*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[FaaipDeOiad]

I just came across a particular stat that absolutely floored me, when I was looking around at wickets-per-match rates for various bowlers, thinking about Hadlee vs Murali.

It's generally assumed that both Hadlee and Murali take huge numbers of wickets per test compared to their contemporaries because of a lack of competition among their fellow bowlers. Therefore obviously, that bowlers like Warne and Imran would take less, due to a higher level of competition. Given that Lillee has been raised a couple of times in this thread (primarily by AMZ) as an example of a bowler that is similarly overrated to Warne, this seemed interesting reading.

wickets-per-test for some well known seamers:
Lillee - 5.07
Hadlee - 5.01
Marshall - 4.64
McGrath - 4.54
Davidson - 4.23
Holding - 4.15
Ambrose - 4.13
Imran - 4.11
Wasim - 3.98
Botham - 3.75
Vaas - 3.34
Kapil - 3.31

And for the sake of comparison..
Murali - 5.90
Warne - 4.86
Kumble - 4.85

Given that Lillee bowled, generally speaking, in strong bowling attacks featuring the likes of Thomson, Gilmour, Walker, Alderman and various competent spin bowlers and other seamers, this seems like an utterly remarkable record, that he would have taken more wickets per test than Hadlee.

 

[honestbharani]

I just came across a particular stat that absolutely floored me, when I was looking around at wickets-per-match rates for various bowlers, thinking about Hadlee vs Murali.

It's generally assumed that both Hadlee and Murali take huge numbers of wickets per test compared to their contemporaries because of a lack of competition among their fellow bowlers. Therefore obviously, that bowlers like Warne and Imran would take less, due to a higher level of competition. Given that Lillee has been raised a couple of times in this thread (primarily by AMZ) as an example of a bowler that is similarly overrated to Warne, this seemed interesting reading.

wickets-per-test for some well known seamers:
Lillee - 5.07
Hadlee - 5.01
Marshall - 4.64
McGrath - 4.54
Davidson - 4.23
Holding - 4.15
Ambrose - 4.13
Imran - 4.11
Wasim - 3.98
Botham - 3.75
Vaas - 3.34
Kapil - 3.31

And for the sake of comparison..
Murali - 5.90
Warne - 4.86
Kumble - 4.85

Given that Lillee bowled, generally speaking, in strong bowling attacks featuring the likes of Thomson, Gilmour, Walker, Alderman and various competent spin bowlers and other seamers, this seems like an utterly remarkable record, that he would have taken more wickets per test than Hadlee.

That is surprising, but then again, it is a case of McGrath/Lee type thing with Lillee and Thommo, wasn't it? On face value, you would expect the more erratic Lee or Thommo to reap the rewards of the hard work of a McGrath or a Lillee but at the end of the day, McGrath or Lillee still pick up the higher number of wickets.

 

[Pratters]

I just came across a particular stat that absolutely floored me, when I was looking around at wickets-per-match rates for various bowlers, thinking about Hadlee vs Murali.

It's generally assumed that both Hadlee and Murali take huge numbers of wickets per test compared to their contemporaries because of a lack of competition among their fellow bowlers. Therefore obviously, that bowlers like Warne and Imran would take less, due to a higher level of competition. Given that Lillee has been raised a couple of times in this thread (primarily by AMZ) as an example of a bowler that is similarly overrated to Warne, this seemed interesting reading.

wickets-per-test for some well known seamers:
Lillee - 5.07
Hadlee - 5.01
Marshall - 4.64
McGrath - 4.54
Davidson - 4.23
Holding - 4.15
Ambrose - 4.13
Imran - 4.11
Wasim - 3.98
Botham - 3.75
Vaas - 3.34
Kapil - 3.31

And for the sake of comparison..
Murali - 5.90
Warne - 4.86
Kumble - 4.85

Given that Lillee bowled, generally speaking, in strong bowling attacks featuring the likes of Thomson, Gilmour, Walker, Alderman and various competent spin bowlers and other seamers, this seems like an utterly remarkable record, that he would have taken more wickets per test than Hadlee.

