*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[marc71178]

Whilst he was flattered by the ineptitude of the English during the Ashes, he could easily have taken 50 wickets in that series if decisions had gone his way.

A bit of an overstatement there.

 

[C_C]

No, most, not everyone. Sarwan doesn't straighten his arm at all.

Sarwan is the only one who's flexion is below the margin of error for the study- of all bowlers studied, which includes almost every single bowler today and several bowlers of the past.

 

[C_C]

Again...no. This 'everyone chucks' thing is a myth. Every player wasn't at the tournament in question so you can't draw the conclusion you've come to from that. When you say 'flexing the elbow' are we talking about hyper-extension or a bend inwards towards the shoulder and back?

Flexing the elbow does include hyper-extension. And yes, it is almost every bowler- the ICC champion's trophy survey was not the only survey and many bowlers were tested- both past and present- including bowlers from the 70s and the 80s.

 

[honestbharani]

No.

yes.

 

[honestbharani]

Erm not really, he was stating facts. He wasn't saying other bowlers weren't as good as him or whatnot, he was saying others (and quite obviously Murali) play Zimbabwe and Bangladesh a lot more than he does.

Murali still has a better average and strike rate against the sides apart from the minnows. And he is still younger than Warne. So, point is, with or without Zim and Bang, if Murali keeps up his performance levels to the same level as Warne (which he has done so far and there is every chance of him staying that way), he would still break Warne's record. That is why this is basically just sour grapes from Warne.

 

[marc71178]

And yes, it is almost every bowler- the ICC champion's trophy survey was not the only survey and many bowlers were tested- both past and present- including bowlers from the 70s and the 80s.

And how exactly were they tested when the technology didn't exist then?

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Warne sounds like the insecure bowler that Steve Waugh said he was.

His comments about Murali are useless.

As for whether he's declined, it's hard to argue that a guy who took 90 wickets is on the decline... He followed up his comeback year with perhaps his greatest year ever... But it hasn't been easy. Seven times he conceded a hundred or more in an innings, which is rare, considering he'd only done so 25 times prior. I suppose he's done remarkably well considering the decline of the Australian pace attack, but it just goes to show that there's a difference between tying up an end and needing to take wickets. Warne had to toil a bit. A few times he lost the battle. So while I'd argue that he was the bowler of the year, I wouldn't call him the biggest match winner.

I haven't seen Kumble bowl all year, but he seemed to have a late surge against Sri Lanka. Murali, from what I've seen, looked to be readjusting to the game & had a strange fixation with bowling batsmen (or so the commentators mentioned and w/ which I agreed)... I saw him bowl one brilliant spell at Sydney. I don't know if that was a trend.

I don't think either of them played enough to suggest that they're slipping. Both of them did enough to reconcile their place as top five in the world. I didn't see Murali bowl in India, but at some point there has to be winners and losers. He didn't get much help from his batsmen, but, nevertheless, he lost.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Murali still has a better average and strike rate against the sides apart from the minnows.

No he doesn't. We had a look at Stats Guru recently and it's 4 all.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And how exactly were they tested when the technology didn't exist then?

Presumably by replays of them in action (and someone has already mentioned WRT the Shabbir case, that from replays they can only guess, they can't know). In other words, it's rubbish.

 

[a massive zebra]

No he doesn't. We had a look at Stats Guru recently and it's 4 all.

Blatant lie as 4-4 is not possible if you exclude the minnows, and it has not been 3-3 for 5 years.

