*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[TumTum]

Body line needs, pace, accuracy, stamina and patience. WIndies attack had all these qualities better than Larwood. Can you think a 1Zaheer Khan doing a body line or Shaun Tait doing a body line? No. Zaheer is too slow for that albeit being accurate, and Tait is too erratic for it albeit being very fast. The qualities needed for successful bodyline does not different from what you should have for orthodox attack.

Without the leg-side fielders, this exercise won't really yield WI any good results.

BTW I would definitely have Tait if we are talking about bouncing someone out. Accuracy isn't really that important.

 

[honestbharani]

Body line needs, pace, accuracy, stamina and patience. WIndies attack had all these qualities better than Larwood. Can you think a 1Zaheer Khan doing a body line or Shaun Tait doing a body line? No. Zaheer is too slow for that albeit being accurate, and Tait is too erratic for it albeit being very fast. The qualities needed for successful bodyline does not different from what you should have for orthodox attack.

Watch Eng Vs Ind in 2007.. Even Tremlett and Broad were testing Dravid and Sachin with bodyline tactics but they were worked away easily once those two got in. Think it would be pretty much the same with Bradman and the Windies quartet.. FTR, I just do not see the Don averaging less than 70 against any bowlers of any era...

 

[vcs]

Watch Eng Vs Ind in 2007.. Even Tremlett and Broad were testing Dravid and Sachin with bodyline tactics but they were worked away easily once those two got in. Think it would be pretty much the same with Bradman and the Windies quartet.. FTR, I just do not see the Don averaging less than 70 against any bowlers of any era...

Broad did not play in the Tests in 2007. He made his Test debut some time after that series, IIRC.

 

[honestbharani]

Broad did not play in the Tests in 2007. He made his Test debut some time after that series, IIRC.

But there was another guy with Tremlett.. forget who it was.. Don't think it was Harmison..

 

[vcs]

But there was another guy with Tremlett.. forget who it was.. Don't think it was Harmison..

I think England's attack in that series was Anderson, Tremlett, Sidebottom and Panesar. You're probably thinking of Sidebottom.

 

[robelinda]

It would have been interesting to see the development of the "ramp over slips" shot (a la Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Sehwag and Lehmann to a lesser extent) if bodyline had remained for 10-20 years. Probably the most effective way of dealing with it.

Mark Waugh was doing it to the WI quartet in the 91 and 92/93 test series. During his ton at the MCG he infuriated Ambrose and Walsh by backing away and ramping it for four.

 

[robelinda]

Yeah fair enough. I don't think we've had much cricket from SL telecast into here. Tests anyways.

Actually we've had heaps. At some point in the late 90's we got the first SL series telecast here, Foxtel showed some highlights of the SL v India tour in 97, and almost every year we've had a series on tv here since. First live coverage was the 99 Aus tour though. All of England's tours to SL have been shown, India's too, that NZ tour where Fleming got the big 270 odd was shown too. We got some of the WI series where Lara went nuts with big scores, but it wasnt live, just highlights. Cant say ive seen any Pak tours, only one SA tour. Generally Foxtel doesnt bother to show all SL series live, but we get highlights of most, even if it shown at 4am! Actually whats annoying is that sometimes Foxtel only decides to show non-Aus test series right at the last minute, and dont even bother to advertise. I remember being at Crown in 2001 hangin and gamblin and then WI v SA live comes on the big tv's, it wasnt even in the tv guide ( no online back then). Bit easier to check these days of course.

Cant say watching cricket from SL is very entertaining most of the time!

 

[Cevno]

Watch Eng Vs Ind in 2007.. Even Tremlett and Broad were testing Dravid and Sachin with bodyline tactics but they were worked away easily once those two got in. Think it would be pretty much the same with Bradman and the Windies quartet.. FTR, I just do not see the Don averaging less than 70 against any bowlers of any era...

In this day and age you just need to have one of your weakness found with the help of all the technology available and until you can sort it out ,4/5 innings are gone and your career average takes a tumbling.

Same is the case with different conditions arround the world,and taking time to get yourself set in those conditions and days of travel.
Then there is acclimitization required from one format to another and acclimitization to different bowlers.
Just take Mendis for example,it took Indians one whole series and more before he could be sorted out.

Probably averaging 50 odd is easier in this era,but then averaging anything like 80/90 odd is only probably gonna get tougher from now on.

 

[Burgey]

In this day and age you just need to have one of your weakness found with the help of all the technology available and until you can sort it out ,4/5 innings are gone and your career average takes a tumbling.

