*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[social]

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.

Good grief!

Murali has played the massive total of 3 tests in England and his returns are massively inflated by the 16 wickets he took at the Oval against what must be a contender for the weakest side Eng has ever fielded.

Gee, that's a great indicator of how he would've performed in a similar no. of tests to Warne.

And how would you know how Murali would perform in 5 test series?

He's never played one!

However, a pretty good indicator can be found in the way that his returns deteriorate from the 1st to the 3rd test of a series. Seems like pretty substantive evidence that once teams get used to him - he's nowhere near as difficult to play

By way of comparison, have a look at Brett Lee's career record for the first 3 tests of any series - it's very good. Unfortunately, he averages over 50 for tests 4 and 5.

 

[C_C]

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

Incorrect. What you are failing to understand is that the data collected during Champion's trophy is perfectly fine and one of the most accurate data ever recorded on this.
Its not my problem that you dont know smack about data collection and neither do several old farts in the ICC.

 

[C_C]

Good grief!

Murali has played the massive total of 3 tests in England and his returns are massively inflated by the 16 wickets he took at the Oval against what must be a contender for the weakest side Eng has ever fielded.

Gee, that's a great indicator of how he would've performed in a similar no. of tests to Warne.

And how would you know how Murali would perform in 5 test series?

He's never played one!

However, a pretty good indicator can be found in the way that his returns deteriorate from the 1st to the 3rd test of a series. Seems like pretty substantive evidence that once teams get used to him - he's nowhere near as difficult to play

By way of comparison, have a look at Brett Lee's career record for the first 3 tests of any series - it's very good. Unfortunately, he averages over 50 for tests 4 and 5.

You mean to say that the side Murali played against was worse against spin than what Warney usually dines on ? Thats not possible, given that England are possibly the worst players of spin of the established test nations.
Warney has bucketloads of wickets against England, an opposition that is just a bit better than Zimbabwe or Bangladesh when it comes to playing spin.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

However, a pretty good indicator can be found in the way that his returns deteriorate from the 1st to the 3rd test of a series. Seems like pretty substantive evidence that once teams get used to him - he's nowhere near as difficult to play

Actually, that is a very, very good point, and something that I've always felt about Murali's bowling. Particularly when he plays against Australia, I always feel that he is a huge threat early in the series, but as the series wears on and batsmen grow accustomed to him he is much less dangerous. I've never felt that way about Warne.

The statistics, for those who base their entire analysis of cricket upon them, also back this up. Though obviously, we have no idea how he would go in a long series.

 

[C_C]

Actually, that is a very, very good point, and something that I've always felt about Murali's bowling. Particularly when he plays against Australia, I always feel that he is a huge threat early in the series, but as the series wears on and batsmen grow accustomed to him he is much less dangerous. I've never felt that way about Warne.

The statistics, for those who base their entire analysis of cricket upon them, also back this up. Though obviously, we have no idea how he would go in a long series.

I think almost every lone-warrior bowler suffers from this, because opposition tries to 'play out' those bowlers and get more and more defensive against them - they dont have that sort of luxury against bowlers from awesome bowling attack, as they cannot afford to 'play out' the major bowlers.
Hadlee, Kapil, Imran, Murali, etc. all have better stats in first two tests than the latter tests in the series.
I think there is a general trend towards bowling figures deteriorating as the series go, especially because bowling is a lot more physical-oriented practice than batting and after a few matches, most bowlers lose their 'freshness'.

 

[aussie]

You mean to say that the side Murali played against was worse against spin than what Warney usually dines on ? Thats not possible, given that England are possibly the worst players of spin of the established test nations.
Warney has bucketloads of wickets against England, an opposition that is just a bit better than Zimbabwe or Bangladesh when it comes to playing spin.

the kiwis & the Saffies aren't that great againts spin either, but even though these 3 nations are debatable to say who is the worst players of spin. It would be unfair to compare their abilities to play spin just above those of ZIM & BANG come on now...

 

[social]

Incorrect. What you are failing to understand is that the data collected during Champion's trophy is perfectly fine and one of the most accurate data ever recorded on this.
Its not my problem that you dont know smack about data collection and neither do several old farts in the ICC.

Nor, so I gather, do the UWA or University of Wellington - both of whom advise the ICC on this matter.

Maybe, just maybe, your wrong as usual.

 

[social]

the kiwis & the Saffies aren't that great againts spin either, but even though these 3 nations are debatable to say who is the worst players of spin. It would be unfair to compare their abilities to play spin just above those of ZIM & BANG come on now...

