*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[luckyeddie]

Before you go, i would like you to explain what exactly is this 'culturally accepted/traditionally accepted way of bowling' is.

Tenpin, mate - five step approach. There's people can bowl a 'doosra' in that too - only we call it 'girly back-up'.

 

[C_C]

Tenpin, mate - five step approach. There's people can bowl a 'doosra' in that too - only we call it 'girly back-up'.

lol. i am being serious.

 

[Ikki]

This was the best question asked and the defining one at that. I know what it is because I've been told by my coaches and I've been coached to know...I've also watched enough professional cricketers to know...and it is this that I argued throughout the whole time, that only those with this expertise should legislate/adjudicate/execute.

Right now I have to go, but even if I had time I doubt I could give to you in words or numbers pertaining to this accepted action. Because even I got this definition off accross well in a post, a deviance of what is correct or not could only be told by seeing the action itself.

I've said throughout that the only people who should be officiating are those with the highest pedigree. Until, as I've said, in words and possible numbers one can define such an action, it should be left open and the once formerly agreed upon action will be revived in the cricketing culture itself. If there were to be any cases in the future needed to review, it should be the umpire's decision to call it as such and a panel of this 'elite' to decide what is to take place.

However, because as you said, this is of a 'whim' and not FACTUAL, those who find it to their detriment will bring up your points...while knowing what is being done is to the benefit of all.

 

[Dasa]

I am talking about the definition not written but the one culturally agreed on. In that case, you're incorrect. Not everyone chucked, and only a few were found out to, including Murali. Once you know what it is to bowl you will understand this point. This is what I was trying to illustrate with that little equatoin before.

I would also like to know what this culturally acceptable way is....it was once culturally acceptable to call the earth flat....are you suggesting that new knowledge of bowling actions doesn't matter in the face of traditions and cultural acceptability?

 

[C_C]

However, because as you said, this is of a 'whim' and not FACTUAL, those who find it to their detriment will bring up your points...while knowing what is being done is to the benefit of all.

It is *NOT* to the benifit of all pretending or falsely assuming of being correct.
The traditional way of bowling was culturally dependent, not factually and was basically factually incorrect in assuming that most legitimate bowlers of the eras bygone didnt flex their elbows and thus chuck. Whereas the fact is, every single bowler in history has chucked and the data collected shows this. If you wish to contend that so-n-so didnt chuck then you have to prove it, given that it flies in the face of accepted gathered data.
Not the other way round.
You may know what the traditional way of bowling is but also know that what your coach fed you is a supposition and culturally accepted but a false notion factually ( that bowling so-n-so way equals no chuck and thus legit), stemming solely from using an inferior equipment to judge ( the human eye in real-time motion).
If your coach(es) knew the law and looked up the facts about the human arm( which they probably havn't), they would know better than to put their foot in their mouth.
And i don't care what credibility the so-n-so cricketer/cricket coach has,they have ZERO credibility in this regard.
Simply because they got no clue about what is going on and if they did, they would come to the same conclusion the biomechanists did.
The rule may be a cricketing one, but the one following that rule ( the bowlers) are subject to a much greater and profound rule- the one that governs human motion.
Cricket has been a slave too long to the 'culture and tradition' and not to what is right/factually correct. Not that it is only cricket's failing- its a common human one.

I've said throughout that the only people who should be officiating are those with the highest pedigree

Indeed. cricketers of highest pedigree should make cricketing rules. Such as whether there should be any flexion at the elbow, whether there should be any wrist action, etc etc.
The ones who should verify if that law is being followed or indeed, is humanly possible to follow, are the biomechanists- they are the ones with the highest pedigree in human body movements. They know far more about what the arm is doing than the alltime great cricketers. Therefore, its their verdict ( whether the said person is bending the elbow or not) should be the final one, not the so-called great cricketers.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Step 1: Remove ALL minnow wickets from Murali's record (Warne's too if you like). Now we only have 'worthy' opposition to analyse.
Step 2: Now analyse who takes most tailend wickets compared to top order batsman.

If the findings are Warne takes more (I am not sure but that is what I've read here) then one can't argue Murali takes as much 'lesser valued' wickets than Warne because he takes a lot of minnow wickets, since they aren't part of the analysis. Hence when playing the top teams, Murali takes more top order wickets.

We have never disputed this, and this is why it beggars belief as to why he keeps saying it.

All we have said is that Murali takes way more minnow wickets than Warne, which can in a way be deemed as tailend wickets as they aren't very good.

 

[Tom Halsey]

BTW Tom: Chelsea 3 - 1 West Ham. Damn you blues .

I'm loving this.

I'm not a Chelsea fan, I'm Man United. My signature is because I lost a bet with the ginger to do with who'd win the title last year.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If it is, then it wouldn't matter because neither does Warne.

Murali has played Australia though (and his record isn't very good).

 

[C_C]

All we have said is that Murali takes way more minnow wickets than Warne, which can in a way be deemed as tailend wickets as they aren't very good.

No, they are not tail-end wickets, as most top-order batsmen of even ZIM or BD are superior to the last 4 of most nations.
If we are talking comparative way how batsmen have treated the said bowler, Warney has been mauled more often than Murali, by batsmen such as Lara, Tendulkar, Azhar, Sidhu, etc.

 

[C_C]

Murali has played Australia though (and his record isn't very good).