Same is the case with different conditions arround the world,and taking time to get yourself set in those conditions and days of travel.
Then there is acclimitization required from one format to another and acclimitization to different bowlers.
Just take Mendis for example,it took Indians one whole series and more before he could be sorted out.

Probably averaging 50 odd is easier in this era,but then averaging anything like 80/90 odd is only probably gonna get tougher from now on.

Agreed.. All those guys in the past who averaged 70-80 would really struggle now..

 

[ankitj]

Value of wicket approach

Some time in 2003, I had come across a comprehensive analysis on rediff by name "How valuable is that wicket" (it has been taken offline now I think). It took a weighted batting average of all dismissals by the leading bowlers. They then divided the bowling average of bowlers with their respective weighted batting average of dismissals to come up with a number that roughly represents the % to which a bowler discounts a batsman's average.

I roughly remember these facts: For Marshall, the discount rate was at 69%, Ambrose at 70%, Murali somewhere between 80-90%, Wasim Akram 90%, Warne a few points below Wasim. And towards the bottom were Kapil, Kumble, Willis, Underwood, Bedi etc.

I repeated the same exercise and after spending about 3-4 hours downloading data and sorting it out, I obtained the following:


------------Bowl Ave-------Bat Ave------Discount
Murali--------22.72--------28.51--------79.69%
Warne-------25.41--------29.32--------86.68%

Think that's a very decisive statistic as we spend a lot of time discussing the value of wickets that Murali and Warne have taken. Murali has clearly discounted a batsman's average by about 7% more than that Warne has

It's also telling that those discount factors for Murali and Warne are better than some ATG fast bowlers.

(I am attaching the xls that I worked with)

 

[Ikki]

Well, his average is helped heaps by his record against minnows. Probably safer to remove them altogether.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Some time in 2003, I had come across a comprehensive analysis on rediff by name "How valuable is that wicket" (it has been taken offline now I think). It took a weighted batting average of all dismissals by the leading bowlers. They then divided the bowling average of bowlers with their respective weighted batting average of dismissals to come up with a number that roughly represents the % to which a bowler discounts a batsman's average.

I roughly remember these facts: For Marshall, the discount rate was at 69%, Ambrose at 70%, Murali somewhere between 80-90%, Wasim Akram 90%, Warne a few points below Wasim. And towards the bottom were Kapil, Kumble, Willis, Underwood, Bedi etc.

I repeated the same exercise and after spending about 3-4 hours downloading data and sorting it out, I obtained the following:


------------Bowl Ave-------Bat Ave------Discount
Murali--------22.72--------28.51--------79.69%
Warne-------25.41--------29.32--------86.68%

Think that's a very decisive statistic as we spend a lot of time discussing the value of wickets that Murali and Warne have taken. Murali has clearly discounted a batsman's average by about 7% more than that Warne has

It's also telling that those discount factors for Murali and Warne are better than some ATG fast bowlers.

(I am attaching the xls that I worked with)

I think Murali beats Warne statistically on most counts.Murali's raw numbers(WPM,average,SR,5 wicket and 10 wicket hauls)are just staggering.There are obv arguments for Warne being better but generally those arguments are about aesthetics and stuff like that(which is fair enough)

 

[Ikki]

I think Murali beats Warne statistically on most counts.Murali's raw numbers(WPM,average,SR,5 wicket and 10 wicket hauls)are just staggering.There are obv arguments for Warne being better but generally those arguments are about aesthetics and stuff like that(which is fair enough)

No, there are more than enough statistical arguments for Warne. Even using avg, sr, 5/10w hauls; which are the same things you are using for Murali.

The bolded part is just trolling.

 

[GotSpin]

In this day and age you just need to have one of your weakness found with the help of all the technology available and until you can sort it out ,4/5 innings are gone and your career average takes a tumbling.

Same is the case with different conditions arround the world,and taking time to get yourself set in those conditions and days of travel.
Then there is acclimitization required from one format to another and acclimitization to different bowlers.
Just take Mendis for example,it took Indians one whole series and more before he could be sorted out.

Probably averaging 50 odd is easier in this era,but then averaging anything like 80/90 odd is only probably gonna get tougher from now on.

lol these are some poor reasons

While technology has helped bowlers find weaknesses the same can be said for batsmen using technology to fix an issue with their own technique. I'm pretty sure Tendulkar once commented that he was able to find and fix flaws with his batting through video replay which significantly helped his game

Days of travel is not a relevant factor either or amount of cricket played. I'm sure the Don would have preferred travelling business class as opposed to the steam ship they used. Also as an example of the amount of cricket they played then, on the 1948 Invincibles tour they played on 122 days out of the 144 days they were in England.

