*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Tom Halsey]

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

Err they carry more weightage, I'd think. First of all the difference between Warne and Murali is far bigger (Warne only takes 6% more tailend wickets than Murali, yet Murali takes 19% more minnow wickets than Warne). Then there's the fact that minnow wickets aren't any better than tailend wickets of all the other country. So I don't see how it carries less weightage.

EDIT: And how, in any way, shape, or form, are they unrelated? They're directly related.

 

[Pratters]

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.

Statistically it would help if you are in a stronger team because of various aspects like I pointed out. How much of an effect it will have is subjective and cannot be ascertained figuratively. There are various things Murali has an advantage in this regard as well..

I just did a check. Warne bowls 281 bowls per match while Murali bowls 331. So that does show Murali gets more chance to bowl than Warne.

There are so many variable really.

 

[Deja moo]

Err they carry more weightage, I'd think. First of all the difference between Warne and Murali is far bigger (Warne only takes 6% more tailend wickets than Murali, yet Murali takes 19% more minnow wickets than Warne). Then there's the fact that minnow wickets aren't any better than tailend wickets of all the other country. So I don't see how it carries less weightage.

It carries less weightage because you could remove those stats against minnows, and Murali would still have comparable figures to Warne. The main difference to Murali would be that his wickets/match ratio would go down, but still remain in the same range as Warne.

However Warne would find it tough to bridge the gap wrt proportion of tailend wickets, discount whatever teams you may like. Its almost an unalterable constant.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Statistically it would help if you are in a stronger team because of various aspects like I pointed out. How much of an effect it will have is subjective and cannot be ascertained figuratively. There are various things Murali has an advantage in this regard as well..

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say - Murali does have certain advantages here as well.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It carries less weightage because you could remove those stats against minnows, and Murali would still have comparable figures to Warne. The main difference to Murali would be that his wickets/match ratio would go down, but still remain in the same range as Warne.

However Warne would find it tough to bridge the gap wrt proportion of tailend wickets, discount whatever teams you may like. Its almost an unalterable constant.

If you take out Minnow wickets Murali averages 24. I have no idea how you'd find stats to take out wickets taken against tailenders (because you'd have to take off the runs scored by tailenders aswell).

 

[Deja moo]

If you take out Minnow wickets Murali averages 24. I have no idea how you'd find stats to take out wickets taken against tailenders (because you'd have to take off the runs scored by tailenders aswell).

Taking out tailenders would hit Warne too hard since they would obviously contribute fewer runs/wicket taken, thereby causing his average to rise, on removal (and theres a difference of 58 wickets there ). (yeah, and I too know of no way of doing that)

 

[C_C]

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.

Argh
Its rather simple. Wickets in asia favour conventional spinners more than OZ ( or so you say). Similarly, by the same logic, oz favours pacers more than spinners. So if Warney is greater than Murali because of this, Wasim, Waqar and Imran are greater than any aussie pacer precisely for the same reason.

 

[C_C]

If you take out Minnow wickets Murali averages 24. I have no idea how you'd find stats to take out wickets taken against tailenders (because you'd have to take off the runs scored by tailenders aswell).

And if you take out the minnows, Warney averages still more than Murali.

 

[marc71178]

It carries less weightage because you could remove those stats against minnows, and Murali would still have comparable figures to Warne.

Except at a far far lower number.

 

[a massive zebra]

So Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards, Mike Proctor, George Headley, Frank Tyson, Sydney Barnes and Bill O'Reilly were not a match for Border, Walsh, Kapil and others because they all played comparatively few matches, eh?

 

[C_C]

Except at a far far lower number.

If you remove the wickets from minnows/lower order, Murali and Warney have approx the same # of wickets with Murali behind by a dozen or two.

 

[Deja moo]

Except at a far far lower number.

In far fewer matches too. The relevant stat in this case would be wickets/match, not absolute number of wickets. Its not like you arent wise enough to know this stuff. You're just nitpicking here.

 

[Ikki]

In far fewer matches too. The relevant stat in this case would be wickets/match, not absolute number of wickets. Its not like you arent wise enough to know this stuff. You're just nitpicking here.

They bowled the same amount of overs even though Warne played more matches. So when they had roughly the same amount of overs, Warne had the record. Its not like you arent wise enough to know this stuff. You're just nitpicking here.

 

[C_C]

I rate bowlers based on a set few criterias.

