*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Ikki]

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.

Um, yeah, I know that, but you were looking at purely the number of wickets he takes. So in effort to actually make that look accurate you should do that.

 

[Migara]

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.

Only Warne, Murali and Vettori have done well here. Aussie offspinners Greig Matthews, Bruce Yardley have played few matches here, but number of matches were so few and Yardley played 2 matches when SL just got the test status. Even Saqlain had a difficult time here. piches are too slow for the spinners, and it needs a guy like Kumble to bowl on them (Kumble's ineffciency vs SL in SL due to the fact that later in his career de SIlva, Ranatunga, Tillekaratne, Mahanama all have device methods to counter him effectively. De SIlva always tried to play aggressive against Kumble and others wore him down. That was after some serious hammering from Jayasuriya if he managed to escape from Srinath)

 

[Ikki]

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.

That's rubbish. They are not significantly worse at all. In the shorter version of the game they've shown that and if they weren't good they would rarely have success there as a) bar 1 sometimes 2 bowlers and b) maybe 2-3 batsmen ; so they aren't a top side in terms of other disciplines to make up for it.

If assuming some way good fielding stopped a 4, how often does that happen? Every inning? Every test? Come on. If we count it once every test that is 0.8 up in his average. Really...

The difference between their fielding is a great catch or few good pieces of fielding. It does not happen often enough to effect career figures by 'a few runs'.

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.

Ok. Just every time Warne and Murali bowl there .

 

[Dissector]

I would say the difference between Sri Lanka and Australia is that of a good and great fielding side. Over a long career like Warne's and Murali's that makes a significant difference probably 3-4 runs in terms of average and maybe 40-50 dismissals. As I said any particular advantage may not sound like much but they all add up: the extra-special stops, fewer byes and leg-byes, the odd special catch by the likes of a Mark Waugh or Healy, singles that are prevented etc. It's not just the runs stopped and dismissals effected, it's also the way great fielding can lift the bowler and put additional pressure on the batsman.

 

[Migara]

Here's Warne's recor in break down.

Note that he takes 708 wickets in 145 matches bowling 40705 balls.

Now here Murali's if he bowled the same number of balls per match for 118 matches.Standardized against number of balls Warne bowl against each opposition per match. Note he'll take 638 wickets in 118 matches.

Note that still SR and Average are superior for Murali. ER are 2.400 and 2.422 for Warne and Murali respectively, which is almost same.

And if Murali plaued his full quota of 145 matches, he'll pick up 145*638/118 = 784 wickets.

 

[Ikki]

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.

I checked and your percentages for Warne are wrong. Not just one, pretty much EVERY one of them - except for Zimbabwe. I think once, sure a mistake, but every percentage is wrong there.

I decided to tally it up for myself. Give equal proportion of balls against each country and then take out Zim/Bang.

As you see, Warne leads overall AND without minnows. Also, again, a point I made earlier: the West Indies Warne faced is much different to the one Murali faced. Warne faced them mostly in the beginning of his career and where they were the best side/thereabouts in the world. Whereas Murali faced them when bar Lara they weren't much better than the minnows aforementioned. Acknowledge this, and it is Warne ahead by even more. Which is interesting that unlike the others where you're about 0.5% off, you were a 4% off with the Windies. Hmm.

 

[Ikki]

I would say the difference between Sri Lanka and Australia is that of a good and great fielding side. Over a long career like Warne's and Murali's that makes a significant difference probably 3-4 runs in terms of average and maybe 40-50 dismissals. As I said any particular advantage may not sound like much but they all add up: the extra-special stops, fewer byes and leg-byes, the odd special catch by the likes of a Mark Waugh or Healy, singles that are prevented etc. It's not just the runs stopped and dismissals effected, it's also the way great fielding can lift the bowler and put additional pressure on the batsman.

No, I'd say It's a very good side to a great side with not much between them. You talk as if Sri Lanka are India here. 40-50 dismissals, a drop of 3-4 runs? Sure, you're dreamin.

Also add that one of the reasons that Aussie catching was acknowledged so well is because of Warne himself at the slips. I don't think he was quite good enough to bowl and then catch the batsmen too.

 

[Ikki]

Here's Warne's recor in break down.

Note that he takes 708 wickets in 145 matches bowling 40705 balls.

Now here Murali's if he bowled the same number of balls per match for 118 matches.Standardized against number of balls Warne bowl against each opposition per match. Note he'll take 638 wickets in 118 matches.

