*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Tom Halsey]

Well thats a bit like saying Warney could bowl bouncers all day long because of more bounce- Yorkers are shock tactics - you dont bowl 2-3 yorkers every over.

No, but you'll get one in the end. And anyway I've said Pakistan is not a heaven for seamers, of course it's not. But it's not as bad as you say.

And Warne is a spinner.

 

[Ikki]

It is also strange that many posters use inconsistent reasoning when it comes to various players.
Lets take Warne vs Murali and Hadlee vs Imran Khan.

Murali and Hadlee are in similar situations while Imran was more like in Warney's situation.
Like Imran, Warney allegedly bowls on 'unfavourable' sufaces more. Like Imran, Warney had little support in the beginning and ended up getting quite a good suppor later on ( Qadir, Iqbal Qasim, etc. were all excellent bowlers and Akram was simply brilliant).
Like Imran to his counterpart ( Hadlee), Warney has lower wicket/match ratio than his counterpart ( Murali).
On the other hand, like Murali,Hadlee bowled most of his life on 'allegedly' favourable surface.
Like Murali, Hadlee was the lone warrior of his team.
Like Murali compared to Warney, Hadlee took a lot more wickets than Imran per match.
Yet, some rate Hadlee better than Imran but don't rate Murali better than Warney.
Eh ??!?

You should tone down on the wickets per match, and look at the number of overs each have bowled. Around the time Warne broke the record even though Warne had more matches to his names Murali had the same amount of overs as Warne did.

Also you digress by arguing another cause just to give yourself some justification. You're clutching at straws.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

If you read the rest of the point, I wasn't even talking about his wicket taking ability. I was talking about some stats AMZ quoted which were a bit selective (to do with Warne being smashed more often).

OK,

I used the following Statsguru filter: "conceding greater than or equal to 100 runs, conceding less than or equal to 250 runs, taking greater than or equal to 0 wickets, taking less than or equal to 3 wickets," and, as per usual, Warne and Murali have been nullified to pretty much the same extent.

Murali on 18 occasions, Warne on 19.

Both have 34 wickets -- Murali at 75.20, Warne at 67.97.

TBH, I don't really think Murali has the statistical advantage he had over Warne before his shoulder injury and Warne's record breaking year.

 

[Tom Halsey]

OK,

I used the following Statsguru filter: "conceding greater than or equal to 100 runs, conceding less than or equal to 250 runs, taking greater than or equal to 0 wickets, taking less than or equal to 3 wickets," and, as per usual, Warne and Murali have been nullified to pretty much the same extent.

Murali on 18 occasions, Warne on 19.

Both have 34 wickets -- Murali at 75.20, Warne at 67.97.

TBH, I don't really think Murali has the statistical advantage he had over Warne before his shoulder injury and Warne's record breaking year.

What you say is true, but you haven't grasped what I was talking about. AMZ quoted some stats about Warne being smashed (not nullified), which were selective. I said they were selective because in long innings Murali usually takes more than 3 wickets (AMZ had put a limit of 3 wickets on) because he bowls in a weak attack, and has less competition for wickets.

 

[honestbharani]

When has any such thing been said about Sri Lankan pitches?

Not even going to waste my time debating it - youre talking utter nonsense.

Look up the test match when India made 547 and Sri Lanka made 950 odd in reply. If that wasn't a batting wicket, I wonder what is?

 

[honestbharani]

It only helps batting against seamers, not spinners (I'm talking about Asian pitches here).

Not really. Again, juz look up at the number of draws in the subcontinent.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes there are the occasional ones. But they are not the norm.

They were the norm for a major part of the 90s.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Not really. Again, juz look up at the number of draws in the subcontinent.

That's not much to do with pitches not turning, it's to do with the attritional type of cricket played there.

 

[honestbharani]

You should tone down on the wickets per match, and look at the number of overs each have bowled. Around the time Warne broke the record even though Warne had more matches to his names Murali had the same amount of overs as Warne did.

Also you digress by arguing another cause just to give yourself some justification. You're clutching at straws.

His points are very valid. Anyone who thinks that Warne > Murali and that Hadlee > Imran is most probably contradicting himself.

 

[honestbharani]

That's not much to do with pitches not turning, it's to do with the attritional type of cricket played there.

I don't get you. If the pitches were tough to bat on, how did all the batters manage to eke out draws like that? Pitches in the subcontinent were simply too slow to help anybody at that time. Like I pointed out earlier in this thread, strokeplay was difficult because of the slowness of the surface, but at the same time, survival was reasonably comfortable, again because of the slowness of the surface. To that extent, I think those wickets were as easy to bat on as any.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I don't get you. If the pitches were tough to bat on, how did all the batters manage to eke out draws like that? Pitches in the subcontinent were simply too slow to help anybody at that time. Like I pointed out earlier in this thread, strokeplay was difficult because of the slowness of the surface, but at the same time, survival was reasonably comfortable, again because of the slowness of the surface. To that extent, I think those wickets were as easy to bat on as any.