1. Overall record ( not much weight) - Murali scores here
2. Quality of supporting bowlers ( big factor)
3. Record against quality opposition
4. Record against the best opposition ( in Warne vs Murali its India and its a big factor)
5. Overseas record ( big factor)
6. Consistency ( big factor)

There are a few more minor ones ( or maybe i am missing a major one) but these are my criterias to which all bowlers are evaluated upon and Murali comes out ahead in most categories, therefore i consider Murali a superior bowler.

 

[Ikki]

I rate bowlers based on a set few criterias.

1. Overall record ( not much weight) - Murali scores here
2. Quality of supporting bowlers ( big factor)
3. Record against quality opposition
4. Record against the best opposition ( in Warne vs Murali its India and its a big factor)
5. Overseas record ( big factor)
6. Consistency ( big factor)

There are a few more minor ones ( or maybe i am missing a major one) but these are my criterias to which all bowlers are evaluated upon and Murali comes out ahead in most categories, therefore i consider Murali a superior bowler.

How you rate bowlers and the facts and statistics that you take into account obviously bias you towards Murali.

Myself, I also consider a list of criteria, not formulated as well as yourself, but I consider Warne as something special. Warne is the artisan and Murali the tradesman. Warne's every bowl is his best work, and every breath is his biggest effort. While many may not conceive my opinions as relative, it is of their own grace. Warne has had so many other instances in his life, personal problems, he has always brought his all to the crease. The best example was his last Ashes in which he had seperated from his wife after a supposed affair. Scenario's like these can be more detrimental than a physical injury.

 

[sqwerty]

I haven't looked at this thread but I reckon Murali chucks it. Have a look at his action next time you have a chance. Has anyone mentioned this?

Anyway for what it's worth.......

Who cares who is better. For me, Murali will never be recognised in Australia because everyone reckons he chucks it. Don't know how he is seen in other countries but anyway.

But regardless of that, whatever he sends down is very effective.

I don't subscribe for a minute to the theory that Warne benefits from having better bowlers in his side. For me that just reduces the number of wickets available to him.

If Warney bowled every second over with a trundler up the other end I'd expect him to take at least half of Australia's wickets which is what Murali does for Sri Lanka.

Murali on the other hand doesn't get the benefit of bowling into the rough like Warne does though Sri Lanka have had their share of left armers in the past so that helps him to some extent.

As for a comparison...it's like chalk and cheese. They're both equally effective at what they do but one will be remembered as the man who changed the face of cricket in the post pace-orientated 80's era and the other one chucks it.

 

[luckyeddie]

I haven't looked at this thread but I reckon Murali chucks it. Have a look at his action next time you have a chance. Has anyone mentioned this?

Winner. ( )

 

[SJS]

If one were to ignore straight vs crooked arms (which I dont), I would call Murali way way ahead of all off spinners in the history of the game but wouldnt say the same for Warne against the other leg spinners like Orielly and Grimmett.

Does that say something ?

 

[sqwerty]

If one were to ignore straight vs crooked arms (which I dont), I would call Murali way way ahead of all off spinners in the history of the game but wouldnt say the same for Warne against the other leg spinners like Orielly and Grimmett.

Does that say something ?

Yes it just says you rate OReilly and Grimmett highly.

I'm glad you consider crooked arms too though, because when we muck around at training with a Murali crooked arm action we turn the ball 120 degrees.

 

[SJS]

Yes it just says you rate OReilly and Grimmett highly.

I'm glad you consider crooked arms too though, because when we muck around at training with a Murali crooked arm action we turn the ball 120 degrees.

You know something. Way back in the early 70's when we would be sent in due to rain, we would play a bit of indoor cricket in the long room at Delhi's Feroze Shah Kotla.

We would bowl from about a dozen paces without a complete bowing action, just a chuck from about chest high. Most of us could turn the ball a lot even on the concrete floor but a friend of mine called Ashok Nanda would have us in absolute mess bowling off breaks that turned sharply to leg. It was impossible to play him because he turned it to off with the same action and it turned hugely both ways.

I pestered him to learn what he was doing. It was not very tough really. Once you mastered it, you were always unplayable playing this sort of cricket. I still am !! This was a time when we did not cal it the doosra.

We could never bowl it in a match because it was impossible to BOWL it. It HAD to be chucked.

I can stil bowl it after 30 years and it turns even on marble flooring.