*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Cricketismylife]

Found this on cricinfo comments after the Murali Barnes article

"I think it is necessary to put down this nonsense talk of minnows et al aimed solely at putting down one bowler. I will do a separate article analyzing various aspects of all top bowlers. In the meanwhile ...
- Who is a minnow. Does anyone know enough to define this word. Does anyone think that Bangladesh or Zimbabwe are worse than New Zealand at various times over the past 70 years, India during 50s/60s/80s, Sri Lanka upto their WC win or even West Indies recently. Only Australia and to a lesser extent, England have avoided this classification always.
- Who plays spin better. Some of the leaden-footed South African or English batsmen or the Bangladeshi batsmen. Was it easy to take lots of wickets against a line-up led by the Flower brothers. Surely no one can forget that India has lost two tests against Zimbabwe.
- Do people know how many late order wickets Warne has taken. Much higher % than others.
- I have an excellent measure called Average quality of wicket captured. It may surprise people to know that the average quality of batsman dismissed by Kumble is 20.7, Murali 20.5, McGrath 19.5 and Warne 18.6."

Again backs up my point. Whenever these quality of wickets analysis are performed, Murali is either ahead of Warne, or the amount Warne is ahead of Murali is too small to cover the difference in their bowling averages. Proves that you have to understand what quality of wickets mean, without just spouting Zim and Bang

 

[marc71178]

Well that stat either says that Kumble > Murali or that Warne was 10% better than Murali.

Alternatively it could just be made up numbers.

 

[smash84]

Well that stat either says that Kumble > Murali or that Warne was 10% better than Murali.

Alternatively it could just be made up numbers.

what do you mean by made up numbers???

Although I thought that McGrath had a very good average quality of wicket number. I think I read it on cricinfo IIRC.

 

[marc71178]

Well those are numbers that have appeared on a cricinfo comments section (hence I wondered if they'd just been made up)

In addition, unless there's been a lot cut from the quote then we have absolutely no idea how the numbers came about (and in fact don't even know whether higher is better or lower is better)

 

[Cricketismylife]

Marc71178 quality of wicket is essentially an attempt to measure the average value of a wicket taken by a bowler and should be used in conjunction with bowling average. Ankit and PEWS on this board have also attempted to do this.

That comment by the statisitician who wrote the article shows that Kumble's quality of wicket is higher than Murali's, and Murali's is higher than Warne's.

This does not make Kumble better than Murali, it merely says that the average batsman that Kumble dismissed over his career were very slightly better than the average batsman that Murali dismissed. That slight difference does not make up the difference in their bowling averages.

My main point of showing those figures is to show that Murali's wickets being much cheaper value than Warne's is a myth. These figures show that actually the value of the wickets Murali took was actually higher than Warne. There are other calculations of this quality of wickets statistic; some have Warne marginally ahead of Murali. Again, when Warne is ahead of Murali on this stat it's not enough to make up the difference in their career bowling averages.

Effectively it means that despite many more wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, Murali's value of wickets taken is no worse than Warne's.

Possible factors that cancel out Zim and Bang are:
1) Murali has more wickets against India
2) Murali has had to bowl to Australia which Warne obviously hasnt
3) Warne has a higher percentage of tailend wickets than Murali

It would be interesting to hear other possible factors.

In conclusion, every time I see the bowling average and quality of wicket being combined for a list of bowlers, Murali is ahead of Warne. We all know that Murali has a better bowling average than Warne, but what this shows is that his average wicket is as valuable as Warne's, therefore completely throwing the "Murali benefited from weak teams" point which is used to place Warne ahead of him

 

[Mike5181]

Marc71178 quality of wicket is essentially an attempt to measure the average value of a wicket taken by a bowler and should be used in conjunction with bowling average. Ankit and PEWS on this board have also attempted to do this.

That comment by the statisitician who wrote the article shows that Kumble's quality of wicket is higher than Murali's, and Murali's is higher than Warne's.

This does not make Kumble better than Murali, it merely says that the average batsman that Kumble dismissed over his career were very slightly better than the average batsman that Murali dismissed. That slight difference does not make up the difference in their bowling averages.

