*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Pratters]

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 ?

It shows very well Murali isnt an orthodox spinner more than any thing as far as I am concerned.

 

[C_C]

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.

Little flaw in your little world - Both Murali and Warney flex the elbow and the difference between their flexion is as thick as a cookie.

 

[social]

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.

3. record against quality opposition - Lara, Fleming, Ponting, Martyn, etc have all had massive series against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka where everything is in Murali's favour.

No one has had remotely the same amount of success against Warne in Aus.

Therefore< Warne is comfortably ahead on this criteria.

4. record against the best opposition - Murali has no record to speak of against Aus in Aus.

Like it or not, Aus have largely been the best team during Murali's career and Aus is a very hard place for foreign spinners to do well in (I cant think of anyone in the last 30 years apart from Kumble, who bowled well in 2 tests where the wickets were more Indian-like than Aus).

As such, it can readily be argued that Aus is to Murali what India is to Warne.

Unfortunately, Murali's self-imposed exile leaves a massive hole in his record.

Result - inconclusive.

5. Overseas record - Murali's international record is significantly worse than his home record whilst Warne's is remarkably similar.

Result - clearly in Warne's favour.

In summary, for every factor in favour of one over the other, I can produce a statistic to refute it.

 

[social]

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.

Very true.

Simple experiment - try spinning a golf or table tennis ball using only your fingers i.e. with as straight an arm as possible. Then compare the results to those achieved by adopting a moderate throwing action.

Chalk and cheese.

Anyway, its all irrelevant as both are now deemed legal.

 

[C_C]

3. record against quality opposition - Lara, Fleming, Ponting, Martyn, etc have all had massive series against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka where everything is in Murali's favour.

Irrelevant largely. The record is against a whole attack, not Murali alone.
I would do better facing an attack of McGrath and 3 grannies than the saffie attack.

4. record against the best opposition - Murali has no record to speak of against Aus in Aus.

Like it or not, Aus have largely been the best team during Murali's career and Aus is a very hard place for foreign spinners to do well in (I cant think of anyone in the last 30 years apart from Kumble, who bowled well in 2 tests where the wickets were more Indian-like than Aus).

Irrelevant.
OZ are not the best team against spin- India is. The record against OZ is no more important than record against any other team for a spinner.

5. Overseas record - Murali's international record is significantly worse than his home record whilst Warne's is remarkably similar.

Result - clearly in Warne's favour.

Overseas record stands in its entirity, not in contrast to the home record. Basically you are penalising Murali for being far better than Warney relatively at home.
What is important is, Murali's overseas record is remarkably similar to Warney, despite the fact that Murali doesnt have anywhere close to the support Warney has, especially in terms of fast bowlers.

In summary, for every factor in favour of one over the other, I can produce a statistic to refute it.

You have to understand the relevance and nature of the statistic to use it. Something you unfortunately do not have.

 

[C_C]

Anyway, its all irrelevant as both are now deemed legal.

And before, both were illegal but only one was punished for it.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Tom Halsey]

OZ are not the best team against spin.

Which makes it even more damning that his record against them is so bad.

 

[social]

Irrelevant largely. The record is against a whole attack, not Murali alone.
I would do better facing an attack of McGrath and 3 grannies than the saffie attack.



Irrelevant.
OZ are not the best team against spin- India is. The record against OZ is no more important than record against any other team for a spinner.



Overseas record stands in its entirity, not in contrast to the home record. Basically you are penalising Murali for being far better than Warney relatively at home.
What is important is, Murali's overseas record is remarkably similar to Warney, despite the fact that Murali doesnt have anywhere close to the support Warney has, especially in terms of fast bowlers.



You have to understand the relevance and nature of the statistic to use it. Something you unfortunately do not have.

1. Doubt it - McGrath would have you out before the grannies had the chance to offer you a scone.

Fact is, Murali bowls 30 - 40% of all overs in conditions highly favourable to him and was dominated. This has never happened to Warne.

Unfortunately for him, Warne rarely even encounters conditions as favourable to him as those Murali encounters routinely in Sri Lanka.

2. Aus in Aus are more formidable against spin than India in India. At least in the latter case, the bowlers are faced with reasonable bowling conditions.

