*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[ankitj]

Generally, Warne didn't need extra turn. Bounce was a better weapon.

Unfortunately, Warne never got to face India in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lankan pitches offer more bounce?

 

[Ikki]

Sri Lankan pitches offer more bounce?

I'd say they're faster and depending on the pitch bounce higher, yes. Warne regularly outbowled Murali in Sri Lanka.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Warne has bowled extremely well in Sri Lankan conditions, but one cannot say that he has outbowled Murali there.

That famous 2004 series Warne got 26 wickets at 20 and Murali got 28 wickets at 23. While Warne bowled better, it would be ridiculous to make a direct comparison, since Warne was bowling at the then 5th ranked Sri Lankans, compared to Murali who was bowling against the best line up in the world.

Furthermore the other series that Warne played in Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka were a low ranked team, the 2004 batting line up was probably the strongest Sri Lankan line up he bowled to.

 

[Top_Cat]

From memory, Sri Lanka were bashing everyone at home, though. Their ranking at the time doesn't reflect how hard it was to be a touring side in SL.

 

[andyc]

In summary by almost every single objective statisitical measure Murali is found to be superior to Warne. I believe a combination of a lack of media hype, the fact that Murali played for a low key side, Warne's headline personality and the fact that Warne played 36 tests v England as oppposed to 13 that Murali played, leads to a significant number of people preferring Warne. While subjectively Warne may be preferred, eg bowling style etc, in terms of pure effectiveness as a bowler Murali is noticeably better. In fact I believe Mcgrath and Murali would be a much closer comparison, than Warne and Murali

Welcome to the forum, first of all

Moving on, this paragraph pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue, nicely put IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

Small samples. More vulnerable to outliers etc etc.

Therefore look at number of excellent performance like this one:

2nd Test: India v Sri Lanka at Delhi, Dec 10-14, 2005 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

And did Sachin actually rate Warne higher? This article suggests otherwise. Quoting the relevant excerpt:

Bradman, Sobers and Tendulkar all rated Muttiah Muralitharan above Warne; Glenn McGrath, Warne and Gavaskar back Tendulkar over Lara, Murali and Barry Richards go the other way - and Wasim reckons Martin Crowe better than both.

Given than Warne only dismissed Tendulkar once in 18 innings it'd be very surprising if he rated Warne higher! (Murali ftr got him thrice which again is not many but then Indian batsmen have always been murderers of spin)

lol.. Pretty sure McGrath said Lara was the best batsman he bowled at after his retirement test. But there is another thread for that.

 

[honestbharani]

Welcome to the forum, first of all

Moving on, this paragraph pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue, nicely put IMO.

AWTA.. I love watching leg spinners bowl personally, so my dream team would probably have Warney in it but love Murali as well. Great bowler and a great bloke, from all accounts.


Extremely interesting that he thinks Warne is better too, not because of any stat but because he feels bowling leg spin is a more difficult thing to do and to still have reasonably comparable stats does make Warne pretty special.

 

[Cricketismylife]

No doubt Warne is special, it would be impossible for any serious cricket fan to dispute that, he had high level of skill, charisma and for me personally he was more elegant than Murali. My reason for preferring Murali as a bowler is purely biased in that as a Sri Lanka fan I saw him lifting our team up consistently time and time again. And despite the fact that he may not have been as elegant as Warne, he actually was a very exciting bowler, its just that his test series he played in had so little hype, when compared to the Ashes.

But bias aside, I think I showed how objectively overall Murali was superior. It would be interesting to do a Mcgrath Murali comparison, as I've always had the feeling that Mcgrath was Australia's number one bowler and not Warne.

For me the points in Mcgrath's favour are that he has a better average than Warne, is more consistent in all places, and he seemed to have a knack of targetting a big player and succeeding. And from memory I can't really think of a batsman who dominated Mcgrath over his career, while Lara and Tendulkar may have dominated him in certain innings, in other innings Mcgrath had their number.

Furthermore, Mcgrath took a much higher percentage of top order wickets than Warne, and in terms of the discounted value of his wickets, his figure is way better than Warne's.

Probably the only thing in Warne's favour is his wicket count, but I don't see it as a huge deal, when you see how many wickets Mcgrath had.

I think Mcgrath Murali would be closer, and a case could be made either way, wonder what everyone else thinks. I just feel Mcgrath is criminally underrated.

 

[GotSpin]

No doubt Warne is special, it would be impossible for any serious cricket fan to dispute that, he had high level of skill, charisma and for me personally he was more elegant than Murali. My reason for preferring Murali as a bowler is purely biased in that as a Sri Lanka fan I saw him lifting our team up consistently time and time again. And despite the fact that he may not have been as elegant as Warne, he actually was a very exciting bowler, its just that his test series he played in had so little hype, when compared to the Ashes.

But bias aside, I think I showed how objectively overall Murali was superior. It would be interesting to do a Mcgrath Murali comparison, as I've always had the feeling that Mcgrath was Australia's number one bowler and not Warne.

Ford.

Isn't it fairly simplistic just to present facts at face value and therefore say that X player is better?

In fact, analysis of statistics would suggest that Warne and Murali are very similar

 

[Teja.]

Would join the andy and CIML camp, myself.

 

[honestbharani]

No doubt Warne is special, it would be impossible for any serious cricket fan to dispute that, he had high level of skill, charisma and for me personally he was more elegant than Murali. My reason for preferring Murali as a bowler is purely biased in that as a Sri Lanka fan I saw him lifting our team up consistently time and time again. And despite the fact that he may not have been as elegant as Warne, he actually was a very exciting bowler, its just that his test series he played in had so little hype, when compared to the Ashes.

