*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[a massive zebra]

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.

You've never felt this about Warne because you have let blind patriotism cloud you judgement, as is so often the case with Australians. Whatever you feel, the fact is that far from proving your point, the stats show that this problem has affected Warne far more than Murali.

Murali

1st/Only Tests 42 2348.1 5564 269 9/65 20.68 2.36 52.3 28 8
3rd Tests 19 1039.2 2512 94 8/87 26.72 2.41 66.3 5 1

Difference 6

Warne

1st/Only Tests 40 1903.2 4899 223 8/71 21.96 2.57 51.2 11 4
3rd Tests 37 1757.1 4743 150 6/33 31.62 2.69 70.2 6 0

Difference 10

It seems that that statistically the debate is now so clear cut that the Warne supporters have no choice but to rest their case in blind patriotism. They have no option but to clutch desperately to baseless myths, lies or statements that contradict the true reality, and this is a prime example. I've said it before and I will say it again - there is no point using statistics to support a case for Warne over Murali as almost all the statistical evidence points to the Sri Lankan.

 

[marc71178]

huh ? what ?

The three degrees was quoted by one article i've read about the analysis of 'former bowlers in the 70s/80s'.
The accuracy can be determined, based on the # of camera angles available and the frames per second / shutter-speed of the camera.
Basically, given the available data and multiple camera angles, one could determine the 'accuracy' of a bowler's action retrospectively.

In spite of there being far fewer cameras and much less frames per second, the accuracy is only slightly less?

Somehow that article doesn't inspire too much confidence...

 

[marc71178]

???

Ooops, missed a 0 off, as in 2 degrees out of 50

 

[marc71178]

It seems that that statistically the debate is now so clear cut that the Warne supporters have no choice but to rest their case in blind patriotism.

If that is so, how come you didn't do the drop between 1st and 2nd Tests then?

Because that clearly goes the other way, so doesn't suit you perchance?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You've never felt this about Warne because you have let blind patriotism cloud you judgement, as is so often the case with Australians. Whatever you feel, the fact is that far from proving your point, the stats show that this problem has affected Warne far more than Murali.

Murali

1st/Only Tests 42 2348.1 5564 269 9/65 20.68 2.36 52.3 28 8
3rd Tests 19 1039.2 2512 94 8/87 26.72 2.41 66.3 5 1

Difference 6

Warne

1st/Only Tests 40 1903.2 4899 223 8/71 21.96 2.57 51.2 11 4
3rd Tests 37 1757.1 4743 150 6/33 31.62 2.69 70.2 6 0

Difference 10

It seems that that statistically the debate is now so clear cut that the Warne supporters have no choice but to rest their case in blind patriotism. They have no option but to clutch desperately to baseless myths, lies or statements that contradict the true reality, and this is a prime example. I've said it before and I will say it again - there is no point using statistics to support a case for Warne over Murali as almost all the statistical evidence points to the Sri Lankan.

Haha, that's a good one. So, what's Warne's record in the fourth and fifth tests of a series, compared to the early tests? What's the difference between their records in the first and second tests of a series, and why didn't you post that? What's Murali's record in third tests excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and how exactly are we to judge him in a long series given that he has never played one? You really are the worst user of statistics on this forum by a mile. You pick a random example which happens to go with your pre-concieved opinion, and quote it as if it is the gospel truth without considering the context that the record in question was achieved in.

And as far as you accusing me of blind patriotism, well you can shove it as far as I'm concerned. You know nothing about me, and if you think I'm blindly patriotic you clearly don't read any posts I write on this forum on any topic other than Murali vs Warne. And frankly, if anyone here can be accused of being blind on the subject its certainly you, as your contribution to every debate on Murali and Warne is to paste a notepad file of misleading stats and repeat ad-nauseum that Murali has a superior statistical record without addressing any of the arguments on the subject which go beyond who has a better average.

Go back to plagiarising other people's film reviews and pasting the same thing in every thread on a pet subject, rather than accusing me of being biased.

 

[C_C]

In spite of there being far fewer cameras and much less frames per second, the accuracy is only slightly less?

Somehow that article doesn't inspire too much confidence...

actually the frame/second is not much different ( essentially based on shutter speed i think) but the zoom factor is definately much improved. And there need not be a large plethora of cameras available - cameras from 2-3 different angles(especially wide angles, as common with the older test cricket footages) is good enough to establish a relaible 3-d modelling IMO.

 

[C_C]

Ooops, missed a 0 off, as in 2 degrees out of 50

Okay, i still didnt get that.

 

[a massive zebra]

If that is so, how come you didn't do the drop between 1st and 2nd Tests then?

Because that clearly goes the other way, so doesn't suit you perchance?

No, because Faaip said over the course of a series, Murali becomes easier to handle, and therefore a look at the 1st and last Tests of the series will prove or disprove his theory.

We can have a look at 2nd Tests if you wish...