My main point of showing those figures is to show that Murali's wickets being much cheaper value than Warne's is a myth. These figures show that actually the value of the wickets Murali took was actually higher than Warne. There are other calculations of this quality of wickets statistic; some have Warne marginally ahead of Murali. Again, when Warne is ahead of Murali on this stat it's not enough to make up the difference in their career bowling averages.

Effectively it means that despite many more wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, Murali's value of wickets taken is no worse than Warne's.

Possible factors that cancel out Zim and Bang are:
1) Murali has more wickets against India
2) Murali has had to bowl to Australia which Warne obviously hasnt
3) Warne has a higher percentage of tailend wickets than Murali

It would be interesting to hear other possible factors.

In conclusion, every time I see the bowling average and quality of wicket being combined for a list of bowlers, Murali is ahead of Warne. We all know that Murali has a better bowling average than Warne, but what this shows is that his average wicket is as valuable as Warne's, therefore completely throwing the "Murali benefited from weak teams" point which is used to place Warne ahead of him

How is the quality of a batsmen measured? Murali played a lot in the sub continent with players who are renowned to have high averages due to the nature of the pitches over there.

I do agree with that to an extent but Warne had to bowl against those very Australian players in domestic cricket and he had to perform very well against them to break into a truly great side. So in theory he had to bowl at more Australian batsmen than Murali ever had to.

I personally don't think there is much between them regardless of the statistics and i guess it comes down to an individuals own viewing experience of that player that can tilt the favour towards one of them.

Just on a side note. I think that Murali's controversial bowling action contributes to a lot of true cricket fans questioning the legitimacy of his statistics and whether they were truly fair and accurate to what he would have had if he had bowled easily within the rules. Thats why i think the difference of the twos statistics in favour of Murali has become somewhat of a nullity. At least in the eyes of some. That would probably be one of the reasons cricinfo went for Warne over Murali in the All Time Eleven.

 

[ankitj]

Mike, you may want to see this:

www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html

 

[GotSpin]

The quality of wickets taken can only be deemed useful when taking into consideration the circumstances and context of the match. Seems fairly useless to me when a batsmen is dismissed after scoring 120 but his wicket is therefore deemed superior because of a higher career average

 

[ankitj]

The quality of wickets taken can only be deemed useful when taking into consideration the circumstances and context of the match. Seems fairly useless to me when a batsmen is dismissed after scoring 120 but his wicket is therefore deemed superior because of a higher career average

I think batting average is still a good measure. A Harbhjan is less likely to score a 200 after getting to 120 than a Ganguly, who in turn is less likely than a Tendulkar, who in turn is less likely than a Bradman. To get a little geeky, this assumes a memory less distribution (like Exponential distribution) - at 0 or at 120, Tendulkar is likely to add another 55 runs which seems reasonable to me.

In any case, with all its limitations, this is still better than treating all wickets same as the conventional averages do.

 

[honestbharani]

I think Murali is the better bowler when compared to Warne. However, I DO NOT think the difference is as big as the stats show and I do value Warne's catching and batting. Therefore, if I had to choose between Murali and Warne, I would always choose Murali to be the better bowler but Warne to be in my all time XI... The slight difference in quality as bowlers is well nullified by the other things Warne brings to the table and for the fact that for me at least, Warne was the more "watchable" of the two...

 

[ankitj]

I think Murali is the better bowler when compared to Warne. However, I DO NOT think the difference is as big as the stats show and I do value Warne's catching and batting. Therefore, if I had to choose between Murali and Warne, I would always choose Murali to be the better bowler but Warne to be in my all time XI... The slight difference in quality as bowlers is well nullified by the other things Warne brings to the table and for the fact that for me at least, Warne was the more "watchable" of the two...

I will put your all time XI against an Indian all time XI and you will virtually be playing with one bowler less

And the best batters from all different teams like Sobers, Richards, G Chappel, Hammond etc, I would think, will be at the very least as good against spin as the likes of Siddhu, Shastri, Azhar were. So even with his added batting skills, Warne will only be a second choice for me.