 

[ankitj]

Well, his average is helped heaps by his record against minnows. Probably safer to remove them altogether.

The whole point of this kind of normalization is that it becomes irrelevant who the bowler bowled to. In fact it's part of Murali's greatness that he made lesser batsmen totally foolish while Warne could get hit for sixes even by Irfan Pathan at times.

In any case, if we remove B/Z Murali still has a bowling average about one point better than Warne. And the average value of wicket which is already higher for Murali will become even higher. So that won't tilt it in Warne's favour at all.

 

[Ikki]

I was trying to replicate 8ankitj's analysis without minnows when I realised he went and put the real average of the batsmen and thought I couldn't be arsed to individually put in their averages one by one. However, I did the same analysis using the average of the batsmen when they got out to Warne and Murali and got this:

Which seems to suggest, although I am not entirely sure how accurate, that Warne lost many of his runs conceded to batsmen he didn't take since the average of the batsmen's scores he did take are actually lower than his overall average.

Not really a point to argue against Murali but it reminded me of the discussion re pack bowlers and lone wolves.

 

[Ikki]

The whole point of this kind of normalization is that it becomes irrelevant who the bowler bowled to. In fact it's part of Murali's greatness that he made lesser batsmen totally foolish while Warne could get hit for sixes even by Irfan Pathan at times.

In any case, if we remove B/Z Murali still has a bowling average about one point better than Warne. And the average value of wicket which is already higher for Murali will become even higher. So that won't tilt it in Warne's favour at all.

But it doesn't become irrelevant since the proportion of his wicket taking against the minnows is higher than Warne's; and is high in general. Murali averages in the 10s against both B/Z...just how many of their batsmen do you think averaged in the 10s?

If you could put it in the spreadsheet I'd appreciate it, thanks.

 

[Migara]

Well, his average is helped heaps by his record against minnows. Probably safer to remove them altogether.[/QUOTE Murali's "Quality of wickets" low due to inlusion of B/W. When they are removed, it's quality improves more than Warne's. Which ever method takes I'd expect corrected average to be same.

Nevermind, you have realized it produces the same result. That's why you've edited your post.

When corrected for "Quality"
Murali - 22.73 / 0.7969 = 28.52
Warne - 25.41 / 0.8668 = 29.31

Even with that difference I'd rate them equally as test bowlers if I am an unbiased supported (Obviously I am biased). What above stats rubbishes is Warne > Murali argument.

 

[Migara]

But it doesn't become irrelevant since the proportion of his wicket taking against the minnows is higher than Warne's; and is high in general. Murali averages in the 10s against both B/Z...just how many of their batsmen do you think averaged in the 10s?

If you could put it in the spreadsheet I'd appreciate it, thanks.

Nah, you've got the logic wrong. If Murali has taken many "cheap" wickets, the analysis catches that and the average "value" of his wickets will keep dropping.

Ex. Player A 80 wickets vs Avg 40 batsman and 20 vs Avg 20 batsman
Player B 70 wickets vs Avg 40 batsman and 30 vs Av 20 batsman.

Both palyed in an era where batting Avg is 35, and both players have a bowling Avg of 30

Player As opponets' effective batting Avg = 40 x 0.8 + 20 x 0.2 = 32 + 4 = 36.0 / 35 = 1.03
Player As adjusted Avg = 30 / 1.03 = 29.2
Player Bs opponets' effective batting Avg = 40 x 0.7 + 20 x 0.3 = 28 + 6 = 34.0 / 35 = 0.94
Player Bs adjusted Avg = 30 / 0.94 = 31.8

Now you can see how the stats corrects it self accounting for more low quality wickets.

 

[Migara]

I was trying to replicate 8ankitj's analysis without minnows when I realised he went and put the real average of the batsmen and thought I couldn't be arsed to individually put in their averages one by one. However, I did the same analysis using the average of the batsmen when they got out to Warne and Murali and got this:

Which seems to suggest, although I am not entirely sure how accurate, that Warne lost many of his runs conceded to batsmen he didn't take since the average of the batsmen's scores he did take are actually lower than his overall average.

Not really a point to argue against Murali but it reminded me of the discussion re pack bowlers and lone wolves.

That I'll attribute to direct McGrath effect.