I am surprised you didnt know this stat before. Also the stat of Murali shows how he is a class apart. Sure having Vaas and no one else would mean an inflation of wickets per test. But Hadlee in similar circumstance touched around 5 per match. Murali is closing in on 6!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I am surprised you didnt know this stat before.

So am I actually. I knew Lillee had a very high wpt ratio for a seamer with a lot of competition, but I never knew he was ahead of Hadlee.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That is surprising, but then again, it is a case of McGrath/Lee type thing with Lillee and Thommo, wasn't it? On face value, you would expect the more erratic Lee or Thommo to reap the rewards of the hard work of a McGrath or a Lillee but at the end of the day, McGrath or Lillee still pick up the higher number of wickets.

Yeah, but I would have thought when you threw in guys like Walker and Alderman who also bowled with Lillee that he would have had a wpt ratio more like Marshall or McGrath than Hadlee. I'm struggling to think of exactly how Hadlee managed to take less wickets per test than Lillee with guys like Chatfield as his main competition, actually.

 

[Buddhmaster]

I am surprised you didnt know this stat before. Also the stat of Murali shows how he is a class apart. Sure having Vaas and no one else would mean an inflation of wickets per test. But Hadlee in similar circumstance touched around 5 per match. Murali is closing in on 6!

But Hadlee bowls for his wickets

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

That doesn't answer my question. If they're used to scoring quickly, and try to score too quickly, why are spinners economy rates always so low in Asia?

 

[Pratters]

I have thought about how the stats of Murali and Hadlee are discounted like wickets per test because they are part of a weak team.

There are advantages of bowling with a weaker attack which is well known - not many bowlers to take wickets. So you can end up with more wickets.

The other side of the coin is not brought out and widely thought out.. the aspect of the advantage of bowling with a strong bowling team. The strong team puts the opposition in a lot of pressure which results in it being comparatively easier to take wickets.

Also a stronger team means the bowler would get more opportunities to bowl at the opposition. If Murali has a bad day and a half, the opposition can pile up 500 runs and he may not be able to bowl again in the test match. If Warne has a bad day, he can more often than not be assured of bowling again in the match courtesy other bowlers in the team.

There is the aspect of Warne not getting to bowl as much on ocassions though cos of the likes of McGrath, Gillespie (in the past) being there of course.

So there are too many variables. Its just not right to discount a Murali or a Hadlee's record because they have played in a weaker side. With the plusses which appear on the face, there are many negatives of being a part of a weak side as well which these great bowlers over come.

 

[Deja moo]

Percentage of wickets taken based on batting order:

Warne:

Top order, 1-3 : 150 wickets (23%)
Middle order, 4-7: 259 wickets (39.8%)
Tail, 8-11: 242 wickets (37.2%)

Muralitharan:

Top order, 1-3 : 149 wickets (25.5%)
Middle order, 4-7: 251 wickets (43%)
Tail, 8-11: 184 wickets (31.5%)

That Murali gets a higher proportion of top order wickets is understandable given that SL have little ammunition compared to Australia wrt opening pacers. You could say the same about the middle order wickets, to a lesser extent.

Ah, but the tail . Classy, eh Warnie ?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Also a stronger team means the bowler would get more opportunities to bowl at the opposition. If Murali has a bad day and a half, the opposition can pile up 500 runs and he may not be able to bowl again in the test match. If Warne has a bad day, he can more often than not be assured of bowling again in the match courtesy other bowlers in the team.

That doesn't give Murali an advantage statistically, it just means he may bowl less.

The way I look at it is that being in a strong/weak team doesn't affect you too much. Sure, there are advantages to being in a strong team, as you point out.

But, if Warne has a bad session, he may say have 0/60 off 15 overs, and that's that, because there are other bowlers to turn to if Warne isn't on form. If Murali has a bad session and gets to the point of having 0/60 off 15, he gets another bowl, because, no matter how badly he plays, he's their best bet. He then occasionally ends up with 7/100 (ala quite recently, where poor figures were turned into good figures in an instant).

