*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Furball]

I clearly mention that I wouldn't take his average at face value so your post isn't making any sense...but then your posts seldom do. By your logic,Warne is a drug cheat.It does not matter that it was never proven he actually did drugs but only took a susbtance that might have been used to mask the presence of drugs.Everything is in black and white after all...

AK, please refrain from insulting other posters.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

AK, please refrain from insulting other posters.

Mate I specifically said "your posts" seldom make sense.It was got_spin who tried to get personal by talking about primary school and what not...anyway,I have had enough of this thread.

 

[Migara]

Murali's record against India is only better at home. He is as bad as Warne in India.

If Warne had bowled against India in Sri Lanka then it'd be relevant. Australia is one of the worst places in cricket to bowl spin whereas Sri Lanka is one of the best. There are only 2 places in the world where spin outdoes pace, and they are Sri Lanka and India.

This looks true when you consider it's face value. But deep down it's not. Warne knew how to use home conditions well. And he used it very well against most countries and he averages 26.4 at home. He was good against weak players of spin at home (or Aussies made pitches conducive to spin when playing these teams), but was not in the same commendable position against IND and SL (recent PAK playing spin well is a myth). All other teams except IND and SL Warne averages 24.5 at home. India andSL combined he averages 34.7, almost 50% increase.

On the other hand Murali's home record is more homogeneous. When minnows are discounted his average ranges from 16.8 to 26.4 compared to Warne's 21.6 to 62.6 (or 32.4 if IND is discounted, and ICC world XI is discounted for obvious reasons). The pattern shows up that there was something that prevented Warne getting best players of spin. Pitches were non-helpful argument has some weight, but not the weight that Ikki tries to paint of, because stats show that Warne knew very well how to bowl on Aussie wickets. And the fact that he never bowled to Aussie line up, does not give us an idea what he would achieved to compare with Murali. But average of 36 in domestic competition against batsmen inferior to Aussie internationals. Adding the fact that it was his home, I would expect him to average close to what Murali did in Australia.

 

[GotSpin]

This looks true when you consider it's face value. But deep down it's not. Warne knew how to use home conditions well. And he used it very well against most countries and he averages 26.4 at home. He was good against weak players of spin at home (or Aussies made pitches conducive to spin when playing these teams), but was not in the same commendable position against IND and SL (recent PAK playing spin well is a myth). All other teams except IND and SL Warne averages 24.5 at home. India andSL combined he averages 34.7, almost 50% increase.

On the other hand Murali's home record is more homogeneous. When minnows are discounted his average ranges from 16.8 to 26.4 compared to Warne's 21.6 to 62.6 (or 32.4 if IND is discounted, and ICC world XI is discounted for obvious reasons). The pattern shows up that there was something that prevented Warne getting best players of spin. Pitches were non-helpful argument has some weight, but not the weight that Ikki tries to paint of, because stats show that Warne knew very well how to bowl on Aussie wickets. And the fact that he never bowled to Aussie line up, does not give us an idea what he would achieved to compare with Murali. But average of 36 in domestic competition against batsmen inferior to Aussie internationals. Adding the fact that it was his home, I would expect him to average close to what Murali did in Australia.

Not sure that's ever happened. Australian pitches, except on the SCG for the final few days, were never conducive to spin bowling. In fact, its more of a testimony to Warne that he was able to bowl so well at home generally.

It's well agreed as well that Warne never took domestic cricket seriously other than simply as a warm up or gaining match fitness

 

[vic_orthdox]

Not sure that's ever happened. Australian pitches, except on the SCG for the final few days, were never conducive to spin bowling. In fact, its more of a testimony to Warne that he was able to bowl so well at home generally.

It's well agreed as well that Warne never took domestic cricket seriously other than simply as a warm up or gaining match fitness

Come on, never took it seriously? Maybe not in preparation, but that's a cop out. There were a myriad of factors in play, but just putting down his record in Sheffield Shield as him not taking it seriously is pretty rich.

 

[silentstriker]

I find it laughable that someone that competitive would just not try for his team, no matter what the setting.

Anyway, both Murali and Warne are better than each other. Figure that out.

 

[Thirdman1]

Not sure that's ever happened. Australian pitches, except on the SCG for the final few days, were never conducive to spin bowling. In fact, its more of a testimony to Warne that he was able to bowl so well at home generally.

It's well agreed as well that Warne never took domestic cricket seriously other than simply as a warm up or gaining match fitness

If Murali had played as much match as Warne against England he would have taken 50 wickets extra. What is the average of Warne against India in Australia? He took lots of tailender wickets. And he improved his average in India by playing against a depleted side in 2004 . If he had come in 2008, his average would have been atleast 100 in that series
Warne vs Murali at neutral location
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Uppercut]

It's well agreed as well that Warne never took domestic cricket seriously other than simply as a warm up or gaining match fitness

It sure as hell isn't. Certainly not when he played it in England in any case.

 

[GotSpin]

Come on, never took it seriously? Maybe not in preparation, but that's a cop out. There were a myriad of factors in play, but just putting down his record in Sheffield Shield as him not taking it seriously is pretty rich.

I don't believe he was outplayed by Australian domestic batsmen. So the only other reasonable explanation is that he wasn't bringing the full bag of tricks to every game and treated matches as a means towards achieving greater match fitness rather than a focus on churning out wickets

 

[GotSpin]

It sure as hell isn't. Certainly not when he played it in England in any case.