Murali

2nd Tests 36 2037.1 4814 203 9/51 13/115 23.71 2.36 60.2 13 4

Warne

2nd Tests 37 1762.1 4460 199 7/52 12/128 22.41 2.53 53.1 13 4

Warne wins but only by a hair's breath which is explained by the higher quality of bowlers that support Warne at the other end, and this does not prove Faaips point as he said that during a course of a series Murali becomes easier to handle, and as I have shown, this problem affects Warne far more than Murali.

 

[social]

??!?

And ? Do any of us agree with anything we don't endorse ? How the hell can you agree with anything when you don't endorse it ? Does the statement ' I dont agree with rape but i endorse it' make any sense to you ? For that is essentially what you are implying.




Incorrect interpretation. The error margin of the study, which shows 14 degrees to be the mean average flexion amongst observed bowlers, is 1 degree.
That is, anyone between 13 and 15 degrees would can read as 14 as well.
Hence, the tolerance level is set with the upper and lower limit of the error range in mind( depending on application).



Incorrect. ICC and UWA consider the methodology utilised during the Champion's Trophy to be valid - which lead to the ICC changing the rule to make it 15 degrees flexion for all.
UWA have merely stated ( and incorrectly construed by the media sometimes) that the on-site testing is more accurate than the champion's trophy testing.

C_C

I am so sick of this.

Every single relevant body has declared that the results obtained during the Champions Trophy are invalid for the purpose of accurately estimating the flexion in any particular bowler's action.

Why?

Because, as you so accurately point out, there is a margin of error associated with this methodology.

Let's take bowler A as an example. He's recorded as having 4 degrees of flexion in his action.

If, as you say, there's a margin of error of 2 - 3 degrees, who cares?

However, bowler B is recorded as 14 degrees.

Under the best case scenario, he's at 11 - 12 degrees.

Unfortunately, under the worst case scenario, he's at 16 - 17 degrees and outta here.

Fortunately for him, the ICC recognises this margin of error and subjects bowler B to comprehensive testing (i.e. lab testing in controlled conditions) in order to "accurately" define his degree of flexion before taking such a drastic step.

Little wonder that this is how the new laws are actually written.

Or would you like to dispute that as well.

 

[C_C]

Because, as you so accurately point out, there is a margin of error associated with this methodology.

For pete's sake, even the most highly sophisticated, utterly state of the art electron microscopes have a margin of error associated with them !!!!!!!!
ARGH!

 

[marc71178]

Warne wins but only by a hair's breath which is explained by the higher quality of bowlers that support Warne at the other end,

A drop of 1 compared to 3.

And how come whenever Warne beats Murali it's excused as because he has better bowlers around him, but when Murali beats Warne it's clear statistical proof?

 

[marc71178]

Okay, i still didnt get that.

2 degrees in 50 is a 4% error, 2 in 15 is 13.33%

 

[social]

For pete's sake, even the most highly sophisticated, utterly state of the art electron microscopes have a margin of error associated with them !!!!!!!!
ARGH!

It's a fact that lab testing has a lower margin of error than tests utilised in the Champions Trophy.

"the former was adopted and the latter discarded"

Say it, once or twice, you might enjoy it!

Even alchos have 12 steps so Im not asking you to admit youre wrong just yet.

 

[C_C]

Okay i understand then - and i agree.
But we are dealing with an absolutist law( the old one) here - 'thou shalt not bend elbow' - as long as the minima of the error range doesnt go below zero for the data recorded, its a valid observation.
ie, as long as your values dont fall within the error ange ( ie, 2 degrees flexion,with +/- 2 degrees error range), you * are * chucking.

 

[C_C]

It's a fact that lab testing has a lower margin of error than tests utilised in the Champions Trophy.

"the former was adopted and the latter discarded"

Say it, once or twice, you might enjoy it!

Even alchos have 12 steps so Im not asking you to admit youre wrong just yet.

Incorrect. the latter was not discarded - it was taken into account for the law -change ( which is why the law is 15 degrees for all and not for various degrees tolerance for various kinds of bowlers). So how the hell is the latter 'discarded' ?

You are talking about a field where you are not an expert but i am ( error analysis). So, in short, i suggest you shut up and stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[a massive zebra]

Haha, that's a good one. So, what's Warne's record in the fourth and fifth tests of a series, compared to the early tests?

There is no point in discussing this as Murali has never played in 4 or 5 Test series so no one can say for sure how he would perform. The chances are, however, that as he performs Warne in almost every other category, that he would come out on top.

What's the difference between their records in the first and second tests of a series, and why didn't you post that?

Answered above.

What's Murali's record in third tests excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and how exactly are we to judge him in a long series given that he has never played one?

Substantially better than Warne's as most of these series have consisted of 2 Tests so the impact on his average has been minimal. It's actually 83 wickets at 27.92 compared to Warne's average of nearly 32.

You really are the worst user of statistics on this forum by a mile. You pick a random example which happens to go with your pre-concieved opinion, and quote it as if it is the gospel truth without considering the context that the record in question was achieved in.