Can't compare two players against OZ when only one has played against OZ .
Besides, OZ arnt the best team when it comes to playing spin- IND are.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Not really, social made a post on this a while ago which shows Murali has been poorer than Warne in some series, just as often.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Can't compare two players against OZ when only one has played against OZ .
Besides, OZ arnt the best team when it comes to playing spin- IND are.

Part 1: Never said you could.

Part 2: Which makes it even more damning that his record against them is so bad.

 

[C_C]

Not really, social made a post on this a while ago which shows Murali has been poorer than Warne in some series, just as often.

And social was wrong as i showed- Murali has less % of series where he's averaged 40+, 50+ along with under 20, while Warney has a higher % of series where he's averaged in the 20s. Therefore, Warney has been poorer than Murali more often.

 

[C_C]

Part 1: Never said you could.

Part 2: Which makes it even more damning that his record against them is so bad.

Yeah. Well very few spinners have done well against IND. Warney's record is worse.
And while both their records are similar in IND, Murali's is significantly better, despite having bowled against IND mostly on super-batting friendly wickets at home ( check the series he's played against IND in SL- those were far harder to bowl on than any pitches in OZ).

 

[Tom Halsey]

And social was wrong as i showed- Murali has less % of series where he's averaged 40+, 50+ along with under 20, while Warney has a higher % of series where he's averaged in the 20s. Therefore, Warney has been poorer than Murali more often.

In the 20s is not poor.

 

[C_C]

In the 20s is not poor.

No. But if you have a higher % of series averaging over 40 and 50, it is logical to conclude that you get whacked/mauled more often.

 

[Top_Cat]

This was the best question asked and the defining one at that. I know what it is because I've been told by my coaches and I've been coached to know...I've also watched enough professional cricketers to know...and it is this that I argued throughout the whole time, that only those with this expertise should legislate/adjudicate/execute.

Right now I have to go, but even if I had time I doubt I could give to you in words or numbers pertaining to this accepted action. Because even I got this definition off accross well in a post, a deviance of what is correct or not could only be told by seeing the action itself.

I've said throughout that the only people who should be officiating are those with the highest pedigree. Until, as I've said, in words and possible numbers one can define such an action, it should be left open and the once formerly agreed upon action will be revived in the cricketing culture itself. If there were to be any cases in the future needed to review, it should be the umpire's decision to call it as such and a panel of this 'elite' to decide what is to take place.

However, because as you said, this is of a 'whim' and not FACTUAL, those who find it to their detriment will bring up your points...while knowing what is being done is to the benefit of all.

Cop-out.

So far all I've seen you do is to tell C_C he doesn't know 'what it is to bowl' with no other qualifying remarks. So what is it to bowl then? There you have the same direct question from three people who apparently haven't 'gotten' you. If you don't make an attempt to answer it, why on Earth would anyone try to engage you in debate?

 

[Tom Halsey]

No. But if you have a higher % of series averaging over 40 and 50, it is logical to conclude that you get whacked/mauled more often.

Apart from the first 2 series he played in, he's had 6 series where he's averaged 40+.

3 of them were in a row, against India 97-98 (where he is universally accepted to have been injured, whatever you say), England 98-99 (only played 1 Test here, recovering from injury), and WI 99, where he still hadn't got any form back after his injury.

Then the next 3 happened within 5 series of each other. The first 2 (India at home, 99-00, and India away 2001) were when he was going through a run of terrible form (no excuse for this), where he even struggled against poor sides. Then he regained his form during the 2001 Ashes, and the bad series after that (2001-02 home to NZ) is his last bad series. Warne bowled well during it, but so did NZ (and McGrath too also had a terrible series).

 

[C_C]

Apart from the first 2 series he played in, he's had 6 series where he's averaged 40+.

3 of them were in a row, against India 97-98 (where he is universally accepted to have been injured, whatever you say), England 98-99 (only played 1 Test here, recovering from injury), and WI 99, where he still hadn't got any form back after his injury.

Then the next 3 happened within 5 series of each other. The first 2 (India at home, 99-00, and India away 2001) were when he was going through a run of terrible form (no excuse for this), where he even struggled against poor sides. Then he regained his form during the 2001 Ashes, and the bad series after that (2001-02 home to NZ) is his last bad series. Warne bowled well during it, but so did NZ (and McGrath too also had a terrible series).

Well for one, he was NOT injured against IND severely in the test series. I don't care what the universally accepted fad is- but you dont bowl 50 overs per match carrying a serious injury for 3 matches. If you claim to do, you are a liar. Period. Its akin to claiming a marathon runner ran a marathon with a broken ankle. Sorry, doesnt fly.

For two, it is all fine and dandy- Warney is a great bowler and his record is testament to that. Just that Murali IMO is much better, and relatively speaking, he's been smashed around less than Warney.

 

[social]

Not really, social made a post on this a while ago which shows Murali has been poorer than Warne in some series, just as often.

Never said any such thing.

I made 2 points.

a. There is a massive discrepancy between Murali's home and away records. Naturally, this is due to the fact that he plays on wickets at home that overwhelmingly favour spin bowling.

Warne, on the other hand, has remarkably similar away and home records, indicating that he is more adaptable.

b. Despite (a), a no. of batsman have produced remarkable series against Murali at home whilst no-one has treated Warne in remotely similar fashion in Aus.