3. How do you explain the fact that Murali takes 2 wickets less per test at a substantially higher cost away from home?

A logical explanation would be that overseas conditions are less favourable to him than those at home.

 

[C_C]

1. Doubt it - McGrath would have you out before the grannies had the chance to offer you a scone.
Fact is, Murali bowls 30 - 40% of all overs in conditions highly favourable to him and was dominated. This has never happened to Warne.

For one, McGrath doesnt bowl all the time and if one gets settled, one can play around any bowler often.
For two, the modus operandi of SL and AUS is to have 4 bowlers- that means an equal sharing of overs would mean 25% of the team's bowling. 30-40% isnt much higher for a spinner.
For three, Murali has been dominated far less often than Warney has been. For a change, Warney has been absolutely thumped by India almost every single time. For two, Lara has handled Warney significantly better than he's handled Murali.
For four, Sachin has absolutely demolished Warney while not Murali to that extent.
Sorry but Murali has been dominated far less than Warney and Warney has far more off days than Murali, despite having an exellent attack to back him up.

[

Unfortunately for him, Warne rarely even encounters conditions as favourable to him as those Murali encounters routinely in Sri Lanka.

Incorrect assumption. Warney depends a lot on the bounce of the wicket and bowlers like Murali or Warney do not have any appreciable difference in turning the ball in the subcontinent or in OZ.
great cricketers are cricketers of adaptability. which is why home bowlers tend to do well at home than way in most cases - doesnt matter if 'home' is suitable/unsuitable for their trade ( for eg, most Indian and pakistani pacers have better record at home than away)

2. Aus in Aus are more formidable against spin than India in India. At least in the latter case, the bowlers are faced with reasonable bowling conditions.

Please. OZ have usually floundered about when it comes to spin - their ability to play spin is far inferior to that of India's. Reasonable bowling condition is rather irrelevant and if you are a FC player in the past, you should know that the quality of opposition is of far greater significance. A world XI would do far better batting on an absolute minefield against your team compared to a highschool team on a batting beauty.
As usual, your 'logic' is flawed.

3. How do you explain the fact that Murali takes 2 wickets less per test at a substantially higher cost away from home?

A logical explanation would be that overseas conditions are less favourable to him than those at home.

It is not a point against Murali that he's adapted to his home conditions better than Warney has. If overseas records are compared, only overseas records are compared- and thats where Murali and Warney are almost equal.
The fact that Murali achieves this despite a categoric lack of bowling support relative to Warney is a testament IMO to his superiority.

 

[honestbharani]

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?

I meant the batsmen from outside the subcontinent, who are used to scoring quicker than what they can in the subcontinent and hence do tend to play the odd hasty stroke.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Since when is being recognized in Australia the be all and end all of cricket. You think he won't be rated in Australia, that is your fault, not some greatness.


I can agree with guys like Sean who think Warne is simply a better bowler than Murali on the basis of their bowling performances and stats alone... That is a definitely arguable point. But to say that Murali chucks and Warne doesn't and that "I am an aussie and Murali will never be rated here", well that is bias...


If you think he will never be rated in Australia, it is your fault, not his.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

McGrath and Lee bowl with almost similar degree of crooked arm. I am waiting for you to proclaim that Pathan is better than both of them combined.

 

[luckyeddie]

McGrath and Lee bowl with almost similar degree of crooked arm. I am waiting for you to proclaim that Pathan is better than both of them combined.

There are plenty who would say that already.

 

[social]

For one, McGrath doesnt bowl all the time and if one gets settled, one can play around any bowler often.
For two, the modus operandi of SL and AUS is to have 4 bowlers- that means an equal sharing of overs would mean 25% of the team's bowling. 30-40% isnt much higher for a spinner.
For three, Murali has been dominated far less often than Warney has been. For a change, Warney has been absolutely thumped by India almost every single time. For two, Lara has handled Warney significantly better than he's handled Murali.
For four, Sachin has absolutely demolished Warney while not Murali to that extent.
Sorry but Murali has been dominated far less than Warney and Warney has far more off days than Murali, despite having an exellent attack to back him up.

