*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Tom Halsey]

India has already been discussed ? You will find that your excuses for Warne's performances in India are spurious. Simply because during his performance in India, he was neither injured, nor was he enduring a bad patch- he was doing fine and just hit a brick wall against India.

Well you're the first person I've met who doesn't believe he was injured. he says in his autobiography he very nearly declared himself unavailable for the tour.

 

[C_C]

Rubbish - and the stats with which you use to back this up are very selective. I'm sure if you did your research about Murali v Lara etc (as you did for Warne a while ago) you'd find Murali has an atrocious record against quite a few top players (and on pitches on which he should be in his element).

No, the stats say other-ways round.
Murali has struggled more than Warne has against Lara and that owes a large part due to Lara's struggles with McGrath. Murali has struggled far less than Warne against Tendulkar, Inzamam, etc. and in general, Murali is a lot harder to whack around than Warney is.

Infact, without McGrath present in the attack to destroy the top order and expose the middle order early, there isnt much to pick and choose between Warney and Kumble- both average in the 27-28 zone, with Warne being a bit more versatile than Kumble.
Murali doesnt have the luxury of McGrath-Gillespie-Lee/Fleming to put pressure relentlessly from the other end- he only has Vaas and Vaas isnt in McGrath's class- more like Gillespie class. Yet Murali routinely demolishes top orders- something Warne doesnt do too well with McGrath absent ( yes i know he did it in the Ashes but England is neither known for its spin-play and neither is one series representative of the cumulative).

 

[C_C]

Well you're the first person I've met who doesn't believe he was injured. he says in his autobiography he very nearly declared himself unavailable for the tour.

I dont care what he says in his autobiography. To be honest, i dont take Warney's self-analysis very seriously- simply because he is unreliable at best ( drug cheating controversy). I saw the series in 97/98 in person and Warne was bowling full tilt in the tests only to break down in the ODIs that followed it. Ofcourse the media tried to spin it as him being injured and all this and that but the simple fact is, in the test series, he was fit and he got demolished. His ODI performances can be excused by his injury but not his test record- simply because you cannot excuse performances before getting injured by saying he was injured!
Same happened in 2001.

 

[Tom Halsey]

there isnt much to pick and choose between Warney and Kumble- both average in the 27-28 zone, with Warne being a bit more versatile than Kumble.

That's ludicrous. Warne averages 24, Kumble averages 28. Warne plays in Australia, Kumble in India (outside of which his average is IIRC, high 30s?).

 

[aussie]

I dont care what he says in his autobiography. To be honest, i dont take Warney's self-analysis very seriously- simply because he is unreliable at best ( drug cheating controversy). I saw the series in 97/98 in person and Warne was bowling full tilt in the tests only to break down in the ODIs that followed it. Ofcourse the media tried to spin it as him being injured and all this and that but the simple fact is, in the test series, he was fit and he got demolished. His ODI performances can be excused by his injury but not his test record- simply because you cannot excuse performances before getting injured by saying he was injured!
Same happened in 2001.

yes i say the 98 series & yes Warne was bowling at his best then & got hammered but in 2001 he wasn't it was his first test series coming off almost or just about a year out of test cricket & definately wasn't at his best. While in 2004 he was at his best

 

[C_C]

That's ludicrous. Warne averages 24, Kumble averages 28. Warne plays in Australia, Kumble in India (outside of which his average is IIRC, high 30s?).

Oh i think Warne is better than Kumble- but by a little bit and solely because he's more versatile overseas.
Warne averages 24 while Kumble averages 28- which is largely due to the fact that Warne has had the backing of an excellent pace attack to regularly snuff out the top order and leave him with the middle/lower-middle order.
It is quite easily shown that Warne's superior average compared to Kumble is largely due to the presence of McGrath and Gillespie- for when McGrath isnt present, his average shoots up to 27+.

 

[aussie]

Lara played him cautiously ( i have large chunks of the matches in that series).

i have Lara 221 in colombo on tape & he was pretty dominant againts murali, especially with those sweep shots..

 

[C_C]

i have Lara 221 in colombo on tape & he was pretty dominant againts murali, especially with those sweep shots..

Indeed, during his 221 he was but in other innings he played him quite cautiously
.

 

[aussie]

No contest. Also, a high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway). What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?

So what if Warne had a 17 % difference of taking more tailend wiickets than Murali at that point, i would like to see if that fact as change but anyway its not like Warne isn't effective againts the top order batsman come on the ashes is a prime example of Warne doing both very effectively, IMO this analysis is very faulty...

 

[C_C]

So what if Warne had a 17 % difference of taking more tailend wiickets than Murali at that point, i would like to see if that fact as change but anyway its not like Warne isn't effective againts the top order batsman come on the ashes is a prime example of Warne doing both very effectively, IMO this analysis is very faulty...

Ashes is largely irrelevant- England is not a good player of spin and most spinners have a field day against England- have had so for a long long time.
Infact, Warney's record against England is expected, not confirmatory of his exalted status.

 

[marc71178]

Also, a high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%.

Yes, and esxactly how much competition for wickets did the 2 have?