I meant Australian domestic cricket

 

[Uppercut]

If Murali had played as much match as Warne against England he would have taken 50 wickets extra. What is the average of Warne against India in Australia? He took lots of tailender wickets. And he improved his average in India by playing against a depleted side in 2004 . If he had come in 2008, his average would have been atleast 100 in that series
Warne vs Murali at neutral location
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Damn, I forgot that cricket only counts when it's played in New Zealand, South Africa, England or the West Indies.

 

[Migara]

Not sure that's ever happened. Australian pitches, except on the SCG for the final few days, were never conducive to spin bowling. In fact, its more of a testimony to Warne that he was able to bowl so well at home generally.

It's well agreed as well that Warne never took domestic cricket seriously other than simply as a warm up or gaining match fitness

May be yes. If that's the case that shows Warne knew how to bowl on these pitches, rather than saying "unhelpful". It was unhelpful for the bowlers who are not used to bowling on them. That takes quite a weight off "unhelpful" pitches theory.

 

[Thirdman1]

Damn, I forgot that cricket only counts when it's played in New Zealand, South Africa, England or the West Indies.

No it is outside sub-continent and outside OZ. That has nothing to do with cricket counting or not.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Anyway, both Murali and Warne are better than each other. Figure that out.

I think you might be overlooking the fact that Warne's diet is better than Murali's. Sways things in his favour for mine. In fact, if you look at the statsguru analysis for who ate more protein and dietary fibre whilst at neutral venues, Warne's fibre intake was 7 grams higher than Murali's and meals where he captured 10 grams of protein per sitting stand at 23 compared to only 5 for Murali.

Murali cut his baked beans on toast with a bent elbow too, but I'm not bringing that old acorn up again.

StatsGuru - Warne Beats Murali Hands Down On Dietary Intake

 

[GotSpin]

May be yes. If that's the case that shows Warne knew how to bowl on these pitches, rather than saying "unhelpful". It was unhelpful for the bowlers who are not used to bowling on them. That takes quite a weight off "unhelpful" pitches theory.

I suppose you can take two sides to this theory. But IMO, Warne managed to make the best of home conditions that were in general not great for spin bowling, a more favourable perspective though. Not to say spinners have always failed in Australia, but that Warne was good enough to still take wickets on decks like the WACA etc

 

[Migara]

Damn, I forgot that cricket only counts when it's played in New Zealand, South Africa, England or the West Indies.

Damn., I could not understand why Murali's home matches are not given that much of importance

 

[Migara]

I suppose you can take two sides to this theory. But IMO, Warne managed to make the best of home conditions that were in general not great for spin bowling, a more favourable perspective though. Not to say spinners have always failed in Australia, but that Warne was good enough to still take wickets on decks like the WACA etc

I would say Murali will be as good as him if played on Aussie pitches when he was developing in to a quality bowler

 

[Thirdman1]

I suppose you can take two sides to this theory. But IMO, Warne managed to make the best of home conditions that were in general not great for spin bowling, a more favourable perspective though. Not to say spinners have always failed in Australia, but that Warne was good enough to still take wickets on decks like the WACA etc

Against average player of spin. What was his record against Lara and India ?

 

[GotSpin]

Against average player of spin. What was his record against Lara and India ?

I'm a noob at stats guru so can someone do this for me.

 

[Ikki]

This looks true when you consider it's face value. But deep down it's not. Warne knew how to use home conditions well. And he used it very well against most countries and he averages 26.4 at home. He was good against weak players of spin at home (or Aussies made pitches conducive to spin when playing these teams), but was not in the same commendable position against IND and SL (recent PAK playing spin well is a myth). All other teams except IND and SL Warne averages 24.5 at home. India andSL combined he averages 34.7, almost 50% increase.

On the other hand Murali's home record is more homogeneous. When minnows are discounted his average ranges from 16.8 to 26.4 compared to Warne's 21.6 to 62.6 (or 32.4 if IND is discounted, and ICC world XI is discounted for obvious reasons). The pattern shows up that there was something that prevented Warne getting best players of spin. Pitches were non-helpful argument has some weight, but not the weight that Ikki tries to paint of, because stats show that Warne knew very well how to bowl on Aussie wickets. And the fact that he never bowled to Aussie line up, does not give us an idea what he would achieved to compare with Murali. But average of 36 in domestic competition against batsmen inferior to Aussie internationals. Adding the fact that it was his home, I would expect him to average close to what Murali did in Australia.

I'm not sure what flat you're trying to place where. Whether Warne did well at home, considering it's difficulty and lack of spin-friendly conditions is not something to write off as doable by anyone - as if just that he did well means pitches were helpful. Warne's away stats are much better than his home stats. Murali's home stats are much better than his away stats. Warne is a bit better than Murali away from home and better than Murali even in Sri Lanka. What that suggests to me is that aside from being superior away from home; the difference could be even larger had he the kind of conditions Murali had at his disposal for half his career.

You're combining his India and Sri Lanka stats is a joke. You argue constantly, as do others, that the conditions in these two conditions are not the same, and shouldn't be treated as such merely because they're both in the continent.

Warne made merry in Sri Lanka. Warne only failed away in India. Even against the WIndies he only ever had 1 bad series (in all his career, home or away) and that was during the period where he was getting pelted by everyone.

As for the discussion re Warne in Australian domestic cricket; it's a bit of both. I looked at his season by season record and he would usually play a few games only, per season. When you're in and out of domestic cricket like that it is hard to get consistency. Also, I hear he didn't take it as seriously as he could have; but like Vic I'd put that to preparation. On the pitch, I have no doubt a competitor like Warne was giving his all to win. Having said that, Australia has had very good players of spin and pretty unreceptive pitches in general. It's hard yakka out there for spinners.