What you say is true, but it still suited spinners. Just because, for argument's sake, Kumble would take 4/70 off 40 overs rather than 4/70 off 20 overs doesn't mean it doesn't suit the spinners.

 

[honestbharani]

What you say is true, but it still suited spinners. Just because, for argument's sake, Kumble would take 4/70 off 40 overs rather than 4/70 off 20 overs doesn't mean it doesn't suit the spinners.

yeah, but it isn't exactly the pitch that caused the downfall of the batsman, in that case. It was their own impatience and putting it down to the pitch is not fair.

 

[Tom Halsey]

yeah, but it isn't exactly the pitch that caused the downfall of the batsman, in that case. It was their own impatience and putting it down to the pitch is not fair.

Yes, but the pitch has a hand in that. If it's difficult to score off spinners (as long as they bowl accurately) then the pitch has a hand in the batsmen's impatience.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, but the pitch has a hand in that. If it's difficult to score off spinners (as long as they bowl accurately) then the pitch has a hand in the batsmen's impatience.

Now we are starting to nitpick. When there is no real difficulty in survival, then I think the pitch should not be held accountable for the batsmen's impatience. After all, it is still not that difficult to milk the 1s and the 2s and as we have been seeing recently, it is still possible to score at 3-3.5 an over by juz rotating the strike.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Now we are starting to nitpick. When there is no real difficulty in survival, then I think the pitch should not be held accountable for the batsmen's impatience. After all, it is still not that difficult to milk the 1s and the 2s and as we have been seeing recently, it is still possible to score at 3-3.5 an over by juz rotating the strike.

Then why are spinenrs' economy rates in Asia usually so low? 4/70 off 40 overs is not uncommon in Asia for a spinner, and to me, that represents it being a good pitch to bowl on as a spinner.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

His points are very valid. Anyone who thinks that Warne > Murali and that Hadlee > Imran is most probably contradicting himself.

Not really. There are all sorts of reasons why you could rate Hadlee above Imran but not Murali above Warne.

Firstly, Murali can basically bowl all day. Like Warne, he's a spinner, and a very good one capable of bowling long spells with great consistency without losing his accuracy due to fatigue. Hadlee had superb stamina for a seam bowler, but that doesn't alter the fact that he's never going to bowl 35-40 overs in a day, or over a third of the overs in an innings (at least, not often). That means that the primary advantage of being the only world class bowler in an attack, which is access to a huge number of wickets per test and always getting to bowl at the tail isn't one he necessarily had to the same degree as Murali.

Secondly, Hadlee wasn't born and bred bowling on pitches perfectly suited to his bowling. New Zealand certainly produced helpful wickets at the time, but he didn't play on a green top every home test or even close to it, whould be fairly equivalent to the conditions Murali recieves. Mind you, I don't think there's anything wrong with Sri Lanka producing pro-Murali wickets, but it certainly happens far more than it ever has for any other bowler in test cricket.

Beyond that, who says they are the same sorts of comparisons? If you're saying "Hadlee is better than Imran because he bowled in a weaker attack" but "Murali isn't as good as Warne because he bowls in a weaker attack" then obviously you are contradicting yourself. But personally, I rate Hadlee above Imran as a bowler primarily because he was more consistent, had more tricks to his bowling and performed more evenly across his career than Imran, who was very much a peak-centred bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

Not really. There are all sorts of reasons why you could rate Hadlee above Imran but not Murali above Warne.

Firstly, Murali can basically bowl all day. Like Warne, he's a spinner, and a very good one capable of bowling long spells with great consistency without losing his accuracy due to fatigue. Hadlee had superb stamina for a seam bowler, but that doesn't alter the fact that he's never going to bowl 35-40 overs in a day, or over a third of the overs in an innings (at least, not often). That means that the primary advantage of being the only world class bowler in an attack, which is access to a huge number of wickets per test and always getting to bowl at the tail isn't one he necessarily had to the same degree as Murali.

Secondly, Hadlee wasn't born and bred bowling on pitches perfectly suited to his bowling. New Zealand certainly produced helpful wickets at the time, but he didn't play on a green top every home test or even close to it, whould be fairly equivalent to the conditions Murali recieves. Mind you, I don't think there's anything wrong with Sri Lanka producing pro-Murali wickets, but it certainly happens far more than it ever has for any other bowler in test cricket.

Beyond that, who says they are the same sorts of comparisons? If you're saying "Hadlee is better than Imran because he bowled in a weaker attack" but "Murali isn't as good as Warne because he bowls in a weaker attack" then obviously you are contradicting yourself. But personally, I rate Hadlee above Imran as a bowler primarily because he was more consistent, had more tricks to his bowling and performed more evenly across his career than Imran, who was very much a peak-centred bowler.