[

Incorrect assumption. Warney depends a lot on the bounce of the wicket and bowlers like Murali or Warney do not have any appreciable difference in turning the ball in the subcontinent or in OZ.
great cricketers are cricketers of adaptability. which is why home bowlers tend to do well at home than way in most cases - doesnt matter if 'home' is suitable/unsuitable for their trade ( for eg, most Indian and pakistani pacers have better record at home than away)



Please. OZ have usually floundered about when it comes to spin - their ability to play spin is far inferior to that of India's. Reasonable bowling condition is rather irrelevant and if you are a FC player in the past, you should know that the quality of opposition is of far greater significance. A world XI would do far better batting on an absolute minefield against your team compared to a highschool team on a batting beauty.
As usual, your 'logic' is flawed.



It is not a point against Murali that he's adapted to his home conditions better than Warney has. If overseas records are compared, only overseas records are compared- and thats where Murali and Warney are almost equal.
The fact that Murali achieves this despite a categoric lack of bowling support relative to Warney is a testament IMO to his superiority.

1. Please.

Dominated less?

Lara averaged 155, Ponting 85 and Fleming 188!!!!!!

No-one has ever come remotely close to doing anything like that in a series involving Warne at home.

2. You conveniently overlook the fact that Vaas has taken the small matter of 300 test wickets.

3. When the discrepancy between your home and away record is as great as it is with Murali, questions must be asked.

The umpires are from the same panel of neutral elite.

Batsmen are the same.

Why then does he average a full 8 runs more per wicket and take 1.5 wickets less per test.

Only logical answer lies in the conditions.

Warne's consistency is testimony to the fact that he adapts better.

And btw, his away record is better.

4. Name one spinner that has done well in Aus in the last 30 years.

Answer - no-one.

On the other hand, I can name several that have done relatively well in India - Giles, Saqlain, Mushtaq, etc

Bowling against Aus in Aus for a spinner is harder than bowling against India in India.

And it's all to do with conditions.

(BTW, I never played fc in AUS, only fc designated matches in Eng, SA and Pak. As such, I dont consider myself to be a fc player).

 

[honestbharani]

There are plenty who would say that already.

The effect would be better if HE says it though.

 

[honestbharani]

1. Please.

Dominated less?

Lara averaged 155, Ponting 85 and Fleming 188!!!!!!

No-one has ever come remotely close to doing anything like that in a series involving Warne at home.

2. You conveniently overlook the fact that Vaas has taken the small matter of 300 test wickets.

3. When the discrepancy between your home and away record is as great as it is with Murali, questions must be asked.

The umpires are from the same panel of neutral elite.

Batsmen are the same.

Why then does he average a full 8 runs more per wicket and take 1.5 wickets less per test.

Only logical answer lies in the conditions.

Warne's consistency is testimony to the fact that he adapts better.

And btw, his away record is better.

4. Name one spinner that has done well in Aus in the last 30 years.

Answer - no-one.

On the other hand, I can name several that have done relatively well in India - Giles, Saqlain, Mushtaq, etc

Bowling against Aus in Aus for a spinner is harder than bowling against India in India.

And it's all to do with conditions.

(BTW, I never played fc in AUS, only fc designated matches in Eng, SA and Pak. As such, I dont consider myself to be a fc player).

what did Ravi Shastri and Tendulkar average in the tests that Warne played in in his debut series?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Uh - debut series?

You're clutching at straws, mate.

Youthful Indiscretions

 

[social]

what did Ravi Shastri and Tendulkar average in the tests that Warne played in in his debut series?

1991/1992

Debut series for Warne?

Terribly relevant.

But fyi, Shastri played 1 test and made 206.

Sachin made 148 no and 2 failures.

 

[honestbharani]

Uh - debut series?

You're clutching at straws, mate.

Youthful Indiscretions

so, close to his debut series? Happy?


My point was that Warne has been dominated too. Averages don't always tell the whole story about whether a bowler has been dominated or not. For instance, I saw two of the three WI/SL tests (only the last two were televised, FYI) and Lara did not dominate Murali by any stretch of the imagination in the second one. And from what the people who saw the first one said, he didn't dominate Murali in the first one either. Lara himself said in an interview that it was only in the third test, after he had gotten used to picking Murali's deliveries off his hands at the point of release that he was able to dominate him. Juz because Lara scored a 178 in the first test doesn't mean he dominated Murali. Sidhu didn't average anything great in the 98 series against Australia, yet there is no doubt that he totally dominated Warne in that series.