*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

C _ C 's criteria was success against outstanding opposition.

A debutant Warne was a decidedly different proposition to peak Murali bowling to peak Lara, Fleming, etc. That was supposed to be an even contest albeit in conditions favouring the bowler.

Warney has been hammered considerably more than Murali vs both India and West Indies(Lara)- Tendulkar absolutely annihilated him in 97- but in SL, while only Lara dominated Murali, Warney has been hammered with disdain by entire IND batting lineup, as well as WI sometimes.
Its indisputable that Warney has been hammered more often and more massively than Murali.

 

[social]

Warney has been hammered considerably more than Murali vs both India and West Indies(Lara)- Tendulkar absolutely annihilated him in 97- but in SL, while only Lara dominated Murali, Warney has been hammered with disdain by entire IND batting lineup, as well as WI sometimes.
Its indisputable that Warney has been hammered more often and more massively than Murali.

Brilliant post

 

[honestbharani]

Isn't it amazing how the ICC had these cameras to test players last September, and could even make a judgement on players from the past, yet now they seemingly have nothing that gives us similar results now! When a player's tested he still needs to go into the lab and have patches etc stuck to him to study angles and so on, yet in a few marvellous weeks last year none of that was needed and experts were able to make conclusions on a number of bowlers simply by using footage taken during games...technology that then mysteriously disappeared.

I accept that Murali's been shown to be ok, and that's fine.

Hyper-extension is a natural part of bowling IMO, not something that constitutes 'chucking'. It involves the arm flexing past the normal point of 'straightness' due to stresses placed on it during the bowling action. Ever since I was little I was under the idea that throwing meant your arm bent towards the shoulder and went back to (or past) its starting position...this isn't hyper-extension. If this is where the 'every bowler throws' line comes from then...as far as I'm concerned it's a myth.

you do understand that scientific studies have shown that an iron rod, if rotated at the speed of a bowlers arm for 500 times or so, becomes bent.... And of course, the bowlers of the past who were tested were tested through their videos and while there is a margin of error, it is not significant enough to establish that they didn't chuck. All of the tested bowlers had flex in their elbow and that, by the old laws, defines chucking.

 

[Son Of Coco]

you do understand that scientific studies have shown that an iron rod, if rotated at the speed of a bowlers arm for 500 times or so, becomes bent.... And of course, the bowlers of the past who were tested were tested through their videos and while there is a margin of error, it is not significant enough to establish that they didn't chuck. All of the tested bowlers had flex in their elbow and that, by the old laws, defines chucking.

Yes, that's why I was talking about hyper-extension.

If that's the case, why can't bowlers get tested from video showing actual deliveries instead of having to come into the lab? Surely, if you can study an action from video and announce to the world that the action is suspect/ok on one occasion you can do it all the time!? If it's good enough to damn players from the past, then surely something that can give us decisions on a ball's legality based on the actual ball bowled would be preferred over the system they returned to after the big announcement that everyone throws - where a bowler must be tested in lab conditions. Apparently this isn't the case...

I have serious doubts that the old laws took into account extension due to stresses placed on the elbow during bowling...I would think that in simple terms a 'throw' would have constituted something that looks like a baseball delivery, not an arm going from straight in its normal position to past that position when the stresses of bowling are placed upon it - I could be wrong though.

IMO what you're doing by saying everyone throws, is changing the definition of what a throw is in the first place.

 

[honestbharani]

well, u could simply get used to that vocabulary.


You don't seriously expect everyone to say "Murali hyper-extends his elbow" or "So what? Everyone else hyper extends their elbow too", right?

 

[shankar]

Yes, that's why I was talking about hyper-extension.

If that's the case, why can't bowlers get tested from video showing actual deliveries instead of having to come into the lab? Surely, if you can study an action from video and announce to the world that the action is suspect/ok on one occasion you can do it all the time!? If it's good enough to damn players from the past, then surely something that can give us decisions on a ball's legality based on the actual ball bowled would be preferred over the system they returned to after the big announcement that everyone throws - where a bowler must be tested in lab conditions. Apparently this isn't the case...

