*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Ikki]

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.

Hmm, I'm not sure how you've done it but your totals are incorrect.

If they're to bowl the same amount, then why is Murali's total bowled 760 more than Warne's?

It would probably also be better to give Murali's total bowled against Australia as Warne's total against Sri Lanka.

I'm pretty sure this knocks down the total wickets taken a bit. Also, it disregards the 'Home' factor Murali has which improves his record. And also the fact that Warne faced Windies largely when they were world champs, or thereabouts, whereas Murali has faced them largely when they were close to minnows.

I've essentially done this assessment in the table I posted a few posts above. The difference between this table and mine is that you don't take into account the advantage Murali has at home and that I let him keep his wickets but concentrate on the ratios. You keep confusing yourself. Murali will overall take more wickets per ball because his SR is overall lower. But I've just shown you why that is a few times.

 

[Ikki]

Double.

 

[Migara]

Hmm, I'm not sure how you've done it but your totals are incorrect.
If they're to bowl the same amount, then why is Murali's total bowled 760 more than Warne's?

There's no way to inlcude Sl vs Aus macthes ind ICC XI vs Aus matches in to standardization. Only common oppositions had been standardized and the figues against SL, Sud and ICCXI has been just added to the total. If you see carefully number of balls against common oppositions will be same (Eng:10757, NZ: 5770, ZIM: 319)

 

[Ikki]

There's no way to inlcude Sl vs Aus macthes ind ICC XI vs Aus matches in to standardization. Only common oppositions had been standardized and the figues against SL, Sud and ICCXI has been just added to the total. If you see carefully number of balls against common oppositions will be same (Eng:10757, NZ: 5770, ZIM: 319)

Murali's overs with Australia should be level with Warne's overs with Sri Lanka. To factor in the 186 ICC overs, just add another 186 overs to Murali's record against Australia. That would give 3353 overs V Australia, pretty much the only change you need to make to make it level.

Anyway, as I implied in my previous post, it disregards a few things but most importantly that the advantage Murali has at home is hidden. You could have saved yourself the trouble and just tried to calculate accurate SRs.

 

[Migara]

Logic is wrong, but for completeness sake, you can do it. When you do it, Murali's deliveries against Aus will go down to 3353, and since his performance is worse with Aus than his avergage, this will further enhance his statistics on the favorable side.

 

[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.

Lets forget home matches. We'll analyze the away record. Since these two palyed in same era, the nature of overseas pitches will be very similar. Tests against SL and Aus has to be discounted, since we are measuring performances against a common opposition. (You can still include them, buty won't affect the final result by much)

 

[Migara]

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

This table shows classic case of torturing the stats to get your confession. Away performances of Warne and Murali cannot be compared 1 to 1 because Warne as bowled more to poor players of spinners, ENG, NZ, WI and SAF in 70% of his matches, where Murali only bowled 44% of his matches to them. Murali bowled 18% of his matches to minnows from away home where Warne bowled 4%. These differences needs to be ironed out by transforming one playes stats to others. Here I use propotion of matches played by Warne against each opposition as the base. As usual propotions against common oppositions will be used and stats aginst SL and AUS added to the totals later.

 

[Migara]

Here are graphical representations of what I was talking.

 

[Migara]

Now I am going to compare tsandardized results. Subsets of data for test class oppositions (exclusion of ZIM and BAN), in non-sub continental pitches, common oppositions, common oppositions of test class etc. compared.

 

[Migara]

Now the rant of Murali's away stats are worse than Warne's will be answered by this. What ever subset you take, Murali is the clear winner here.

 

[Dissector]

One aspect of the debate that is sometimes overlooked is the quality of support from the rest of the fielding team including keeping. SL is pretty decent fielding unit today but still not as good as Australia. In the Healy era I would imagine the gap between Australia and SL in terms of keeping/fielding was substantially bigger. Over the course of their careers it's fair to say that Warne has received substantially better support from his fielders and keepers compared to Murali. That makes the clear superiority of Murali's performance more remarkable.

I also don't think you can automatically assume that Sri Lankan wickets are raging turners. Certainly they have been at times but if you look at the last two proper series against SA and SL the wickets were just slow and practically dead by the end. Even players like Prior were able to keep Murali out for long periods of time. IMO Murali's performance on his home wickets in those two series were about as remarkable as his success in England and New Zealand.

 

[Ikki]

This table shows classic case of torturing the stats to get your confession. Away performances of Warne and Murali cannot be compared 1 to 1 because Warne as bowled more to poor players of spinners, ENG, NZ, WI and SAF in 70% of his matches, where Murali only bowled 44% of his matches to them. Murali bowled 18% of his matches to minnows from away home where Warne bowled 4%. These differences needs to be ironed out by transforming one playes stats to others. Here I use propotion of matches played by Warne against each opposition as the base. As usual propotions against common oppositions will be used and stats aginst SL and AUS added to the totals later.

What? All stats of minnows are taken out. And I refer to ratios for all figures, so when it comes to Eng/Nz/WI/SAF, Murali should still come out top because he has the best figures overall against these 'weak players of spin'. It's the fairest assessment here.

 

[Migara]

What? All stats of minnows are taken out.

Look mate, there's a seperate sub set for it. Test class opposition means BAn and ZIM are excluded.

 

[Ikki]

Now I am going to compare tsandardized results. Subsets of data for test class oppositions (exclusion of ZIM and BAN), in non-sub continental pitches, common oppositions, common oppositions of test class etc. compared.

What? You are also forgetting a few tests Warne played on neutral sites. Those are away from home.