C_C never lets the facts get in the way of his opinion.

 

[aussie]

Actually, that is a very, very good point, and something that I've always felt about Murali's bowling. Particularly when he plays against Australia, I always feel that he is a huge threat early in the series, but as the series wears on and batsmen grow accustomed to him he is much less dangerous. I've never felt that way about Warne.

yep that was the case in the 2004 series for sure, but i dont know if i can agree with socialis point totally because i do think that againts other sides baring australia of recent Murali is very effective as a series goes on especially at home.

 

[aussie]

I think almost every lone-warrior bowler suffers from this, because opposition tries to 'play out' those bowlers and get more and more defensive against them - they dont have that sort of luxury against bowlers from awesome bowling attack, as they cannot afford to 'play out' the major bowlers.
Hadlee, Kapil, Imran, Murali, etc. all have better stats in first two tests than the latter tests in the series.
I think there is a general trend towards bowling figures deteriorating as the series go, especially because bowling is a lot more physical-oriented practice than batting and after a few matches, most bowlers lose their 'freshness'.

well refering to Murali been called a ``lone-warrior. I dont think that was the case vs AUS in 2004 & for him in most home series because he has Vaas at the other end who is practically a master in home conditions.

 

[social]

yep that was the case in the 2004 series for sure, but i dont know if i can agree with socialis point totally because i do think that againts other sides baring australia of recent Murali is very effective as a series goes on especially at home.

I didnt say that he wouldnt be as effective if he played 5 test series.

I simply relayed the fact that his performances in series to date deteriorates with every test played.

As such, there's no guarantee that he would maintain the same strike-rate etc if he was involved in 5 test series against England.

Until it happens, we'll never know.

 

[social]

well refering to Murali been called a ``lone-warrior. I dont think that was the case vs AUS in 2004 & for him in most home series because he has Vaas at the other end who is practically a master in home conditions.

Some people tend to forget that Vaas has taken 300 wickets at the other end.

Hadlee, in particular, had no-one of equal standing.

 

[aussie]

I didnt say that he wouldnt be as effective if he played 5 test series.

I simply relayed the fact that his performances in series to date deteriorates with every test played.

As such, there's no guarantee that he would maintain the same strike-rate etc if he was involved in 5 test series against England.

Until it happens, we'll never know.

oh ok, well thats a solid point then.

 

[Jono]

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.

How is it mysteriously? He just played a 3 test series against India in India, and bowled fairly well (with injury, like Warne did). I'm guessing you didn't watch Murali vs. India, because he bowled one of the most brilliant spells against the best players of spin you'll ever see.

EDIT: Sorry I just understood what you meant by 'myseriously'. As in, he had such a poor record in India yet had a better average than Murali which was odd. Apologies.

 

[Deja moo]

How is it mysteriously? He just played a 3 test series against India in India, and bowled fairly well (with injury, like Warne did). I'm guessing you didn't watch Murali vs. India, because he bowled one of the most brilliant spells against the best players of spin you'll ever see.

Come on!!! Its Murali ! How could he be any good ?

 

[Jono]

Deja I think I made a second boo boo in the space of as many minutes, which you ironically quoted again. Tom didn't mean what I thought he meant.

 

[Deja moo]

Deja I think I made a second boo boo in the space of as many minutes, which you ironically quoted again. Tom didn't mean what I thought he meant.

Could be mate, but the perception still stands, doesnt it ?

 

[Jono]

True

Man I wish I got to see that spell of bowling live. I got a tape sent to me by a mate of it, and it was riduclously amazing.

That doosra to Dhoni. How is that possible? Spun it as much as Warne.

 

[C_C]

Nor, so I gather, do the UWA or University of Wellington - both of whom advise the ICC on this matter.

Maybe, just maybe, your wrong as usual.

If you bothered reading what UWA said ( the study is one of the most accurate ever undertaken), you'd shut up and let the ones who actually know whats involved do the talking.
As usual, your twist facts and come up with BS without understanding an iota of whats on hand ( ludicrous notion that a +/- 2 degree range is 'inaccurate and insubstantial' data ).

 

[C_C]

the kiwis & the Saffies aren't that great againts spin either, but even though these 3 nations are debatable to say who is the worst players of spin. It would be unfair to compare their abilities to play spin just above those of ZIM & BANG come on now...

Didnt say they were just above BD - but it is no secret that ENG's ability to play quality spin is significantly inferior to any other test established test nation - atleast in the 90s.