What a hypocrite. In this case I was simply using the statistics that you had claimed were in Warne's favour, and the so called 'notepad file' is one of the most thorough statistical analyses you can come across, incorpirating all matches that the two bowlers have played in and a looking at things from a wide variety of angles.

And as far as you accusing me of blind patriotism, well you can shove it as far as I'm concerned. You know nothing about me, and if you think I'm blindly patriotic you clearly don't read any posts I write on this forum on any topic other than Murali vs Warne. And frankly, if anyone here can be accused of being blind on the subject its certainly you, as your contribution to every debate on Murali and Warne is to paste a notepad file of misleading stats and repeat ad-nauseum that Murali has a superior statistical record without addressing any of the arguments on the subject which go beyond who has a better average.

I might not know anything personal about you but 7000 posts is more than enough from which to develop a picture about somene and I have read nearly all your posts on other threads - they have only reinforced my views. For example, your choice of Australians for current and all time World XIs over many players from other countries who have performed better, your choice of Lillee over many other fast bowlers despite statistical proof to the contrary. I could go on and on but that wouldn't solve anything. If you actually read my well known analysis of this subject you will see that it goes well beyond who has the better average.

Murali has a better average, strike rate, economy rate, and takes more wickets per match than Warne; despite the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team.

Murali is far more consistent. Warne has been known to be hammered occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he is very rarely hit around the park.

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur

Murali
36 6 123 1 3.42 1 L 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
54 3 224 2 4.15 2 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1 L 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin

Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee - Marshall having a better average because the high class West Indian bowlers put greater pressure on the batsmen, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. Same with Lindwall vs Bedser, Ambrose vs Akram, Laker vs Tayfield, and many, many others. Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.

A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway). What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?


8) Murali on top form is more devastating than Warne on top form.

Best innings:

9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02 [1583]
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998 [1423]
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001 [1559]


10) One reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.


Also, this is not a notepad file that I have saved on disk as you have claimed so many times, but infact a post I originally made on this board about a year ago. When it is required I just use the search button to find it and then copy and paste.

Go back to plagiarising other people's film reviews and pasting the same thing in every thread on a pet subject, rather than accusing me of being biased.

Personal insults are a sure sign of someone who knows he is losing an argument but is too stubborn to change his view even after he has run out of ideas to support his opinion.

 

[social]

Incorrect. the latter was not discarded - it was taken into account for the law -change ( which is why the law is 15 degrees for all and not for various degrees tolerance for various kinds of bowlers). So how the hell is the latter 'discarded' ?

You are talking about a field where you are not an expert but i am ( error analysis). So, in short, i suggest you shut up and stop making a fool of yourself.

You are impossible.

If you read the reports, which I have (and I can only assume that the ICC and its independent experts have done likewise, given their findings) you'll find that this testing had too great a margin of error to be definitive or accurate. As such, lab-testing is a pre-requisite to any decision.

They were used for data collection purposes only.

They bear little significance on the way that the "testers" view any bowler.

I would hope, given that you are a self-proclaimed expert in error analysis, that you do not spend too much time analysing your own posts as the holiday season is too short.

Over and out.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

There is no point in discussing this as Murali has never played in 4 or 5 Test series so no one can say for sure how he would perform.

There's not much point using these numbers at all.

If you compare Murali & Warne in 1st, 2nd and 3rd Tests played, Murali's numbers hold up better than Warne's, but that doesn't mean that Murali out plays Warne in three Test series. Without any context, the numbers are pretty meaningless.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Warne's never played on an Oval pitch that looks more like Columbo.

 

[Tom Halsey]

1) Murali is far more consistent. Warne has been known to be hammered occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he is very rarely hit around the park.

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur

Murali
36 6 123 1 3.42 1 L 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
54 3 224 2 4.15 2 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1 L 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin

2) Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee - Marshall having a better average because the high class West Indian bowlers put greater pressure on the batsmen, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. Same with Lindwall vs Bedser, Ambrose vs Akram, Laker vs Tayfield, and many, many others. Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.

3) A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway). What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?


4) Murali on top form is more devastating than Warne on top form.

Best innings:

9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02 [1583]
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998 [1423]
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001 [1559]


5) One reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.

1) As you so often point out, Murali has less competition for wickets. Therefore in long innings, with lots more bowling directed at Murali, he's bound to take more wickets. I believe these stats have a condition of less than 3 wickets taken in an innings. Not sure here, but take this condition out and it might look quite different.

2) Actually, Australia's bowling attack in the early 90s wasn't great and not hugely better than Sri Lanka's now. This is exemplified by the fact that Warne's economy rate going into the 1994/5 Ashes was 2.2, and his average was just over 23 (came down to 22 temporarily in The Ashes series), which shows he was often blocked out much like Murali is. Yet at his peak he still took wickets. And not on dustbowls.

3) Better that than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

4) Similar to point one, Murali has less competition for wickets, as you admit. Therefore, he's bound to take more 8 and 9 wicket hauls.

5) I certainly don't think it was the Ball of the Century, and anyone who does, without having seen everything, is deluding themselves. Fair enough here. It was however, a brilliant ball.