I have serious doubts that the old laws took into account extension due to stresses placed on the elbow during bowling...I would think that in simple terms a 'throw' would have constituted something that looks like a baseball delivery, not an arm going from straight in its normal position to past that position when the stresses of bowling are placed upon it - I could be wrong though.

IMO what you're doing by saying everyone throws, is changing the definition of what a throw is in the first place.

All you need to do to show that the players from the past 'chucked' according to the old rules is to show that some straightening of the elbow, however small, took place. Hence you do not need accurate measurement of the actual angle of straightening. Whereas to judge a bowler to be chucking by the present rules, you do need accurate measurement of the straightening angle to determine whether it exceeds the 15 degree limit. Hence the determination from the match video is not enough and lab testing is required.

 

[Son Of Coco]

well, u could simply get used to that vocabulary.


You don't seriously expect everyone to say "Murali hyper-extends his elbow" or "So what? Everyone else hyper extends their elbow too", right?

It would make us sound far more intellectual

Something like 'I firmly believe the hyper-extension Brett Lee applies to his inswinging yorker is second-to-none...smashingly second-to-none old chap' would be great at dinner parties.

 

[honestbharani]

It would make us sound far more intellectual

Something like 'I firmly believe the hyper-extension Brett Lee applies to his inswinging yorker is second-to-none...smashingly second-to-none old chap' would be great at dinner parties.

Not like we aren't intellectual already.


"I love animals and I want to explore them" is proof of that.

 

[Son Of Coco]

All you need to do to show that the players from the past 'chucked' according to the old rules is to show that some straightening of the elbow, however small, took place. Hence you do not need accurate measurement of the actual angle of straightening. Whereas to judge a bowler to be chucking by the present rules, you do need accurate measurement of the straightening angle to determine whether it exceeds the 15 degree limit. Hence the determination from the match video is not enough and lab testing is required.

Personally, I don't think hyper-extension constitutes throwing, as it can't be controlled...as I said before. I was informed (obviously unreliably) around the time of the tests that declared 'Everyone Throws' that hyper-extension wasn't taken into account, which made me very dubious. Now I'm told it was, which means that technically, yes, a lot of people would be over or very close to the limit. Using a common-sense approach however, I wouldn't think this should constitute a 'throw'.

I'm very surprised that the updated rule re: chucking takes hyper-extension into account when measuring the 15 degrees, it would seem to make more sense to measure bend from the natural straightening point and back, not flexion from that point with no obvious bending to start with...unless we are going to start playing in braces. A 0 degree limit on bending would be fair, a 0 degree limit on flexion obviously isn't...obviously taking into account the starting point of the arm.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not like we aren't intellectual already.


"I love animals and I want to explore them" is proof of that.

hahaha, ahhh you've got to encourage a young bloke with a love of anatomy.

 

[C_C]

Brilliant post

1997 series vs IND - Warney got annihilated. Murali has never been annihilated to the same extent.
Numerous other examples exist.

 

[social]

1997 series vs IND - Warney got annihilated. Murali has never been annihilated to the same extent.
Numerous other examples exist.

You mean the 1997/98 series where Warne played with a career-threatening shoulder injury?

Tendulkar was brilliant during that series but he hardly took the same toll on Warne as Lara, Fleming, or even Ponting did in Murali's own back yard.

However, there are supposedly numerous other examples out there so keep searching.

BTW, how about a series in Aus so we can compare apples with apples?

 

[C_C]

You mean the 1997/98 series where Warne played with a career-threatening shoulder injury?

Tendulkar was brilliant during that series but he hardly took the same toll on Warne as Lara, Fleming, or even Ponting did in Murali's own back yard.

However, there are supposedly numerous other examples out there so keep searching.

BTW, how about a series in Aus so we can compare apples with apples?

