*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Ikki]

Wrong. When Aussies played India it was a regular thing, Warne getting hammered. And few Sri Lankans, Salim Malik, Lara, Hooper and Chris Cairns also have taken Warne apart. It's not a rarity when he plays sub continent teams. In these tours Austrilia relied heavily on pace bowlers to take wicket and Warne to bowl a restrictive line to keep the runs down.

On the otherhand when Murali is getting hammered (once again by Indians and some Aussies) SL captain has no other option to take wickets other than keep bowling him, which result in lot of runs scored off him.

Wrong again. Warne bowls about 45-46 overs a test against India: the same as his overall career record.

And Warne does very well in the sub-continent: Sri Lanka. In fact, he does better than Murali there. The only sub-continental team that has given Warne trouble is India - just like Murali. He's great against the rest.

 

[Ikki]

Bit of selective memory loss I think

Argument #1


Argument #2


Now what?

What are you talking about? Argument 1 and 2 make the same exact point.

 

[Migara]

If McGrath is taking wickets then when Warne comes on to change he is facing newer batsmen. However, when this happens it automatically restricts Warne in taking upper-order batsmen as there aren't as many.

Lets dissect your argument.

Point 1 - "If McGrath is taking wickets then when Warne comes on to change he is facing newer batsmen" - which means Warne bowls to batsmen who are less settled

Point 2 -"However, when this happens it automatically restricts Warne in taking upper-order batsmen as there aren't as many" - which means larger proportion of his wickets are tail enders, which is comapred to Murali, which is acceptable that McGrath is also taking wickets.

The Inference - That means the amon batsman facing Warne larger percentage is tail enders (simple maths 3 out ov 7 vs 3 out of 9). Hence, Warne should easily dismiss batsman than Murali, because larger percentage of them are tail enders.
Which in turn make Warne's Avg, ER and SR superior to Murali's, which is not the case.

 

[Ikki]

Lets dissect your argument.

Point 1 - "If McGrath is taking wickets then when Warne comes on to change he is facing newer batsmen" - which means Warne bowls to batsmen who are less settled

Point 2 -"However, when this happens it automatically restricts Warne in taking upper-order batsmen as there aren't as many" - which means larger proportion of his wickets are tail enders, which is comapred to Murali, which is acceptable that McGrath is also taking wickets.

The Inference - That means the amon batsman facing Warne larger percentage is tail enders (simple maths 3 out ov 7 vs 3 out of 9). Hence, Warne should easily dismiss batsman than Murali, because larger percentage of them are tail enders.
Which in turn make Warne's Avg, ER and SR superior to Murali's, which is not the case.

You're right uptil that part but you're missing another point I made:

2/3rds of Warne's wickets come from non-tailenders (upper/middle-order batsmen), this shows clearly not always did McGrath and co. take wickets so regularly to boost Warne's avg. and SR in the way you seem to subscribe. Warne also will face these batsmen more often than not once they're settled, after the failure of his company in taking these batsmen. The big difference here with Murali is that he comes in much earlier than Warne so most of the time the batsmen he is facing have settled against HIM and not just his support. Which means comparatively it is justifiable that his avg. and SR aren't even better, or better than Murali's.

Another point is, however, when taking averages if you are regarding the fact that Murali's face average is inflated by minnows and playing in very spin-conducive/home conditions - the opposite of Warne - then Murali has no lead, really.

 

[Migara]

And Warne does very well in the sub-continent: Sri Lanka. In fact, he does better than Murali there. The only sub-continental team that has given Warne trouble is India - just like Murali. He's great against the rest.

Overall he's bowled very well in PAK and SL. But there are individual players who were more than ready to hit Warne out of the attack unlike when he played against England of South Africa. Some times they failed, some time they did hit him out of the attack. Salim Malik did it, Ranatunga, Gurusinghe and Kaluwitharana have done it in tha past. I was talking about these incidents. But despite getting stiff challenge from player or two Warne has bowled very well to the rest of them.

 

[Ikki]

Overall he's bowled very well in PAK and SL. But there are individual players who were more than ready to hit Warne out of the attack unlike when he played against England of South Africa. Some times they failed, some time they did hit him out of the attack. Salim Malik did it, Ranatunga, Gurusinghe and Kaluwitharana have done it in tha past. I was talking about these incidents. But despite getting stiff challenge from player or two Warne has bowled very well to the rest of them.