And, you're taking out Australia/Sri Lanka because they can't be common. That's stupid. That takes away Murali's worst figures and takes away Warne's best.

Again, my stats are more than fair (if in actual fact it helps Murali to give Warne's Australia record to Murali and Murali's Sri Lanka record to Australia - as there should be no reason to do that.

 

[Ikki]

One aspect of the debate that is sometimes overlooked is the quality of support from the rest of the fielding team including keeping. SL is pretty decent fielding unit today but still not as good as Australia. In the Healy era I would imagine the gap between Australia and SL in terms of keeping/fielding was substantially bigger. Over the course of their careers it's fair to say that Warne has received substantially better support from his fielders and keepers compared to Murali. That makes the clear superiority of Murali's performance more remarkable.

Really, that's pretty arguable and very trivial. Sri Lanka have very good fielders, in fact they're not so far behind in catching records to some Aussies.

Also, Murali takes most of his wickets, like Warne, by catching. Both have 48% of their wickets from catches.

I also don't think you can automatically assume that Sri Lankan wickets are raging turners. Certainly they have been at times but if you look at the last two proper series against SA and SL the wickets were just slow and practically dead by the end. Even players like Prior were able to keep Murali out for long periods of time. IMO Murali's performance on his home wickets in those two series were about as remarkable as his success in England and New Zealand.

They're the best spinning conditions in the world. That's more than proved by taking a glance at Murali's and Warne's records there. Not only do they turn a lot, they have bounce early too. I can't believe you even came with that suggestion, it's quite silly.

 

[Dissector]

Really, that's pretty arguable and very trivial.

It's most certainly not trivial or even arguable. How many tests has Murali had a gloveman of the calibre of Healy? Not to mention quality of outfielding. Stopping singles and cutting of boundaries. Are you seriously suggesting that SL fielding standards have been equal to Australia over the last 15 or so years?

They're the best spinning conditions in the world.

Not always which is my point. Overall the wickets weren't huge turners in the recent SA and Eng series. Just because Warne did really well in a couple of series doesn't mean that the wickets have always been big turners. For example Kumble averages more than 40 in SL.

 

[Migara]

What? You are also forgetting a few tests Warne played on neutral sites. Those are away from home.

I think I've missed those tw against Pakistan. But anyway I don't think it will make that much of an effect though.

And, you're taking out Australia/Sri Lanka because they can't be common. That's stupid. That takes away Murali's worst figures and takes away Warne's best..

I took them away for just calculating propotions played against each country. I added them to final analysis however.The final figures in bold includes matches against AUS, SL and ICC XI

Since you are having problems understanding the legends, I'll descrive it to yo

All oppositions - AUS, BAN, ENG, ICC, IND, NZ, PAK, SAF, SL, WI, ZIM
Test class opposition: AUS, ENG, ICC, IND, NZ, PAK, SAF, SL, WI
Common opposition: BAN, ENG, IND, NZ, PAK, SAF, WI, ZIM
Non-Asian opposition: AUS, ENG, ICC, NZ, SAF, WI, ZIM

Then work on the other combinations.

Again, my stats are more than fair (if in actual fact it helps Murali to give Warne's Australia record to Murali and Murali's Sri Lanka record to Australia - as there should be no reason to do that.

Just forgot the fact the number of matches plaed against each opposition is varaiable among them, and it needs a rectification to compare.

 

[Ikki]

It's most certainly not trivial or even arguable. How many tests has Murali had a gloveman of the calibre of Healy? Not to mention quality of outfielding. Stopping singles and cutting of boundaries. Are you seriously suggesting that SL fielding standards have been equal to Australia over the last 15 or so years?

The fact is no one's fielding has been level to Australia's, but that's a far cry from trying to suggest Sri Lanka have been weak fielders. How many drops do you remember off Murali's bowling? The level of skill that separates them will enable how many of that 708 wickets that wouldn't for Murali? Catches that require that much skill, that maybe only Australian fielders are adept at, are far too few and between to suggest it's seriously a disadvantage to Murali and an advantage to Warne.

Not always which is my point. Overall the wickets weren't huge turners in the recent SA and Eng series. Just because Warne did really well in a couple of series doesn't mean that the wickets have always been big turners. For example Kumble averages more than 40 in SL.

But I didn't get your point because it looked largely the same as it did in 05 when Australia visited.

And Vettori averages 23 - where finger spinners are supposed to fail.

 

[Dissector]

The fact is no one's fielding has been level to Australia's, but that's a far cry from trying to suggest Sri Lanka have been weak fielders

I never said SL had weak fielders just that they were significantly worse than Australia on average which no one would disagree. Even a few special bits of fielding can make quite a difference. For instance if Australian fielders managed just a couple of extra boundaries from being scored off Warne per innings that alone would lower his average by a few runs. Or if they prevented more singles that would allow Warne to exert more pressure on a batsman. And so on. There are lots of ways in which having a better fielding/keeping unit help a bowler and they add up to a significant advantage.

And Vettori averages 23 - where finger spinners are supposed to fail.

A few outside spin bowlers have done well in SL and several have done poorly. Kumble, Harbhajan, Mushtaq and now Panesar. That's hardly consistent with saying that SL has the most spin-friendly pitches in the world. They are spin-friendly sometimes and not so spin-friendly at others.

 

[Migara]

Included.

except for all oppositions and test class oppositions Murali leads in every department,

In above two categories, still Murali has a better Average and Econimy rate than Warne, despite having a margibally high strike rate,

When coming to against common, test class opposition, where each bowler bowls in similar conditions, to similar set of batsman, in similar time period, and playing same propotion of matches against each other, Murali wins hands down.