*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[social]

Well maybe if the best team's head of the state didnt indulge in erroneous and dastardly insinuations, he would've toured OZ - and then again, its a completely justified perspective from him - if it were me, i wouldnt care to ever step in OZ. Besides, for spinners, the best and thus the toughest team they can face is India, not Australia.



By his performance against best of the best ( IND when it comes to spin bowling), his performance away from home, against top level teams and overall consistency through the years, keeping in perspective the lack of bowling support for Murali.



If the 'Ashes' is high on the pressure list, the Indian and Pakistani cricketers should be given awards for mental toughness for IND-PAK encounters are far far more pressure-intensive than any other rivalry. And that too, by several light years.



Far less holes when viewed objectively, rather than through glasses painted with national colors.

1. History has already judged his absence - and it hasnt been kind.

2. In quick succession, Aus has been rated the world's top tourist destination whilst Sydney and Brisbane have been rated the world's most livable cities. In other words, your absence has hardly been missed.

3. His performance away from home is markedly worse than on the "favourable" wickets in SL.

4. Given that he plays for SL, what the hell do Pak - India series have to do with anything?

5. Bowling spin in Aus is by far the hardest of all cricket's occupations.

6. Objectivity? Please. As usual, u make it up as u along.

 

[Jono]

5. Bowling spin in Aus is by far the hardest of all cricket's occupations.

England and New Zealand? What about the West Indies? Do any of those countries have a ground/pitch that is actually known to favour spinners (Sydney)?

 

[ohtani's jacket]

And Warne's latest thinly veiled attacks on Murali are both inaccurate and in poor taste.

Warne's a ****.

When the tsunami hit, he flew out to Sri Lanka to help with the relief aid. Now he's broken Lillee's record, there's no need for good will.

Or a PR opportunity.

 

[social]

Warne's a ****.

When the tsunami hit, he flew out to Sri Lanka to help with the relief aid. Now he's broken Lillee's record, there's no need for good will.

Or a PR opportunity.

Warne is hardly a poster child for decency away from the cricket field.

However, any attempt to discredit his efforts on behalf of the tsunami victims is pathetic.

Before criticising others, NZers should have a look at its' own aid efforts.

 

[C_C]

1. History has already judged his absence - and it hasnt been kind.

Sorry but you are not the judge of history - history is still being written regarding this, given that his career is still active. Check back in 10 years time.

2. In quick succession, Aus has been rated the world's top tourist destination whilst Sydney and Brisbane have been rated the world's most livable cities. In other words, your absence has hardly been missed.

As usual, you miss the point- The point is, if the head of the government of a nation can be idiotic enough to comment on a matter he doesn't understand and where one has been ridiculed to high heavens beyond the edges of decency, one has every bit a good reason not to tour that nation.
And while you are in your little 'gloat' about top rated cities to live in, hug this one up- I live in the top rated city to live in, if one has any inclination to follow such rating.

3. His performance away from home is markedly worse than on the "favourable" wickets in SL.

True. But as usual, another misrepresentation of facts - his performance away from home is extremely similar to Warney's performance away from home. Given that most destinations 'away from home' are far more pace friendly than spin friendly and he doesnt have the luxury of a superb pace attack to decimate the opposition, his performance is simply brilliant away from home - against non ZIM/BD nations that is.

4. Given that he plays for SL, what the hell do Pak - India series have to do with anything?

Point is, in professional sports, rivalries are essentially the same and the pressure of the Ashes being the backdrop is no different than pressure on the 5th day to bowl a side out.
Pressure is pressure and Murali has been in enough pressure-inducing scenarios and performed.
Infact, i would rather have Warney's position than Murali's - even if there is any extra pressure due to the Ashes, it is utterly irrelevant, as English batsmen through the 90s and recently have been generally extremely poor against quality spin.

5. Bowling spin in Aus is by far the hardest of all cricket's occupations.

I thought it was playing cricket without sledging.