That's normal, every bowler, including Murali, will face batsmen that play them well or the occasion where they're not upto their usual selves. My point is that these times are much fewer than the times where they are truly great - which is why Murali and Warne are all-time great bowlers - and hence the disadvantage Murali gets is less frequent than the disadvantage Warne gets, with regards to momentum.

 

[Migara]

2/3rds of Warne's wickets come from non-tailenders (upper/middle-order batsmen), this shows clearly not always did McGrath and co. take wickets so regularly to boost Warne's avg. and SR in the way you seem to subscribe. Warne also will face these batsmen more often than not once they're settled, after the failure of his company in taking these batsmen. The big difference here with Murali is that he comes in much earlier than Warne so most of the time the batsmen he is facing have settled against HIM and not just his support. Which means comparatively it is justifiable that his avg. and SR aren't even better, or better than Murali's.

Now this one is also on the dissectin table.

#1: "2/3rds of Warne's wickets come from non-tailenders (upper/middle-order batsmen),this shows clearly not always did McGrath and co. take wickets so regularly to boost Warne's avg. and SR in the way you seem to subscribe." - Right. It's true. But who was less succesful in presenting their spinner with new set of batsmen? Aussie or Lankan pace attack? If Aussie attack failed 1 in 5 times, SL attack fails 2 in 5 times, and still my point is valid. Murali bowls more to well set batsman than Warne

#2 - "Warne also will face these batsmen more often than not once they're settled, after the failure of his company in taking these batsmen. " - How? when McGrath regulary cleans the top order than Vaas, how can Warne bowl more to set batsmen?

#3 - "The big difference here with Murali is that he comes in much earlier than Warne so most of the time the batsmen he is facing have settled against HIM (Warne, I think) and not just his support" How can that happen? what is the difference if Warne comes on 15th or 35th? batsman will not be set against him any way. They'll be set against the pace attack. Murali comes earlier, yes, with a new ball that is not spinning much and difficult to grip, which will offset that extra overs. And when it happens that means one fast bowler is getting hammered (rarely Vaas, most of the time his support), which means batsman have got their eye very much in.

 

[Migara]

My point is that these times are much fewer

No debate on this. True.

 

[Ikki]

Now this one is also on the dissectin table.

#1: "2/3rds of Warne's wickets come from non-tailenders (upper/middle-order batsmen),this shows clearly not always did McGrath and co. take wickets so regularly to boost Warne's avg. and SR in the way you seem to subscribe." - Right. It's true. But who was less succesful in presenting their spinner with new set of batsmen? Aussie or Lankan pace attack? If Aussie attack failed 1 in 5 times, SL attack fails 2 in 5 times, and still my point is valid. Murali bowls more to well set batsman than Warne

We keep goin' in circles but once again:

Murali may face more settled batsmen, but if that is so it is on the base of his own bowling. For he bowls much earlier and much more than Warne, and more importantly his teammates. If they are settled, then it's due to his own bowling. Lest we forget, he bowls more than 20 overs per test (on average) than Vaas and usually double more than his nearest bowling rival on the day. The sheer amount of overs he bowls makes it that the batsmen face HIM more often and are settled in by HIM more than anyone else, considering he bowls so early on.

#2 - "Warne also will face these batsmen more often than not once they're settled, after the failure of his company in taking these batsmen. " - How? when McGrath regulary cleans the top order than Vaas, how can Warne bowl more to set batsmen?

Because he doesn't take them so regularly. 2/3rds of Warne's wickets come against bowlers McGrath will usually face first. This isn't the case with Murali because he comes in much earlier and will face less settled batsmen than Warne. And when he does take those wickets they are batsmen settled on HIS bowling as he continues to bowl throughout the day, unlike any other Test bowler in history.

#3 - "The big difference here with Murali is that he comes in much earlier than Warne so most of the time the batsmen he is facing have settled against HIM (Warne, I think) and not just his support" How can that happen? what is the difference if Warne comes on 15th or 35th? batsman will not be set against him any way. They'll be set against the pace attack. Murali comes earlier, yes, with a new ball that is not spinning much and difficult to grip, which will offset that extra overs. And when it happens that means one fast bowler is getting hammered (rarely Vaas, most of the time his support), which means batsman have got their eye very much in.