Note that still SR and Average are superior for Murali. ER are 2.400 and 2.422 for Warne and Murali respectively, which is almost same.

And if Murali plaued his full quota of 145 matches, he'll pick up 145*638/118 = 784 wickets.

He may indeed take something like that figure, but that won't have any bearing on the number of matches he played, it is his balls bowled that will decide that. Also, you're adding his home record here which is...another great debate .

BTW, you need to be more careful with your figures. You end up wasting a lot of people's time.

 

[Dissector]

Seriously I think you are underestimating the quality of Australia's fielding relative to SL. But now that you mention India, I think adjusting for fielding makes the comparison between Warne and Kumble a lot closer. While I would still probably put Warne slightly ahead, IMO the difference between Kumble and Warne is much smaller than that between Warne and Murali.

 

[Ikki]

Seriously I think you are underestimating the quality of Australia's fielding relative to SL. But now that you mention India, I think adjusting for fielding makes the comparison between Warne and Kumble a lot closer. While I would still probably put Warne slightly ahead, IMO the difference between Kumble and Warne is much smaller than that between Warne and Murali.

Hahaha, . Glad to see exactly how you got to your original position.

 

[Migara]

As you see, Warne leads overall AND without minnows. Also, again, a point I made earlier: the West Indies Warne faced is much different to the one Murali faced. Warne faced them mostly in the beginning of his career and where they were the best side/thereabouts in the world. Whereas Murali faced them when bar Lara they weren't much better than the minnows aforementioned. Acknowledge this, and it is Warne ahead by even more.

Murali played when Windies had Haynes, Richardson, Lara, Hooper, Ambrose and Walsh, and took 4 wickets in his first match, bamboozling all the Windies including Lara and Hooper which he bowled magnficiently to. (Richardson, Haynes, Arthurton, Harper, Simmons were absolutely clueless). And Warne got hammered by both Lara nad Hooper, but only West Indian that took to Murali was Lara, no other one was able nor daring.

And about your calculations: Once agains wrong Logic. You've calculated proportions including matches against AUS and SL. The standardizarion could be only done against common oppositions. Only later you can add those figures against SL and AUS. You cannot have it to calculate the proportions. Your figures are diffrent because you have grossly neglected that standardization can be done against common oppositions.

If you look carefully you'll see that percentages in AUS column for Murali and SL column for Warne are empty. My figures are backed up with a strong set of criteria, so I am with my figures and they are correct according to criteria I have used.

 

[Sanz]

Murali played 3 tests against the WI in the 90s, avg - 14.7, SR - 34.15
Warne Played 16 tests against WI in the 90s , Avg. - 32.26, SR - 67

Murali Played 7 tests against WI in 2000s. Avg. - 18.40, SR - 44.34
Warne Played 3 tests against WI in 2000s Avg. - 22.87, SR - 49.6

No marks for guessing who benefitted more from playing a weaker WI.

 

[Migara]

Here is the flaw with your figures.

 

[Migara]

No marks for guessing who benefitted more from playing a weaker WI.

Bngo!

 

[Ikki]

Murali played when Windies had Haynes, Richardson, Lara, Hooper, Ambrose and Walsh, and took 4 wickets in his first match, bamboozling all the Windies including Lara and Hooper which he bowled magnficiently to. (Richardson, Haynes, Arthurton, Harper, Simmons were absolutely clueless). And Warne got hammered by both Lara nad Hooper, but only West Indian that took to Murali was Lara, no other one was able nor daring.

And about your calculations: Once agains wrong Logic. You've calculated proportions including matches against AUS and SL. The standardizarion could be only done against common oppositions. Only later you can add those figures against SL and AUS. You cannot have it to calculate the proportions. Your figures are diffrent because you have grossly neglected that standardization can be done against common oppositions.

If you look carefully you'll see that percentages in AUS column for Murali and SL column for Warne are empty. My figures are backed up with a strong set of criteria, so I am with my figures and they are correct according to criteria I have used.

Um, your figures are plain wrong.

West Indies: 1331/21288 = 6.25 % NOT 10.1%
New Zealand: 2519/21288 = 11.83% NOT 13.2%
England: 6751/21288 = 31.71% NOT 32.4%
Bangladesh: 524/21288 = 2.46% NOT 2.9%
India: 2755/21288 = 12.94% NOT 13.2%
South Africa: 3681/21288 = 17.29% NOT 17.6%
Pakistan: 1834/21288 = 8.62% NOT 8.8%
Zimbabwe 319/21288 = 1.5%, Thank the lord.