6. Objectivity? Please. As usual, u make it up as u along.

And as usual, you bite off more than you can chew. Afterall, you do have the gall to try and teach an engineer what is 'credible analysis' and what isnt from a scientific perspective.
Ofcourse, i wouldn't be out of line telling Tendulkar how to bat properly or telling a nobel prize physicist how to do his physics.


PS: You've yourself admitted to having the wrong data atleast twice in this thread ( where i referred you to the ICC articles about the rule changes and measuring techniques). I suggest you dont switch that around in your mind.

 

[social]

Sorry but you are not the judge of history - history is still being written regarding this, given that his career is still active. Check back in 10 years time.



As usual, you miss the point- The point is, if the head of the government of a nation can be idiotic enough to comment on a matter he doesn't understand and where one has been ridiculed to high heavens beyond the edges of decency, one has every bit a good reason not to tour that nation.
And while you are in your little 'gloat' about top rated cities to live in, hug this one up- I live in the top rated city to live in, if one has any inclination to follow such rating.



True. But as usual, another misrepresentation of facts - his performance away from home is extremely similar to Warney's performance away from home. Given that most destinations 'away from home' are far more pace friendly than spin friendly and he doesnt have the luxury of a superb pace attack to decimate the opposition, his performance is simply brilliant away from home - against non ZIM/BD nations that is.



Point is, in professional sports, rivalries are essentially the same and the pressure of the Ashes being the backdrop is no different than pressure on the 5th day to bowl a side out.
Pressure is pressure and Murali has been in enough pressure-inducing scenarios and performed.
Infact, i would rather have Warney's position than Murali's - even if there is any extra pressure due to the Ashes, it is utterly irrelevant, as English batsmen through the 90s and recently have been generally extremely poor against quality spin.



I thought it was playing cricket without sledging.



And as usual, you bite off more than you can chew. Afterall, you do have the gall to try and teach an engineer what is 'credible analysis' and what isnt from a scientific perspective.
Ofcourse, i wouldn't be out of line telling Tendulkar how to bat properly or telling a nobel prize physicist how to do his physics.


PS: You've yourself admitted to having the wrong data atleast twice in this thread ( where i referred you to the ICC articles about the rule changes and measuring techniques). I suggest you dont switch that around in your mind.

1. Possibly but the signs are not good.

2. Who cares? Were talking about cricket but btw what's the temperature there today?

3. There are different degrees of pressure. Both bowlers have performed when its counted. Unfortunately for Murali, he generally performs on a much smaller stage.

4. Murali's away record is decidedly worse whilst Warne is very consistent. No surprise - Murali plays on wickets at home specifically tailored to him.

5. Your analysis, whether it be bowling action or politics related, has consistently proven to be flawed. As an example, you still equate internal humerus rotation with arm speed.

 

[C_C]

5. Your analysis, whether it be bowling action or politics related, has consistently proven to be flawed. As an example, you still equate internal humerus rotation with arm speed.

Given that you are not an authority ( and i would say not even having a clue) on scientific analysis, you are definately not qualified to make that call. And for what it is worth, i would suggest you talk to a few biomechanical experts and see what their well informed opinions are.
The speed you are rotating your arm is directly correlated to elbow flexion and has no direct bearing on how fast the ball is bowled, as the arm speed need not be directly proportional to the force exerted.

2. Who cares? Were talking about cricket but btw what's the temperature there today?

My point is, Murali is perfectly justified in not touring Australia. He doesnt have any obligation to after the ridiculous treatment he's had to put up with.

3. There are different degrees of pressure. Both bowlers have performed when its counted. Unfortunately for Murali, he generally performs on a much smaller stage.

Sorry, but pressure equates to stress. Stress is a chemical reaction and whatever the stimulus, the stress response is the same.
And Murali's performance has been at a much bigger stage than Warne's.
For one, he has to perform in front of a much bigger audience than Warne usually does.
I am sorry but all the media generated hype and hoopla is irrelevant to the pressure of expectations from millions of fans.
For two, he's played extensively against high quality opposition. The only thing Warne scores over him is playing far more in the same timeframe but that has far more to do with Australia/SL's scheduling than anything else.

