is their records against the Windies. Warne has a pretty good record against the Windies and Murali has a great one. There is a difference: Warne played them, mostly, when they were the best side in the world or thereabouts. Murali played them when, bar Lara, they were a very weak side and just better than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

 

[Ikki]

See post above my previous one.

And why would you disregard them? They're the only advantages that one has that the other doesn't.

Whereas you can say Warne has support, that's a good and a bad thing: it can 'help' you put pressure on the batsmen but it takes away your wicket-taking power. With Murali you can say he is a lone-ranger, which is also a good and a bad thing: it means he will take a lot of wickets because of his poor support and boost his figures, whereas it also means that he has to be more consistent and for longer considering his team's fate rests on his shoulders.

But these 2 aspects are totally different. It does boost Murali's record to play the minnows much more times than Warne and, IMO, even more harming to the comparison that Murali has spent half his career bowling on tailor-made pitches whereas Warne has had to work much harder on unreceptive pitches. There is no 'other' side to it.

 

[Ikki]

Can any moderator move these posts to the Warne V Murali debate thread? I feel it deserves to be in that thread more than this one.

 

[subshakerz]

Unfortunately, Murali's overall away record IS inferior. I wasn't trying to imply he was less adaptable, but he slightly is.

Just because his overall away average is 1 or 2 higher doesnt make him a less adaptable bowler. As I mentioned, he has a superior record to Warne is all countries except South Africa and Australia. His admittedly poor record in Australia offsets the rest of his records to make the overall average look modest, but as I said before, Warne doesnt have any significant stat besides this over Murali.

As you can see, this route leads these results. The gap could actually be even bigger if you were to take Warne's career figures in Sri Lanka and still give Murali Warne's figures at home.

All pitches in Sri Lanka are not spinner's paradises, some are dead and unresponsive (look at the latest one against England for eg). Granted, they are generally more conducive to spin than Australia, but not to the degree people imagine. Australian pitches suit Warne's bowling because they offer less side spin and more bounce, which Warne relies on more. It's not the struggle for Warne you make it out to be.

Also, another aspect between the two that doesn't get mentioned a lot is their records against the Windies. Warne has a pretty good record against the Windies and Murali has a great one. There is a difference: Warne played them, mostly, when they were the best side in the world or thereabouts. Murali played them when, bar Lara, they were a very weak side and just better than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Warne also played quite a few test matches when West Indies were crap as well, while Murali played a few when they were much better and did just dandy.

 

[Ikki]

Just because his overall away average is 1 or 2 higher doesnt make him a less adaptable bowler. As I mentioned, he has a superior record to Warne is all countries except South Africa and Australia. His admittedly poor record in Australia offsets the rest of his records to make the overall average look modest, but as I said before, Warne doesnt have any significant stat besides this over Murali.

Add Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Murali has 3 poor away records: Australia, India and Zimbabwe (relatively). And if 1-2 points doesn't mean much in itself for the player, then in comparison it doesn't either.

All pitches in Sri Lanka are not spinner's paradises, some are dead and unresponsive (look at the latest one against England for eg). Granted, they are generally more conducive to spin than Australia, but not to the degree people imagine. Australian pitches suit Warne's bowling because they offer less side spin and more bounce, which Warne relies on more. It's not the struggle for Warne you make it out to be.

That may be so, but they ARE better Australian pitches when it comes to spin. And actually, the pitch with bounce and spin is Gabba. And that's not always been the same.

Warne also played quite a few test matches when West Indies were crap as well, while Murali played a few when they were much better and did just dandy.

Yes, he had 1 series when they were crap and did well. He just didn't have a lot and do like Murali. Still, far from the point that Murali has faced them mostly when they were weak.

Really, I think they're close enough as players to say their records are similar. That's why it irks me when people start saying Murali is much better statistically, there are a few things that are helping his record that some don't seem to grasp.

 

[Zinzan]

I have worked out who is the best bowler by doing some elimination i have discount Muralis and Warnes records against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Murail took 163 wickets against both minnows
Warne took just 17 against both minnows

This does change things and it proves once and for all Warne is simply the greatest Spin Bowler or indeed the greatest bowler of all time

States

Shane Warne

Overs 6644
Runs 17560
Wickets 691
Average 25.41
RPO 2.64

Muttiah Muralitharan

Overs 5631
Runs 13098
Wickets 550
Average 23.81
RPO 2.34


But this shows that Warne Could have played more against the weaker nations but Australia decided to play bigger teams year in year out, while Muttiah Muralitharan got cheap wickets.

Shane Warne is Number 1

Decent argument that, but you are missing one point, and that is that Warne never had to bowl against Australia -the best team in the world- but Murali did and you will note murali and a decidely average record against Aust

 

[bond21]

The law was 5 degrees or something then they changed it. Then Murali's doosra was deemed illegal and he was told to never bowl it in a match. Same with Singh.