Taking the proportions of SL and Aus is the only fair way here. Playing away is more about the conditions than the team you're facing. Anyway, at 7.25% it is a much lower proportion to his real career proportion against Australia of 9.7%. So even that to some extent is in his favour. To take out these two takes out Warne's best side and Murali's worst.

And yeah, he bamboozled those players for 15.5 overs. Still doesn't compare to the difference in Warne's career V Windies and Murali's. And this isn't to say Murali would have done poor. Maybe he would have been great. But the fact is when you take into career figures the fact that Murali played them mostly later on when they were poor helps - however much you want to debate that.

Here is the flaw with your figures.

Answered here.

 

[Ikki]

Murali played 3 tests against the WI in the 90s, avg - 14.7, SR - 34.15
Warne Played 16 tests against WI in the 90s , Avg. - 32.26, SR - 67

Murali Played 7 tests against WI in 2000s. Avg. - 18.40, SR - 44.34
Warne Played 3 tests against WI in 2000s Avg. - 22.87, SR - 49.6

No marks for guessing who benefitted more from playing a weaker WI.

Um, let's get real. Murali bowled 113.5 overs against them in the 90s. Murali's bowled that in 1 test before. And you're comparing this to 16 of Warne's tests.

Even on this point. Let's factor in that Warne plays only 3 tests like Murali and has the figures above and has 7 tests like Murali in the 2000s with his own score. Does that not improve his figures? Exactly the point.

But to delve really:

Warne did as magnificantly as Murali in the beginning. Surprise surprise, the years he gets hit around are when everyone else did the same. It was in that injured period where he was getting knocked really bad where his away figures take a drop. Otherwise he ends up with 27.9 avg and 59 SR. for the 90s. Also, 16 tests compared to 3...yeah.

 

[Migara]

Taking the proportions of SL and Aus is the only fair way here. Playing away is more about the conditions than the team you're facing. Anyway, at 7.25% it is a much lower proportion to his real career proportion against Australia of 9.7%. So even that to some extent is in his favour. To take out these two takes out Warne's best side and Murali's worst.

Totally wromg in the logic. They should be discarded to calculate proportions. Then after standardizing, They should be added. Hence, those stats will note be lost. Other wise you'll end up with lesser deliveries for Murali against other oppositions since murali has bowled more balls Than Warne against SL+ICC. If the number was identical the it would not have beem a big problem.

 

[Migara]

West Indies: 1331/21288 = 6.25 % NOT 10.1%
New Zealand: 2519/21288 = 11.83% NOT 13.2%
England: 6751/21288 = 31.71% NOT 32.4%
Bangladesh: 524/21288 = 2.46% NOT 2.9%
India: 2755/21288 = 12.94% NOT 13.2%
South Africa: 3681/21288 = 17.29% NOT 17.6%
Pakistan: 1834/21288 = 8.62% NOT 8.8%
Zimbabwe 319/21288 = 1.5%, Thank the lord.

I see, you have only used the away statistics, where as I used the whole career, that's why the discrepancy.

How much did you dig to show that Warne has a marginally lower SR than Murali after standardization? Still Warne has a higher averge than Murali! I'll run the query using above subsets (used for number of matches) once more and we'll compare once more.

 

[Ikki]

Totally wromg in the logic. They should be discarded to calculate proportions. Then after standardizing, They should be added. Hence, those stats will note be lost. Other wise you'll end up with lesser deliveries for Murali against other oppositions since murali has bowled more balls Than Warne against SL+ICC. If the number was identical the it would not have beem a big problem.

Murali does not bowl against the ICC. He bowls against Australia, away. So it makes no difference.

Lesser deliveries only matters if you are keeping track of Wickets taken. I'm not, I am only concerned with the ratios. Unless you can show me what you mean, using my corrected stats, I am not quite sure what you're referring to.

 

[Ikki]

I see, you have only used the away statistics, where as I used the whole career, that's why the discrepancy.

How much did you dig to show that Warne has a marginally lower SR than Murali after standardization? Still Warne has a higher averge than Murali! I'll run the query using above subsets (used for number of matches) once more and we'll compare once more.

Um, that is what you HAVE to do. You are talking about his AWAY bowling so you count how much he bowled AWAY and get percentages to get the PROPORTION he bowled to each country.

Warne is 0.3 runs more expensive per wicket but 1.4 balls faster. I think he is ahead here .

Anyway, overall career statistics don't give you those numbers either. I think you've played with some (pretty much all) numbers to be honest.