 

[marc71178]

That's ludicrous. Warne averages 24, Kumble averages 28. Warne plays in Australia, Kumble in India (outside of which his average is IIRC, high 30s?).

Yes, but you're forgetting the nationality issue Tom...

 

[C_C]

Yes, but you're forgetting the nationality issue Tom...

indeed he is. he should look at facts, not fiction.
Perhaps you should do the same too.

 

[Googenheim]

Well you're the first person I've met who doesn't believe he was injured. he says in his autobiography he very nearly declared himself unavailable for the tour.

Give it up mate. I watched the series. He got pasted left and right, and it wasnt for lack of fitness.

 

[Jono]

No doubt Murali bowled very well, but taking 7 wickets when you have no competition for them isn't as remarkable as it would be for most bowlers. He certainly bowled very well today, though.

It'll be interesting to see how he comes out of the series overall.

LMAO! Whilst admitting he bowled brilliantly, you're trying to make excuses for why he took 7 wickets and why Warne couldn't.

A spell of 5 for 23 against the Indians on their home turf, including the wickets of Tendulkar on 100+ and Ganguly...t hat is absolutely superb, not just 'very well' bowled.

Except Warne consistently took wickets throughout the innings. He took the first wicket to fall in six of the ten English innings in the Ashes, and regularly took them in his first over or two as well. Regularly England would be 0/100+ when he came on, and be 2/120 at lunch or something.

It's certainly true that Warne taking 8 wickets a match was because of the impotence of the rest of the attack from tests 2-4, but what I'm talking about with Murali is a little different.

In the first test against Australia in 2004, Murali had 1 wicket for well over 100 when Australia were 3/450, and when Australia declared at 8/512 he had 5/153 from 56 overs. Those wickets didn't contribute to anything. Now obviously, that's a slog leading to a declaration, and every bowler gets cheap wickets then, but a similar thing happened in the second test as well. Australia lost their last 5 wickets for 82 in a big score of 442, and Murali took 4 of them and finished with 5/126 from 38 overs.

Now, I'm not actually suggesting he doesn't deserve these wickets, because obviously he's bowled well enough to get them and he does, but it seems to me that instead of going from 1/120 to 5/150 and bowling 50+ overs, if he were in a better team he might just take 1/60 instead. Running through the tail is a skill every bowler needs, btu when the opposition has already scored over 500 it really isn't worth as much as it is if you take the ball at 5/100 and knock them over for 150. Murali took 28 @ 21 in that series, which is almost 10 wickets a test, and is obviously a superb series, but I don't think his impact on the outcome of the series was anything like that significant. He bowled superbly on several occasions, but on others he was handled well, Australia amassed huge scores and by the time Murali took his wickets the contest was over.

Except in this case, India weren't 3/450. They were around 3/250 with Tendulkar on 100. Despite Tendulkar probably just getting theb etter of him the previous day, Murali comes out and bowls an awesome spell ensuring India are out for 290.

Let's not apply what Murali did in one series to every bowling instance. This wasn't a case of not having better bowlers on the other end (I acknowledge your overall point however). This was a case of a bowler who hasnt had the opportunity to play India in India since 1997 showing just how great he is, by taking on the best spinners in the world and making them look like they don't have a clue.

 

[Pratters]

Warne plays in Australia, Kumble in India

That cannot be a basis as Australia suits Warne while India suits Kumble.

 

[social]

Australia suits Warne

Warne's career record clearly shows that Warne records similar figures at both home and away venues.

He averages within .4 of a run per wickets and takes slightly more wickets per test away.

Murali on the other hand ......

At home, he averages nearly 8 runs LESS per wicket and takes nearly 2 wickets MORE per test.

Far be it for me to make any comments about having wickets specifically prepared for him at home

Something tells me that his away record is a better reflection of his bowling

 

[C_C]

Warne's career record clearly shows that Warne records similar figures at both home and away venues.

He averages within .4 of a run per wickets and takes slightly more wickets per test away.

Murali on the other hand ......

At home, he averages nearly 8 runs LESS per wicket and takes nearly 2 wickets MORE per test.

Far be it for me to make any comments about having wickets specifically prepared for him at home

Something tells me that his away record is a better reflection of his bowling

Perhaps it is. But his away record is just as good as Warney's, despite not having anything CLOSE to a similar bowling attack to back him up.
That speaks a lot about how good murali is.

 

[Pratters]

He averages within .4 of a run per wickets and takes slightly more wickets per test away.

Does not take away from the fact that Australia suits Warne.

Far be it for me to make any comments about having wickets specifically prepared for him at home

No one is saying wickets are specially prepared for him or on those lines. The bounce, the larger grounds are favoured by Warne.

 

[Pratters]

Murali is an absolute genius. They just cannot pick him.

86.2 Muralitharan to Dhoni, OUT: good ball, a doosra, pitched outside leg stump and turning away from Dhoni, playing forward, misses the line of the ball, hits the off stump, excellent stuff.

Before the doosra was developed Murali was handled like a journey man by Indians. He had very little variation early in his career. The Indians played him with ease during the period.

I like Warne more because of my love for leg spin but statistically as you state AMZ, Murali is greater than Warne.