 

[Ikki]

Decent argument that, but you are missing one point, and that is that Warne never had to bowl against Australia -the best team in the world- but Murali did and you will note murali and a decidely average record against Aust

Well, Warne has not bowled against Australia the side, but he has definitely bowled against all Australian batsmen in FC cricket. And, really, some of those sides are much better than some Test sides. His record against these batsmen mirrors his overall test record. And his FC record is in Australia, of course. Whereas Murali is overall poor against Australia and even worse in Australia. It's in Sri Lanka that he does well.

P.S. I love you avatar.

 

[Dasa]

IIRC, Warne averages over 30 bowling in Sheffield Shield/Pura Cup.

 

[vic_orthdox]

IIRC, Warne averages over 30 bowling in Sheffield Shield/Pura Cup.

35 according to Darren Berry in an article last week.

 

[silentstriker]

Every argument for both sides has already been done to death. So from now on, people should reply to every argument with a link to a post in the past where that argument has been made and refuted.

 

[Ikki]

IIRC, Warne averages over 30 bowling in Sheffield Shield/Pura Cup.

35 according to Darren Berry in an article last week.

It wouldn't add up. Warne has played so much of his career in Victoria, his FC record in England would have to be absolutely unparalleled to drop it to what it is now (26.11 / 56.7). I think in all his years playing FC cricket he only averaged above 30 for 5 of them? And interestingly they cluster in years wherein he has been injured or just starting out. And some of them can hardly be called seasons as he has had 1-3 matches in them?

He started playing for Hampshire since 2000, I believe, and his record is as below:

So, I think that's wrong or I'm missing something.

Every argument for both sides has already been done to death. So from now on, people should reply to every argument with a link to a post in the past where that argument has been made and refuted.

True, it has been sometimes. Not in detail and I haven't seen it like this. But the linking of posts is a good idea. Which is why I reckon it is better to take the better posts and put it in the Warne v Murali thread so it is easier to reference.

 

[honestbharani]

One thing noticeable about their bowling styles is the fact that Warne's style is such that he will always enjoy a pacy and bouncy pitch much more than Murali would. Murali's wares depend mostly on turn and mystery balls (doosra for him, if he were a leggie, it would be the googly) and mostly he uses it well when the ball holds up off the pitch. Warne, on the other hand, tends to use the bounce much more and he also has a variety of quickish to really quick deliveries including the flipper, the zooter, the top spinner etc.. He also has a ball that turns appreciably (not as big as his normal leg break, mind) at quickish pace (for a spinner)... Obviously, they were both products of where they were brought up.

Imagine if Murali had the quicker deliveries in his armoury and if Warne had a big spinning googly..... They might have ended up with 20ish bowling averages.....

 

[Ikki]

One thing noticeable about their bowling styles is the fact that Warne's style is such that he will always enjoy a pacy and bouncy pitch much more than Murali would. Murali's wares depend mostly on turn and mystery balls (doosra for him, if he were a leggie, it would be the googly) and mostly he uses it well when the ball holds up off the pitch. Warne, on the other hand, tends to use the bounce much more and he also has a variety of quickish to really quick deliveries including the flipper, the zooter, the top spinner etc.. He also has a ball that turns appreciably (not as big as his normal leg break, mind) at quickish pace (for a spinner)... Obviously, they were both products of where they were brought up.

Imagine if Murali had the quicker deliveries in his armoury and if Warne had a big spinning googly..... They might have ended up with 20ish bowling averages.....

Actually, I think Murali has begun to understand Warne's mastery in that kind of condition and you can also hear him in interviews nowadays more interested in bounce than spin. Another weapon that I think Warne used and Murali now uses much more is beating batsmen in flight. I think he has already started getting better.

However, I think, for the point of this debate, Warne was also very adept at getting spin in pitches that had less bounce. It's not like Warne doesn't turn a ball, and his record of playing in Sri Lanka is quite outstanding. I think Murali gets a lot of speed off the pitch. If he could flight it well, it would really do batsmen in.

 

[silentstriker]

It wouldn't add up. Warne has played so much of his career in Victoria, his FC record in England would have to be absolutely unparalleled to drop it to what it is now (26.11 / 56.7). I think in all his years playing FC cricket he only averaged above 30 for 5 of them? And interestingly they cluster in years wherein he has been injured or just starting out. And some of them can hardly be called seasons as he has had 1-3 matches in them?

He started playing for Hampshire since 2000, I believe, and his record is as below:

So, I think that's wrong or I'm missing something.

I believe all Tests are also counted in FC cricket.

 

[Ikki]

I believe all Tests are also counted in FC cricket.

Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_cricket#Definition_of_first-class_cricket

 

[silentstriker]

I know the definition of first class cricket. I know sometimes people count Tests + domestic in 'First Class' stats. I was thinking perhaps the FC figures you quoted did this as well, because it did not specify 'domestic FC record'.

From the link you quoted:

A Test Match is a first class match played between two Full Member countries given the status of a Test match-playing nation by the International Cricket Council, following the Playing Conditions for Test Matches established by the International Cricket Council, and following various other regulations.