I didn't really get your argument: it may be because you assumed incorrectly in the above quote that I was talking about Warne when I was talking about Murali.

 

[Migara]

Another point is, however, when taking averages if you are regarding the fact that Murali's face average is inflated by minnows and playing in very spin-conducive/home conditions - the opposite of Warne - then Murali has no lead, really.

This is one of the big time myths. Here are berak down of each bowlers performace against each country, and then Murali's stats standardized against Warne's by number of matches and number of balls bowled.

Now this shows Murali's Average, ER, SR are better than every country thay play in common, except Pakistan.

 

[Migara]

Then this shows if Murali and Warne played same number of matches against each opposition. Now the number of matches against minnows will be equal.

Here Murali will get whopping 896 if he played tha same number of matches as Warne against each opposition! If we think that they play same proportion of matches (i.e. Warne played 36 out of 145 against England, hence 24.8%. Now we assume Murali plays same proportion against England, that will be 24.8% * 114 = 29 matches) still Murali will pick up 896 *118 /145 = 734 wickets, which is even higher than his current tally of 723.

The myth have been busted!

 

[Migara]

Now the next argument is Murali bowls more than Warne per a match. Yes it's true. How much? 51 balls more per a match! How many more wickets he'll pick with that extra effort? 1 wicket per match.

Warne W/M = 4.88, Murali W/M = 6.13.

Who has more bowling opportunities? Warne 199 / 145 = 1.372 innings per match. Murali; 149 / 118 = 1.263 innigs per match. For better comparison we'll take wickets per innings.

Warne = 4.88 / 1.372 = 3.56, Murali = 6.13 / 1.263 = 4.85

The extra number of balls Murali bowls pwr innings = 51 / 1.263 = 40 balls. with that he'll take 0.8 wickets roughly. If we substract it from Murali's W/I it comes as 4.05, 0.5 wickets per innigs better than Warne!

Let's standardize number of balls. We assume what happens if Murali and Warne sent down same number of balls against each opposition. Now the table looks bit different. But still Murali will pick 739 wickets, 29 more than Warne! If we standardize it bit more to equal the number of deliveries, it equation changes to 739 * 40705 / 41465 = 725. Even this is higher than his current tally.

"Murali's advantage of bowling against minnows is cancelled by him not regularlt bowling to England, West Indies, New Zealand and South Africa as Warne"

 

[Ikki]

This is one of the big time myths. Here are berak down of each bowlers performace against each country, and then Murali's stats standardized against Warne's by number of matches and number of balls bowled.

Now this shows Murali's Average, ER, SR are better than every country thay play in common, except Pakistan.

Yes, but you missed a glaring fact: these stats are overall ones that don't take into account how much Murali's record is helped by bowling at home, on spin-conducive pitches. Whereas Warne at home has only 1 real traditionally good pitch to bowl on and that's Sydney.

In fact, Warne does better in Sri Lanka than Murali does (the place where most of his tests have been played). If you swap homes for each player Warne comes in front by some distance.

I made a table a little while ago that takes into account Murali's record against minnows and his home record.

 

[Ikki]

Then this shows if Murali and Warne played same number of matches against each opposition. Now the number of matches against minnows will be equal.

Here Murali will get whopping 896 if he played tha same number of matches as Warne against each opposition! If we think that they play same proportion of matches (i.e. Warne played 36 out of 145 against England, hence 24.8%. Now we assume Murali plays same proportion against England, that will be 24.8% * 114 = 29 matches) still Murali will pick up 896 *118 /145 = 734 wickets, which is even higher than his current tally of 723.

The myth have been busted!

It doesn't matter if he has more wickets, Murali bowls so much that judging wickets taken by test is misleading because Murali will have bowled many more overs than Warne playing the same amount of tests.

Myth isn't busted at all.

 

[Migara]

Yes, but you missed a glaring fact. Zimbabwe up 1999 was not trash. They had few good players like Flower brothers, Goodwin, Johnson and Campbell. The last 5 odd test matches are the ones that are not of test match quality. All the Bangladesh matches can be dropped as well as not up to standard.