4. Murali's away record is decidedly worse whilst Warne is very consistent. No surprise - Murali plays on wickets at home specifically tailored to him.

Murali away from home : 179 wkts from 34 matches @ 27.00
Warne away from home: 336 wkts from 68 matches @ 25.32

That is a rather marginal difference and given that Warne has an excellent pace battery to pry out the top order and expose the lower with alarming consistency ( much more than Murali's bowling support), it is a completely expected thing.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

True. But as usual, another misrepresentation of facts - his performance away from home is extremely similar to Warney's performance away from home. Given that most destinations 'away from home' are far more pace friendly than spin friendly and he doesnt have the luxury of a superb pace attack to decimate the opposition, his performance is simply brilliant away from home - against non ZIM/BD nations that is.

They're not that similar, if you take out minnow matches away from home.

Warne
71 tests, 3333 overs, 363 wickets @ 24.39, 19 5-for, 6 10-for

Murali
34 tests, 1924.3 overs, 185 wickets @ 26.62, 14 5-for, 3 10-for

There's certainly no doubt about who has the superior record away from home. Murali also has a similar record in Sri Lanka to Warne, I believe, despite the fact that he has been able to take on teams who are unfamiliar with the conditions there consistently, while Warne has always had to face good players of spin in home conditions.

 

[C_C]

There's certainly no doubt about who has the superior record away from home. Murali also has a similar record in Sri Lanka to Warne, I believe, despite the fact that he has been able to take on teams who are unfamiliar with the conditions there consistently, while Warne has always had to face good players of spin in home conditions.
__________________

There is plenty of doubt. Murali's average is a bit lower - thanks to the ( lack of) bowling support he has and the opportunity of the opposition to play him out. Warne has lesser wickets/match- again, expected, as Warney has more competition for wickets.
Oh and i wouldn't include Warney's stats in neutral ground ( sharjah) in that category- Murali has had no opportunity to play away from home and in neutral grounds, the playing field is even- it is a new challenge for both the sides. I would say that as it stands now, Warne and Murali are evenly matched overseas overall - if i were to tie-break, i would give it to Murali, given his better performance in India ( best players of spin).

And the spin playing capacity of a team ( IND/ENG/RSA/WI/PAK/NZ for eg) doesnt change when they play in SL or AUS.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There is plenty of doubt. Murali's average is a bit lower - thanks to the ( lack of) bowling support he has and the opportunity of the opposition to play him out. Warne has lesser wickets/match- again, expected, as Warney has more competition for wickets.
Oh and i wouldn't include Warney's stats in neutral ground ( sharjah) in that category- Murali has had no opportunity to play away from home and in neutral grounds, the playing field is even- it is a new challenge for both the sides. I would say that as it stands now, Warne and Murali are evenly matched overseas overall - if i were to tie-break, i would give it to Murali, given his better performance in India ( best players of spin).

Sharjah wasn't really neutral. The conditions were much more familiar to Pakistani players than Australians, and the locations were selected solely because the PCB couldn't guaranatee the safety of the Australian team. Anyway, we are speaking simply of home vs away to calculate home advantage vs lack of home advantage, and Sharjah is certainly not home conditions for Warne.

And if Murali's performance in India is better by Warne's by a large enough margin to warrant consideration, Warne's superior away record overall must be as well. Warne averaged 43 in India to Murali's 40. When you're dealing with averages that high, it's basically nothing.

And the spin playing capacity of a team ( IND/ENG/RSA/WI/PAK/NZ for eg) doesnt change when they play in SL or AUS.

I wasn't saying it does. I'm saying that when Murali plays at home, he plays some good players of spin, some poor players of spin, and some players who are good against spin but unfamiliar with the conditions (Ponting is a very solid player of spin in Australia, and he's handled Kumble, Kaneria etc there easily, but not in India, as an example). Warne always plays good players of spin who are familiar with the conditions when he plays in Sri Lanka.

 

[C_C]

and Sharjah is certainly not home conditions for Warne.

Yes but it wasnt home condition for the PAK team either- as a result, i think 'neutral' venues should be excluded from 'home and away' discussions.