Please. Dont BS me with this media-constructed hype about his career threatening injury.
He wasnt majorly injured for the test series and he got absolutely annihilated.
Seems like some Aussies simply cannot accept that Warne has been fairly overhyped through his career.

And Tendulkar didnt have a monster series like Lara but he did have a huge series against him. Whats worse, Warney got annihilated by the whole friggin Indian lineup- Murali had a hard time against Lara but dealt with the rest of WI batsmen pretty well.

Warney has been annihilated significantly more than Murali has been - India 97 is one.
vs WI in 1999 was another ( another Lara legendary series) - though he was comming back from injury, he was match-fit.
Got butchered in the trans-tasman trophy vs NZ in 2001/02.
Also got annihilated by India in OZ in 1999 ( despite IND getting collectively thumped that series) - despite being back in matchpractice and not being injured ( he had played 3 series on the trot before IND).
Got annihilated again by IND in 2001. Again, not injured.


Warney has played 41 series in total excluding the current ongoing series and excluding minnows.
Of them, he's averaged above 50 in 7 series ( 17.07%), above 40 in 8 series ( 19.51%), above 30 in 12 series ( 29.26 % ) , 20-30 in 20 series( 48.78%)and under 20 in 9 series ( 21.42%).

Murali has played 38 series in total excluding the minnows( no current ongoing series for Murali).
Of them, he's averaged above 50 in 4 series ( 10.52%), above 40 in 6 series ( 15.78 %), above 30 in 15 series ( 39.47 %), 20-30 in 12 series ( 31.57%) and under 20 in 11 series ( 28.94%).

Since an average of above 40 can be construed as really getting whacked, Warney has been whacked more often than Murali has. Murali has had more average series than Warney, but also more stunning series ( higher % of series with ave. under 20) and less 'good/very good' series than Warney.
As a result, it can be concluded that Warney has been hammered more frequently than Murali.

 

[C_C]

Most people that have played a 90 mph bowler would do anything to face a spinner, even allowing for as good as these 2 are.

Most people are not international class batsmen either and speed is irrelevant without accuracy. Most would rather face Brett lee any day of the week than Murali or Warney.

 

[C_C]

sn't it amazing how the ICC had these cameras to test players last September, and could even make a judgement on players from the past, yet now they seemingly have nothing that gives us similar results now! When a player's tested he still needs to go into the lab and have patches etc stuck to him to study angles and so on, yet in a few marvellous weeks last year none of that was needed and experts were able to make conclusions on a number of bowlers simply by using footage taken during games...technology that then mysteriously disappeared.

Err no.
The analysis didnt disappear and neither was anything amazing about it.
ICC was doing a study to determine if :

a) Elbow flexion is far widespread than believed by the general public and if it was always so
and
b) What their flexion levels were.

Old player's footages were studied using mulitple camera angle shots of those said bowlers ( from existing footage, multiple camera angle for various bowlers exist, as there were cameras around the field- not just at one/two locations- in the last 30-40 years and they don't stop recording- what you are shown on tv is determined by the broadcast crew, as they judiciously and sometimes not so judiciously switch from one camera to another).

Since ICC isnt considering sanctioning all previous bowlers but merely trying to understand the basics of chucking and modify the laws to fit facts ( rather than fiction), their data provided valuable insights into the research. However, that technique carried a 3 degree margin of error i think and owing to more sensetive equipment being available today in person, that technique isnt used for present-day bowlers.
Since bowlers of the past were found to have flexions higher than 3 degrees( some considerably so), it was not disputed whether they chucked or not.

 

[C_C]

Really? When was Warney tested?

Existing footage of Warney was studied from multiple camera angles and if i recollect correctly, his flexion level was recorded to be around 9-10 degrees, with a margin of error of 3 degrees ( could be anywhere between 13 degrees and 6). The difference between 6 degrees and 14(murali's upper limit vs warney's lower limit) is 8 degrees - about as thick as a cookie and about as thick as a finger when the line of sight is extended to the wrists.