DISCLAIMER: I am not saying Murali did not bowl well for that 7/100. I have not even seen it. But, Warne, in a strong team, might not even have had another chance to bowl.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Percentage of wickets taken based on batting order:

Warne:

Top order, 1-3 : 150 wickets (23%)
Middle order, 4-7: 259 wickets (39.8%)
Tail, 8-11: 242 wickets (37.2%)

Muralitharan:

Top order, 1-3 : 149 wickets (25.5%)
Middle order, 4-7: 251 wickets (43%)
Tail, 8-11: 184 wickets (31.5%)

That Murali gets a higher proportion of top order wickets is understandable given that SL have little ammunition compared to Australia wrt opening pacers. You could say the same about the middle order wickets, to a lesser extent.

Ah, but the tail . Classy, eh Warnie ?

Percentage of wickets taken against Zimbabwe:

Murali: 15%
Warne: 1%

 

[Deja moo]

Percentage of wickets taken against Zimbabwe:

Murali: 15%
Warne: 1%

And thats Muralis fault, how ? take away the Zimbabwean wickets, and perform the same analysis. Newsflash!! The proportions don't change !

 

[Tom Halsey]

And thats Muralis fault, how ? take away the Zimbabwean wickets, and perform the same analysis. Newsflash!! The proportions don't change !

That wasn't what I was trying to prove. I was trying to prove Murali takes naff wickets too (Flower aside, the whole Zimbabwe team was naff). Murali also has 32 wickets in just 4 games against Bangladesh.

 

[Deja moo]

That wasn't what I was trying to prove. I was trying to prove Murali takes naff wickets too (Flower aside, the whole Zimbabwe team was naff). Murali also has 32 wickets in just 4 games against Bangladesh.

And that alters the basic point how? That Warne picks up more tailenders as a proportion of his wickets than Murali. And this isnt a stat that can be altered by discounting any teams or pitch conditions or whatever.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And that alters the basic point how? That Warne picks up more tailenders as a proportion of his wickets than Murali. And this isnt a stat that can be altered by discounting any teams or pitch conditions or whatever.

Argh! I wasn't trying to argue that point. My point was that anyone who thinks Warne picks up naff wickets by getting a lot of tailenders, they can take a look at how often Murali takes bucketloads against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. I was not arguing the point that Warne does pick up more tailend wickets than Murali. That is all.

 

[marc71178]

Percentage of wickets taken based on batting order:

Percentage of wickets taken against minnows:

Warne - Zim & Ban - 6 (0.92%)
Murali - Zim & Ban - 121 (20.72%)

 

[Tom Halsey]

Percentage of wickets taken against minnows:

Warne - Zim & Ban - 6 (0.92%)
Murali - Zim & Ban - 121 (20.72%)

Shouldn't have said that. He'll now go on a rant asking how it alters anything. I've tried it already.

 

[Deja moo]

Percentage of wickets taken against minnows:

Warne - Zim & Ban - 6 (0.92%)
Murali - Zim & Ban - 121 (20.72%)

Talk about shortsightednes. Open your minds people.

Step 1: remove all the wickets against Zimbabwe.

Step 2 : Run procedure again.

Result: Warne still has tailenders as a higher proportion of his wickets . I cannot make it simpler than this !

 

[Tom Halsey]

Open your minds people.

Step 1: remove all the wickets against Zimbabwe.

Step 2 : Run procedure again.

Result: Warne still has tailenders as a higher proportion of his wickets . I cannot make it simpler than this !

For the last time, that is not the point! We are not disputing that!

Seems like it is you that needs to open your mind.

 

[Deja moo]

For the last time, that is not the point! We are not disputing that!

Seems like it is you that needs to open your mind.

Funny then that you sought to steer of course with a set of stats unrelated to, and which carry less weightage than this one.