Murali

v Australia 11 569.3 1728 55 6/59 31.41 3.03 62.1 5 1
v England 10 768.3 1431 69 9/65 20.73 1.86 66.8 4 2
v India 15 795.4 2176 67 8/87 32.47 2.73 71.2 4 1
v New Zealand 10 536 1232 52 5/30 23.69 2.29 61.8 4 0
v Pakistan 12 623.5 1622 68 6/71 23.85 2.60 55.0 4 1
v South Africa 13 821.4 1914 82 7/84 23.34 2.32 60.1 8 2
v West Indies 10 483.4 1214 70 8/46 17.34 2.50 41.4 8 3

Warne

v England 31 1551.3 3837 172 8/71 22.30 2.47 54.1 10 4
v India 14 654.1 2029 43 6/125 47.18 3.10 91.2 1 0
v New Zealand 20 961.4 2511 103 6/31 24.37 2.61 56.0 3 0
v Pakistan 15 675.1 1816 90 7/23 20.17 2.68 45.0 6 2
v South Africa 19 1097.4 2432 107 7/56 22.72 2.21 61.5 6 2
v Sri Lanka 13 527.5 1507 59 5/43 25.54 2.85 53.6 5 2
v West Indies 19 679.4 1947 65 7/52 29.95 2.86 62.7 3 0

4-2 to Murali, and if we include the minnows, 5-2.

 

[luckyeddie]

Blatant lie as 4-4 is not possible if you exclude the minnows, and it has not been 3-3 for 5 years.

Is it really that important to you?

I find it remarkable that anyone can put any real significance on Murali's superiority against New Zealand and England when Warne has played twice as many games against New Zealand and three times as many against England, yet their averages are as near as damnit the same.

Still, if it gives your man a couple of extra points, who am I to argue?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Blatant lie as 4-4 is not possible if you exclude the minnows, and it has not been 3-3 for 5 years.

Murali

v Australia 11 569.3 1728 55 6/59 31.41 3.03 62.1 5 1
v England 10 768.3 1431 69 9/65 20.73 1.86 66.8 4 2
v India 15 795.4 2176 67 8/87 32.47 2.73 71.2 4 1
v New Zealand 10 536 1232 52 5/30 23.69 2.29 61.8 4 0
v Pakistan 12 623.5 1622 68 6/71 23.85 2.60 55.0 4 1
v South Africa 13 821.4 1914 82 7/84 23.34 2.32 60.1 8 2
v West Indies 10 483.4 1214 70 8/46 17.34 2.50 41.4 8 3

Warne

v England 31 1551.3 3837 172 8/71 22.30 2.47 54.1 10 4
v India 14 654.1 2029 43 6/125 47.18 3.10 91.2 1 0
v New Zealand 20 961.4 2511 103 6/31 24.37 2.61 56.0 3 0
v Pakistan 15 675.1 1816 90 7/23 20.17 2.68 45.0 6 2
v South Africa 19 1097.4 2432 107 7/56 22.72 2.21 61.5 6 2
v Sri Lanka 13 527.5 1507 59 5/43 25.54 2.85 53.6 5 2
v West Indies 19 679.4 1947 65 7/52 29.95 2.86 62.7 3 0

4-2 to Murali, and if we include the minnows, 5-2.

Time to search back to a thread a while ago then, where even C_C admitted it was 4-4. Be back in a sec.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Time to search back to a thread a while ago then, where even C_C admitted it was 4-4. Be back in a sec.

My mistake - it's not 4-4 when playing against various countries, it's 4-4 when playing in various countries. Though it's admittedly now it's 5-3 to Murali, because, mysteriously, one of the coutries where Warne had a better average than Murali was India - but Murali, in the recent series, went past Warne.

 

[social]

Presumably by replays of them in action (and someone has already mentioned WRT the Shabbir case, that from replays they can only guess, they can't know). In other words, it's rubbish.

It's not complete rubbish.

The methodology used for collection of data at the ICC Championship (basically 4 cameras) could detect whether there was flexion in a bowlers' action but simply wasnt reliable enough to pinpoint the exact amount with any certainty.

What is absolute rubbish are claims by certain forum members that this data is in any way definitive.

 

[social]

Is it really that important to you?

I find it remarkable that anyone can put any real significance on Murali's superiority against New Zealand and England when Warne has played twice as many games against New Zealand and three times as many against England, yet their averages are as near as damnit the same.