 

[social]

Please. Dont BS me with this media-constructed hype about his career threatening injury.
He wasnt majorly injured for the test series and he got absolutely annihilated.
Seems like some Aussies simply cannot accept that Warne has been fairly overhyped through his career.

And Tendulkar didnt have a monster series like Lara but he did have a huge series against him. Whats worse, Warney got annihilated by the whole friggin Indian lineup- Murali had a hard time against Lara but dealt with the rest of WI batsmen pretty well.

Warney has been annihilated significantly more than Murali has been - India 97 is one.
vs WI in 1999 was another ( another Lara legendary series) - though he was comming back from injury, he was match-fit.
Got butchered in the trans-tasman trophy vs NZ in 2001/02.
Also got annihilated by India in OZ in 1999 ( despite IND getting collectively thumped that series) - despite being back in matchpractice and not being injured ( he had played 3 series on the trot before IND).
Got annihilated again by IND in 2001. Again, not injured.


Warney has played 41 series in total excluding the current ongoing series and excluding minnows.
Of them, he's averaged above 50 in 7 series ( 17.07%), above 40 in 8 series ( 19.51%), above 30 in 12 series ( 29.26 % ) , 20-30 in 20 series( 48.78%)and under 20 in 9 series ( 21.42%).

Murali has played 38 series in total excluding the minnows( no current ongoing series for Murali).
Of them, he's averaged above 50 in 4 series ( 10.52%), above 40 in 6 series ( 15.78 %), above 30 in 15 series ( 39.47 %), 20-30 in 12 series ( 31.57%) and under 20 in 11 series ( 28.94%).

Since an average of above 40 can be construed as really getting whacked, Warney has been whacked more often than Murali has. Murali has had more average series than Warney, but also more stunning series ( higher % of series with ave. under 20) and less 'good/very good' series than Warney.
As a result, it can be concluded that Warney has been hammered more frequently than Murali.

Firstly, so you know better than Warne, the Aus doctor and Warne's surgeon?

Give me a break!

Warne was not fit vs India except for 2004 (and, even then, missed the 4th test where it was "London to a brick" that he'd have cleaned up) and was patently unfit vs WI in 1999.

Such bias is indicative of why you have no credibility in this discussion.

Secondly, Lara was the entire WI batting lineup.

Murali would have served SL better by getting Lara cheaply and not feasting on the crumbs.

Thirdly, you quote only one series where Warne has been "annihilated" (ignoring the fact that that has never happened to him in his career) that wasnt against India - NZ 2001/2002. If you had watched this series, you'd know that Aus spent the first 2 matches trying to goad NZ into a result in rain-marred fixtures and the 3rd was played on a belter. Added to the fact that the wickets were so good that Warne himself averaged 50 with the bat and this series is nothing but an anomaly.

Fourthly, Im not sure what those statistics are supposed to prove but mere analysis of no.s will never tell you the whole story.

 

[social]

Existing footage of Warney was studied from multiple camera angles and if i recollect correctly, his flexion level was recorded to be around 9-10 degrees, with a margin of error of 3 degrees ( could be anywhere between 13 degrees and 6). The difference between 6 degrees and 14(murali's upper limit vs warney's lower limit) is 8 degrees - about as thick as a cookie and about as thick as a finger when the line of sight is extended to the wrists.

The figure for Murali is the average (actually 14.2) for his doosra not the upper limit.

Warne was estimated at 4 degrees.

Not that any of the above means jack-diddly-squat given the new laws.

 

[luckyeddie]

Seems like some Aussies simply cannot accept that Warne has been fairly overhyped through his career.

That gets my vote for 'silliest snippet of the year' - a 'keeper' if ever I saw one.

 

[marc71178]

And of course, the bowlers of the past who were tested were tested through their videos and while there is a margin of error, it is not significant enough to establish that they didn't chuck.

Using old footage is not accurate enough to conclude anything.