On watchablity, each to his own. Give me Murali - his impeccable control, wide variety of deliveries and ability to bowl long spells without ever losing effectiveness - any day

 

[Burgey]

I will put your all time XI against an Indian all time XI and you will virtually be playing with one bowler less

And the best batters from all different teams like Sobers, Richards, G Chappel, Hammond etc, I would think, will be at the very least as good against spin as the likes of Siddhu, Shastri, Azhar were. So even with his added batting skills, Warne will only be a second choice for me.

On watchablity, each to his own. Give me Murali - his impeccable control, wide variety of deliveries and ability to bowl long spells without ever losing effectiveness - any day

Let Murali bowl to an all-time Australian XI....

 

[GotSpin]

I will put your all time XI against an Indian all time XI and you will virtually be playing with one bowler less

And the best batters from all different teams like Sobers, Richards, G Chappel, Hammond etc, I would think, will be at the very least as good against spin as the likes of Siddhu, Shastri, Azhar were. So even with his added batting skills, Warne will only be a second choice for me.

On watchablity, each to his own. Give me Murali - his impeccable control, wide variety of deliveries and ability to bowl long spells without ever losing effectiveness - any day

Worst logic

Besides, the Indian AT XI would have a tough time bowling the openers out.

 

[smash84]

I think Murali is the better bowler when compared to Warne. However, I DO NOT think the difference is as big as the stats show and I do value Warne's catching and batting. Therefore, if I had to choose between Murali and Warne, I would always choose Murali to be the better bowler but Warne to be in my all time XI... The slight difference in quality as bowlers is well nullified by the other things Warne brings to the table and for the fact that for me at least, Warne was the more "watchable" of the two...

So would you like to stuff your team full of all rounders????

I will put your all time XI against an Indian all time XI and you will virtually be playing with one bowler less

lol......true....but then HB might put all Aussie batsmen against Murali against whom he hasn't done that well (at least not in australia)

 

[honestbharani]

I will put your all time XI against an Indian all time XI and you will virtually be playing with one bowler less

And the best batters from all different teams like Sobers, Richards, G Chappel, Hammond etc, I would think, will be at the very least as good against spin as the likes of Siddhu, Shastri, Azhar were. So even with his added batting skills, Warne will only be a second choice for me.

On watchablity, each to his own. Give me Murali - his impeccable control, wide variety of deliveries and ability to bowl long spells without ever losing effectiveness - any day

I don't think that line up would be treating Warne the same way when you got Ambrose, Hadlee and Imran at the other end with Sobers backing up..

 

[smash84]

I don't think that line up would be treating Warne the same way when you got Ambrose, Hadlee and Imran at the other end with Sobers backing up..

Now that is a scary line-up.

 

[ankitj]

Worst logic

It can't be worst, come on. You have been around here long enough I think to have come across much worse. Here's an example:

Besides, the Indian AT XI would have a tough time bowling the openers out.

OK, I am kidding. Don't get worked up

Indian bowling sucks but that doesn't change the fact that their batting against spin is top notch. And if you don't like AT India XI, let's change that to a subcontinent XI with 3 or 4 Indian batsmen and Pak and SL bowlers to remove openers, and the argument still stands.

 

[JBH001]

I do agree with that to an extent but Warne had to bowl against those very Australian players in domestic cricket and he had to perform very well against them to break into a truly great side.

Australia weren't a great side at the time, just a very good one. And unless I'm mistaken, he didn't have to perform in domestic cricket to get a look in. In fact, IIRC, Warne was selected on the basis of some good performances for Australia A against Zimbabwe and India.

 

[GotSpin]

It can't be worst, come on. You have been around here long enough I think to have come across much worse. Here's an example:



OK, I am kidding. Don't get worked up

Indian bowling sucks but that doesn't change the fact that their batting against spin is top notch. And if you don't like AT India XI, let's change that to a subcontinent XI with 3 or 4 Indian batsmen and Pak and SL bowlers to remove openers, and the argument still stands.

I'm not sure why you think Warne (potentially) failing against an Indian AT XI qualifies as Murali being the superior bowler

 

[ankitj]

I'm not sure why you think Warne (potentially) failing against an Indian AT XI qualifies as Murali being the superior bowler

That's not the only reason actually. But as I have said before performing against India is the biggest challenge for a spinner, just as performing in South Africa these days is the biggest challenge for batsmen bred on subcontinent pitches. That's my reasoning.