Warne always plays good players of spin who are familiar with the conditions when he plays in Sri Lanka.

Yes but the lack of matches played by Warne in SL ( very very few) makes this comparison pointless - it is a bit like comparing Dravid with Hussey, despite the fact that Dravid is far more established than Hussey.

And if Murali's performance in India is better by Warne's by a large enough margin to warrant consideration, Warne's superior away record overall must be as well. Warne averaged 43 in India to Murali's 40. When you're dealing with averages that high, it's basically nothing.

I think that all things being equal, a bowler will have lower average + wickets/match ratio if he is in an excellent attack but higher average + wickets/match ratio if he is in a poor attack. For example, Richard Hadlee vs Marshall/ club ave. of most bowlers being superior to test records, etc.
As such, i think Warney's minisculy lower average is negated by Murali's minisculy higher wicket/match ratio and Warne/Murali are very evenly matched overall away from home.
If i were to make a decision, Murali's minisculy superior performance against IND in IND and definitely better performance overall vs IND ( the best team of spin and second in my category) would call it in Murali's favour.

 

[social]

Given that you are not an authority ( and i would say not even having a clue) on scientific analysis, you are definately not qualified to make that call. And for what it is worth, i would suggest you talk to a few biomechanical experts and see what their well informed opinions are.
The speed you are rotating your arm is directly correlated to elbow flexion and has no direct bearing on how fast the ball is bowled, as the arm speed need not be directly proportional to the force exerted.



My point is, Murali is perfectly justified in not touring Australia. He doesnt have any obligation to after the ridiculous treatment he's had to put up with.



Sorry, but pressure equates to stress. Stress is a chemical reaction and whatever the stimulus, the stress response is the same.
And Murali's performance has been at a much bigger stage than Warne's.
For one, he has to perform in front of a much bigger audience than Warne usually does.
I am sorry but all the media generated hype and hoopla is irrelevant to the pressure of expectations from millions of fans.
For two, he's played extensively against high quality opposition. The only thing Warne scores over him is playing far more in the same timeframe but that has far more to do with Australia/SL's scheduling than anything else.




Murali away from home : 179 wkts from 34 matches @ 27.00
Warne away from home: 336 wkts from 68 matches @ 25.32

That is a rather marginal difference and given that Warne has an excellent pace battery to pry out the top order and expose the lower with alarming consistency ( much more than Murali's bowling support), it is a completely expected thing.

As usual, youre distorting the truth

Firstly, in relation to a bowling action, the speed at which the internal humerus rotates is not a measure of arm speed. It is a relative measure that has its only relevance to cricket by way of its' use in measuring the degree of flexion in one's action.

Arm speed is measured by calculating the time that it takes for the the whole arm of the bowler to complete his action. Internal humerus rotation, wrist speed, etc is irrelevant in this regard.

Look it up, it's enlightening.

Secondly, it has been proven time and again that Darrel Hair's calling of Murali was in accordance with the laws in place at the time. How you can claim that this was "ridiculous treatment" is beyond belief.

Equally, given that John Howard claimed less than 50% of the popular vote, it's a massive stretch to say that his opinion represents that of the cricket watching public.

Thirdly, youre kidding.

Whatever credibitly you retain has been thrown out the window by claiming that Murali plays on a bigger stage than Warne.

Aside from the SL public, who cares whether they win or lose?

In fact, who cares whether theyre playing or not?

Like it or not, Warne is a huge international star and evrything he does is under the microscope of the media in cricket-playing countries.

Fourthly, Murali averages 19 at home and takes well over 6 wickets per test.

Away, he takes 4 wickets a test at 27.

Why the discrepancy?

Warne, on the other hand, averages about the same and takes about the same no of wickets whether it's home or away.

In other words, once again youre talking nonsense.

 

[C_C]

Arm speed is measured by calculating the time that it takes for the the whole arm of the bowler to complete his action. Internal humerus rotation, wrist speed, etc is irrelevant in this regard.