Again, you are just considering all wickets in Sri Lanka to be pro-Murali. Have you seen all these matches that you are talking about? Just because Murali got wickets in a certain match, it doesn't mean the pitch was made to suit his style of bowling. For instance, I was watching the replays of the series against the Windies in 2002, the third test in fact. And it was not a tough wicket to bat on at all. It was just that Murali was too good for most of the inexperienced Windies batters. Lara batted brilliantly, esp. in the second innings, but the reason his display was brilliant is because he played a stroke filled innings on a slow wicket, which was unfriendly for strokeplay. Note that it was unfriendly ONLY for strokeplay. Survival wasn't that much a problem at all. It was because Murali was bamboozling the batsmen with variety and planted so many seeds of doubts in their heads that he got those wickets. Warne did something similar at Bangalore in India in 98. The wicket was still flat, but he really let rip on the ball and it spun a long way as it usually does on most surfaces for him. That put doubts in the Indian batters mind and he and Kasper took advantage of it. Murali has done similar stuff many times.


Edit: I meant to say that I watched all three tests. In fact, in the third test, it was Vaas that did the most damage, but that wouldn't make it a seamer's paradise, would it?

 

[honestbharani]

Then why are spinenrs' economy rates in Asia usually so low? 4/70 off 40 overs is not uncommon in Asia for a spinner, and to me, that represents it being a good pitch to bowl on as a spinner.

Again, it is the fact that the non-subcontinent batsmen are used to scoring a bit more freely in their home conditions and because they don't get too many decent spinners around over there, given that most people seem to prefer fast bowling. It is the general inepititude of the non-subcontinental batsmen (there are exceptions, of course) to handle good spin bowling on slow wickets that caused their downfall. It is the same when subcontinental batsmen have to face decent fast or fast medium bowling on bouncier and livelier tracks. They struggle because it is new to them. It is the batsmen's fault, not the pitch's. Sure, there have been a lot of bowling tracks, but it is to the same percentage as it is outside the subcontinent. I certainly don't agree with the notion that in the subcontinent almost every wicket is tailor made for the spinners.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Again, you are just considering all wickets in Sri Lanka to be pro-Murali. Have you seen all these matches that you are talking about? Just because Murali got wickets in a certain match, it doesn't mean the pitch was made to suit his style of bowling. For instance, I was watching the replays of the series against the Windies in 2002, the third test in fact. And it was not a tough wicket to bat on at all. It was just that Murali was too good for most of the inexperienced Windies batters. Lara batted brilliantly, esp. in the second innings, but the reason his display was brilliant is because he played a stroke filled innings on a slow wicket, which was unfriendly for strokeplay. Note that it was unfriendly ONLY for strokeplay. Survival wasn't that much a problem at all. It was because Murali was bamboozling the batsmen with variety and planted so many seeds of doubts in their heads that he got those wickets. Warne did something similar at Bangalore in India in 98. The wicket was still flat, but he really let rip on the ball and it spun a long way as it usually does on most surfaces for him. That put doubts in the Indian batters mind and he and Kasper took advantage of it. Murali has done similar stuff many times.

I don't believe at all that every Sri Lankan wicket is pro-Murali, but in my experience watching cricket in Sri Lanka (which I am happy to admit is not as broad as it would be for someone who regularly gets Sri Lankan cricket on television) as well as reading about it, the vast majority of wickets in Sri Lanka are extremely friendly to Murali's style of bowling. They are slower and lower than most wickets (though usually not so much as in India), dust up extremely early and basically allow him to simultaneously be extremely difficult to get away and get significant turn.

My main point was that pitches in Sri Lanka suit Murali more than pitches in New Zealand suit Hadlee, or at least that pitches that suit Muralia show up there much more regularly.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't believe at all that every Sri Lankan wicket is pro-Murali, but in my experience watching cricket in Sri Lanka (which I am happy to admit is not as broad as it would be for someone who regularly gets Sri Lankan cricket on television) as well as reading about it, the vast majority of wickets in Sri Lanka are extremely friendly to Murali's style of bowling. They are slower and lower than most wickets (though usually not so much as in India), dust up extremely early and basically allow him to simultaneously be extremely difficult to get away and get significant turn.

My main point was that pitches in Sri Lanka suit Murali more than pitches in New Zealand suit Hadlee, or at least that pitches that suit Muralia show up there much more regularly.

yes, the pitches in Sri Lanka are slower and lower, but that in itself doesn't make batting (esp. survival) that difficult. It is still the batsman's fault if they get themselves out trying to look for big shots. It is like saying that the Gabba is a wicket tailor made for the Aussie seamers. It isn't. It is just that the natural bouncy surface over there shows up the weaknesses of the subcontinental batsmen who aren't equipped to handle it. Same in Sri Lanka. The pitch is not that bad at all. And it is still the batsman's fault mainly, if he gets out in those conditions.


And to bring in the Hadlee reference, I have heard that he is a swing bowler and certainly swing bowlers would appreciate the cool conditions prevailing in New Zealand, coupled with the bouncier surfaces they have over there. That in itself, are favourable conditions for Hadlee.