Still, if it gives your man a couple of extra points, who am I to argue?

Exactly.

BTW, how anyone could say that Murali has outperformed Warne vs Eng defies belief. Warne has taken more wickets against Eng than most people take in a career.

 

[C_C]

It's not complete rubbish.

The methodology used for collection of data at the ICC Championship (basically 4 cameras) could detect whether there was flexion in a bowlers' action but simply wasnt reliable enough to pinpoint the exact amount with any certainty.

What is absolute rubbish are claims by certain forum members that this data is in any way definitive.

No, whats absolute rubbish is your claims since you have very little understanding of the methodology used.
For one, the data collected through testing at the facility is accurate within 1 degree. The data collected from ICC champion's trophy is accurate within 2 degrees and the highest error-range is data from past players( owing to lack of as many camera angles) which is around 3 degrees.
Any and every measurement has an uncertainty associated with it ( which is why every scientist and engineer needs to master the concepts of uncertainty analysis) and there is no such thing as 'exact amount', as any and every measurement, nomatter how sensetive an equipment used, will have an error/uncertainty range. That certainly does not invalidate the data however, as 'exact data' is a practical impossibility.

 

[C_C]

Exactly.

BTW, how anyone could say that Murali has outperformed Warne vs Eng defies belief. Warne has taken more wickets against Eng than most people take in a career.

That is largely irrelevant - as long as you've played 10+ matches vs a certain opposition( which is the lower range of most long-term players against a single opposition) a good analysis can be done- how often you play is not dictated by you- it is dictated by your board. As long as you've played a certain amount to get a good distribution of data ( which in statistical analysis is usually set to the lower end of the mean distribution), the analysis is valid. Average, wicket/match and strike rates are whats important, not how many times you play. Murali's overall performance against England is marginally superior to that of Warney so far and that is a simple fact.

 

[social]

No, whats absolute rubbish is your claims since you have very little understanding of the methodology used.
For one, the data collected through testing at the facility is accurate within 1 degree. The data collected from ICC champion's trophy is accurate within 2 degrees and the highest error-range is data from past players( owing to lack of as many camera angles) which is around 3 degrees.
Any and every measurement has an uncertainty associated with it ( which is why every scientist and engineer needs to master the concepts of uncertainty analysis) and there is no such thing as 'exact amount', as any and every measurement, nomatter how sensetive an equipment used, will have an error/uncertainty range. That certainly does not invalidate the data however, as 'exact data' is a practical impossibility.

So having gas bagged on as per usual, what youre still in fact saying is that the data collected from the Champions Trophy could not be used to determine the exact degree of flexion in a bowler's action.

Im so glad that you agree with me and the ICC

 

[a massive zebra]

Exactly.

BTW, how anyone could say that Murali has outperformed Warne vs Eng defies belief. Warne has taken more wickets against Eng than most people take in a career.

Whatever people may think, there can be no argument that statistically Murali outdoes Warne against England in almost every way possible. Warne has never taken anything like 16 wickets in a Test against England and never dominated our batsmen to such an extent as to prevent any of our batsmen from averaging over 30 in an entire series. Warne has never averaged anything close to 12 in a series against England, never taken more than half the wickets for his country in the series, and never gone at just 1.6 an over throughout an entire series. People were raving about Warne's admitedly outstanding 40 wickets in the Ashes, but the fact of the matter is that if the last Eng vs Sri Lanka series had consisted of 5 Tests, Murali would have gone past that figure.

All this despite Warne having 3 times as many chances show off his talents. You can only perform in the matches you play, and going by current figures, if Murali had played as many matches against England as Warne, he would have well over 200 wickets against them by now.

 

[a massive zebra]

Is it really that important to you?

I find it remarkable that anyone can put any real significance on Murali's superiority against New Zealand and England when Warne has played twice as many games against New Zealand and three times as many against England, yet their averages are as near as damnit the same.

Just stating a simple fact.

On that basis Courtney Walsh is a better bowler than Dennis Lillee.