I already know that.
What you dont seem to know is a rather elementary fact - how fast the whole arm completes the action is not directly proportional to the speed at which the ball is bowled ( ie, the registered speed of the ball on speedguns). Ie, faster the arm goes around, it doesnt necessarily mean the ball is being bowled faster.

Secondly, it has been proven time and again that Darrel Hair's calling of Murali was in accordance with the laws in place at the time. How you can claim that this was "ridiculous treatment" is beyond belief.

I am talking about the media treatment of murali during and after the incident. It is no secret that the OZ media was the most vicious one.

Equally, given that John Howard claimed less than 50% of the popular vote, it's a massive stretch to say that his opinion represents that of the cricket watching public.

It may not, but he does represent your nation and his perspective(or lack of) would largely dictate your nation's fate during his tenure.

Whatever credibitly you retain has been thrown out the window by claiming that Murali plays on a bigger stage than Warne.

Aside from the SL public, who cares whether they win or lose?

In fact, who cares whether theyre playing or not?

Like it or not, Warne is a huge international star and evrything he does is under the microscope of the media in cricket-playing countries.

Sorry, you are the one losing credibility here.

Apart from SL public, who cares if SL win or lose ? well by that logic, who cares apart from OZ whether OZ wins or loses ?
What is the basis of you claiming Warney being subject to greater pressure ( apparently 'greater stage?' ), given that it is pretentious to believe that ENG-OZ matches are more precipitous simply due to its historicity.
Ultimately, pressure is proportional to the weight of expectations - having a billion hopes to carry is a lot harder than a few million ( for eg.), irrespective of history - for it is the people who care about this particular history.
And SL's population is significantly larger than Australia's, especially if you count the expat numbers.

Just because *YOU* ( and most of OZ/ENG) think that Ashes is the more pressure-inducive than other contests, because of your cultural history, it doesnt make it so universally.

Fourthly, Murali averages 19 at home and takes well over 6 wickets per test.

Away, he takes 4 wickets a test at 27.

Why the discrepancy?

Warne, on the other hand, averages about the same and takes about the same no of wickets whether it's home or away.

In other words, once again youre talking nonsense.

No, as is evident here from multiple posters telling you, you are the one engaging in utter nonsensical diatribe, that too, without knowing what you speak of.

Murali does better than Warney overall and their away performances are remarkably similar. So it doesnt take a genius to figure out that his home performance is significantly better.
And your argument is tantamount to arguing that B & B is a better grade than A & B (ie, grades in two courses).
Which is utterly ridiculous.
But then again, as has been shown in this thread quite categorically and pointed out by several other posters, you are definately no stranger to the utterly ridiculous.

 

[honestbharani]

Murali's bowling for the India tour has finished now, and he's got 16 wickets @ 31 from 3 (or 2 and a bit, in reality) tests. For all the talk about how much Murali would improve his record in India during this tour, he hasn't really done that very significantly. Seems that, like Warne, he was played generally well except by a couple of batsman, excluding one good spell. From reports (I don't know how true these are) the surfaces were also more spin friendly this year than they were in 2004 when Australia toured.

Thoughts?

He has had a knee niggle in this Test. He didn't even move away to field the ball when it was hit towards long off (he was bowling over the wicket to Pathan) and gave away an easy single. And he batted with a runner in the last test. So, he has some valid reason. Anyways, India just play spinners really well. I never thought he would do anything significantly better than what Warne did in India. I thought his figures would be "slightly" better than Warney and they are. I always rate him very very slightly ahead of Warney as well. In fact, after this year, I think Warney has come even closer to Murali than before, in my humble opinion.

 

[honestbharani]

Murali now has 31 wickets @ 39.58 in India, to Warne's 34 wickets @ 43.12.

Given that Warne has toured India 3 times, twice in the worst period of his career and once where he did decently and missed the best pitch of the series, I'd say that reflects decently on Warne, and certainly puts to bed any suggestion that Murali has vastly outperformed Warne against the world's best players of spin.

yeah, Sean, but don't you think that the fact he had 3 tours in a span of 6 years or so helped him acclimitize to the Indian conditions and more importantly, the SG ball that is used here?