But bias aside, I think I showed how objectively overall Murali was superior. It would be interesting to do a Mcgrath Murali comparison, as I've always had the feeling that Mcgrath was Australia's number one bowler and not Warne.

For me the points in Mcgrath's favour are that he has a better average than Warne, is more consistent in all places, and he seemed to have a knack of targetting a big player and succeeding. And from memory I can't really think of a batsman who dominated Mcgrath over his career, while Lara and Tendulkar may have dominated him in certain innings, in other innings Mcgrath had their number.

Furthermore, Mcgrath took a much higher percentage of top order wickets than Warne, and in terms of the discounted value of his wickets, his figure is way better than Warne's.

Probably the only thing in Warne's favour is his wicket count, but I don't see it as a huge deal, when you see how many wickets Mcgrath had.

I think Mcgrath Murali would be closer, and a case could be made either way, wonder what everyone else thinks. I just feel Mcgrath is criminally underrated.

yeah.. really agree with you completely regarding the comparisons.. But I mean, in general, it is obvious so many cricketers and ex-cricketers give Warne some brownie points just for being a leggie. I mean, when men who played at that level think it is so difficult, it really has to be, right?


But yeah, Murali over Warne for me.. Perhaps not as clear cut as some would think but definitely I think Murali >Warne.

 

[vcs]

I think there's nothing in it, like Tendulkar-Lara. Down to personal preference. Happy to have seen them both play.

 

[JBH001]

Recalling, for a brief moment, the ODI debate I was surprised to see that Warne's record against India in ODI matches is woeful. A 50+ average with a very high ER whereas Murali averages in the low 30s (as he does with Australia). Indian batsmen really tonked Warne all over the park in ODI cricket.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Got_Spin, I think for me the main point is most of the most important statistics Murali is ahead. I'm not saying he is way ahead of Warne, but there is a noticeable difference (when we mix bowling average with quality of wicket), and I think I've shown that most arguments used to put Warne over Murali are redundant (such as the weak team argument).

Even when people try to punch holes in Murali's away record, it's mostly unfair. Warne played 22 test matches in England, compared to Murali's 6 which fetched Murali 48 wickets! Imagine if he had had more test matches in England during his peak.

Similarly he played 6 tests in South Africa before the doosra and picked up 35 wickets. Imagine if he had opportunities to use his doosra in South Africa, who Sri Lanka have not visited since 2002!

Once again Murali played a paltry 6 test matches in New Zealand where again he picked up 30 wickets at under 20!

 

[Ikki]

Got_Spin, I think for me the main point is most of the most important statistics Murali is ahead. I'm not saying he is way ahead of Warne, but there is a noticeable difference (when we mix bowling average with quality of wicket), and I think I've shown that most arguments used to put Warne over Murali are redundant (such as the weak team argument).

Even when people try to punch holes in Murali's away record, it's mostly unfair. Warne played 22 test matches in England, compared to Murali's 6 which fetched Murali 48 wickets! Imagine if he had had more test matches in England during his peak.

Similarly he played 6 tests in South Africa before the doosra and picked up 35 wickets. Imagine if he had opportunities to use his doosra in South Africa, who Sri Lanka have not visited since 2002!

Once again Murali played a paltry 6 test matches in New Zealand where again he picked up 30 wickets at under 20!

The most important stats? The ones that suit your argument? The biggest difference between the two is that one played in a country suited to his type of bowling and the other one in pretty much the opposite circumstances. Even when you standardise the away stats Warne is ahead of Murali away. Which leaves their home records. Murali was awesome in SL, but Warne was even better - and that against the hardest team to face in SL (SL herself).

The "how valuable is your wicket stat" is pretty flawed, and the difference between the two is much less than illustrated there.

In fact, the difference between them statistically is very little. I'll always go for Warne as a bowler for me he was better and rose to the occasion more than any other cricketer I have watched, including Murali. As an overall cricketer, it's fairly easily Warne.

 

[marc71178]

And yet for almost every if for Murali, you can have an equivalent for Warne which would equally improve his record.

 

[Ikki]

Precisely, and how do you know Murali would have done better? For example, Murali is strictly statistically speaking slightly better than Warne in England, yet Warne played some 16 more Tests there and kept that record for over a decade. Similar thing with NZ where Warne played twice as many innings for only slightly worse overall record in NZ.

 

[Cricketismylife]

We can't know for sure, but I would say Murali's lack of matches in those countries when compared to Warne, from his earlier performances it is more than likely that he would have continued to perform extremely well.

In the same way, you can't extrapolate Warne's record in Sri Lanka and assume he would have continued at the same rate. And for the record Murali's record is superior to Warne's in Sri Lanka.

 

[marc71178]

So you can assume one thing would happen but the same thing can't be assumed to argue in favour of Warne - why exactly?

 

[Ikki]

We can't know for sure, but I would say Murali's lack of matches in those countries when compared to Warne, from his earlier performances it is more than likely that he would have continued to perform extremely well.

Huh? Why? The two have nothing to do with the other.

In the same way, you can't extrapolate Warne's record in Sri Lanka and assume he would have continued at the same rate. And for the record Murali's record is superior to Warne's in Sri Lanka.

Murali in SL averages 19.56 with a SR of 50.8.
Warne in SL averages 20.45 with a SR of 39.6.
Without B/Z Murali averages 22.22 with an SR of 55.9.