 

[Ikki]

Now the next argument is Murali bowls more than Warne per a match. Yes it's true. How much? 51 balls more per a match! How many more wickets he'll pick with that extra effort? 1 wicket per match.

10 overs per match more is quite large.

Warne W/M = 4.88, Murali W/M = 6.13.

Who has more bowling opportunities? Warne 199 / 145 = 1.372 innings per match. Murali; 149 / 118 = 1.263 innigs per match. For better comparison we'll take wickets per innings.

Warne = 4.88 / 1.372 = 3.56, Murali = 6.13 / 1.263 = 4.85

The extra number of balls Murali bowls pwr innings = 51 / 1.263 = 40 balls. with that he'll take 0.8 wickets roughly. If we substract it from Murali's W/I it comes as 4.05, 0.5 wickets per innigs better than Warne!

0.5 innings better per Warne? Yeh, maybe. But not if Warne has the kind of support Murali has. Warne has to compete with McGrath and co. in taking wickets. You have to remember, Warne's SR suffers because he has to a) share wickets and b) play on unhelpful pitches.

BTW, your stats still include Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, so Murali would have less than what you calculated above.

Let's standardize number of balls. We assume what happens if Murali and Warne sent down same number of balls against each opposition. Now the table looks bit different. But still Murali will pick 739 wickets, 29 more than Warne! If we standardize it bit more to equal the number of deliveries, it equation changes to 739 * 40705 / 41465 = 725. Even this is higher than his current tally.

You're confusing yourself. Murali has a better SR thus he will get more wickets per ball. However, the reason he has a better SR is a) his record against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and b) playing so many tests at home.

There are other things but those are 2 advantages Murali has that Warne does not get.

"Murali's advantage of bowling against minnows is cancelled by him not regularlt bowling to England, West Indies, New Zealand and South Africa as Warne"

That's pure rubbish. The only reason Murali's record would lead you to that assumption is because Murali does so much better at home than he does away. This inflates his figures. Because away from home Warne is much stronger. The differences between their records are that Warne's home has not been helpful to his art and he has not played minnows as much. I refer you to my table a few posts above this.

 

[Migara]

Yes, but you missed a glaring fact: these stats are overall ones that don't take into account how much Murali's record is helped by bowling at home, on spin-conducive pitches. Whereas Warne at home has only 1 real traditionally good pitch to bowl on and that's Sydney.

In fact, Warne does better in Sri Lanka than Murali does (the place where most of his tests have been played). If you swap homes for each player Warne comes in front by some distance.

I made a table a little while ago that takes into account Murali's record against minnows and his home record.

Where's oppositions? Warne played more against countries playing spin poor! You've grouped the whole lot together which is not the right way to go. In tha home and away stats of Warne large % consists of matches against ENG, SAF, NZ, WI where as in Murali's case it is IND, PAK and AUS at home. Your stats are totaly non-representative.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, but you missed a glaring fact. Zimbabwe up 1999 was not trash. They had few good players like Flower brothers, Goodwin, Johnson and Campbell. The last 5 odd test matches are the ones that are not of test match quality. All the Bangladesh matches can be dropped as well as not up to standard.

Zimbabwe were still minnows, and you know that. Warne only played them once.

And I am not even mentioning here that most of Murali's great record against the Windies comes from when they've been, apart from Lara, pretty much as bad as the minnows.

 

[Migara]

BTW, your stats still include Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, so Murali would have less than what you calculated above.

No. When the number of balls are standardized, both are assumed to bowl tha same number of balls against each opposition, at respective SRs against each opposition. Please refer to the table! Zim 319 balls each, Warne and Murali will both take 6 wickets each, 524 against Bangladsh and Warne will take 11 and Murali will take 19 with that amount. Likewise.

 

[Migara]

BTW, your stats still include Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, so Murali would have less than what you calculated above.

No. When the number of balls are standardized, both are assumed to bowl tha same number of balls against each opposition, at respective SRs against each opposition. Please refer to the table! Zim 319 balls each, Warne and Murali will both take 6 wickets each, 524 against Bangladsh and Warne will take 11 and Murali will take 19 with that amount. Likewise.