 

[honestbharani]

How do you rate Murali's career given that he's opted not to play against the best team unless conditions suit him?

Given that Murali has taken nearly 20% of his wickets in "club" games, by what factor do you discount his career record?

Given that Murali has never played in a series remotely approaching the pressure of the Ashes, by what what factor do you discount his remaining wickets?

In summary, for every hole in Warne's career, there are an equal no. (or more) in Murali's.

How do I rate Murali's career given that he has been unfairly targetted and criticized by one particular cricket playing nation and its Prime Minister and has been put through innumerable mental hazards and still do well enough to pick up nearly 600 wickets? I would say he has been AWESOME.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

yeah, Sean, but don't you think that the fact he had 3 tours in a span of 6 years or so helped him acclimitize to the Indian conditions and more importantly, the SG ball that is used here?

I am sure his growing experience in Indian conditions helped, of course, and that among other things may be evident in his improved record there. However, if one is talking about his overall statistical record against India, it is dragged down significantly by the fact that he was not in ideal condition to perform in any of his first four series against them, firstly because it was his debut series, and then because of injury, lack of match practice or poor form/fitness, or all of the above, and the fact that three of his five series against them fell squarely within the worst period of his career, where he actually played relatively little cricket except against India (9 series, 3 were against India, and 9 out of 23 tests). It is not as if he has played them consistently and spread out across his whole career and still failed (like England or the West Indies, say).

The closest he came to top condition before 2004 was the '98 tour, and he was certainly carrying the beginnings of a serious injury at the time. However, that was the most significant of his sub-par efforts against India for a subjective analysis as far as I'm concerned. The others can't be dismissed, but there are plenty of reasonable explainations for why he failed on top of the fact that the Indians played him very well.

 

[C_C]

However, if one is talking about his overall statistical record against India, it is dragged down significantly by the fact that he was not in ideal condition to perform in any of his first four series against them, firstly because it was his debut series, and then because of injury, lack of match practice or poor form/fitness, or all of the above, and the fact that three of his five series against them fell squarely within the worst period of his career, where he actually played relatively little cricket except against India. It is not as if he has played them consistently and spread out across his whole career (like England or the West Indies, say).

I dont believe that is a factually correct assertion- he carried a niggle in 97 that blew up into a major one after the series and playing the next time with significant match-practice under his belt and recovered from injury. Same case with 2001- he had absolutely no excuse.
I think you are applying the retrosprective light too broadly.
Warne has had a mental block vs India - which is evident from his performance - his work against India has consistently been abyssimal - he rarely succeeds, even in ODIs and its not a question of 'career phases' but more like doing very well one day vs team X and bolloxing up vs IND the very next series.

 

[Jono]

He has had a knee niggle in this Test. He didn't even move away to field the ball when it was hit towards long off (he was bowling over the wicket to Pathan) and gave away an easy single. And he batted with a runner in the last test. So, he has some valid reason. Anyways, India just play spinners really well. I never thought he would do anything significantly better than what Warne did in India. I thought his figures would be "slightly" better than Warney and they are. I always rate him very very slightly ahead of Warney as well. In fact, after this year, I think Warney has come even closer to Murali than before, in my humble opinion.

I knew that his knee was bothering him in the 2nd test, and about the runner, but I didn't know about it carried on to this test. Wonder if that'll be a valid reason to be taken into account, like Warne's injuries?

 

[Dasa]

How do I rate Murali's career given that he has been unfairly targetted and criticized by one particular cricket playing nation and its Prime Minister and has been put through innumerable mental hazards and still do well enough to pick up nearly 600 wickets? I would say he has been AWESOME.

Well said...It's amazing that Murali has done so much with so much against him...something I noticed as well, when he was here for the Super Series, he still had to deal with a LOT of abuse from the crowd...and it wasn't like the banter that you sometimes get when the crowd has a go at a player, it had a maliciousness to it, and was disgraceful. Given he has to put up with stuff like that, it's amazing that he can bowl a ball. I have nothing but admiration for someone like Murali, and unfortunately, brilliant bowler that he is, I cannot say the same for Warne.