*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Deja moo]

Because a 6% difference of tailend wickets to me means nothing compared to a 20% difference in minnow wickets.

Thats a poor view of things.

An analogy would be, Tendulkar averages, say 53 against Australia. Gayle averages, say 40 against Australia.

Now if Tendulkar played just Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for the next 4 years, his overall average and runs against minnows would undoubtedly get inflated. Lets say he plays them till a stage when 50% of his runs are made against minnows.


So, at that stage, Tendulkar would have around 50% more runs vs minnows than Gayle. However his average against Australia would just be around 8% more than Gayle.

And in your book, Gayle would thus be a better batsman.

Good thinking, Halsey.

 

[C_C]

You can for a limited period of time. 3 Test matches (plus a handful of ODIs) is a limited period of time.

You cannot run with a broken foot for day after day.
You cannot bowl with a broken arm for weeks straight
You cannot bowl with a dislocated shoulder for weeks.
Ask a doctor if you wish to confirm.

PS : To the best of my knowledge, Warney's shoulder was completely bolloxed and blew in the ODI series- he couldnt turn his arm over physically, painkiller or no painkiller. To say that the injury was the same and his painkillers simply wore off is misrepresenting the facts- i dont think( and unless a doctor confirms it categorically) that he would be physically able to turn his arm over with that kind of an injury. Minor discomfort/pain, maybe. Not a major injury.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I take all my stats from crickinfo.

And this is what i posted earlier- you can feel free to verify:

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%).

Your stats are correct.

However, due to Warne being put into Test cricket way too early, I took off his first 2 series when he bowled garbage, and I did say this.

Murali's series where he's averaged 50+:

92-93 at home to Australia (56.25 average) (can be forgiven)
94-95 at home to Pakistan (165 average)
94-95 away to Zimbabwe (56 average) (I'm including this as it is quite damning to have such a poor series against Zimbabwe)
95-96 away to Australia (116 average)
96-97 away to New Zealand (40.17 average)
97-98 at home to India (41 average)
97-98 away to India (103.67 average)

 

[Tom Halsey]

Thats a poor view of things.

An analogy would be, Tendulkar averages, say 53 against Australia. Gayle averages, say 40 against Australia.

Now if Tendulkar played just Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for the next 4 years, his overall average and runs against minnows would undoubtedly get inflated. Lets say he plays them till a stage when 50% of his runs are made against minnows.


So, at that stage, Tendulkar would have around 50% more runs vs minnows than Gayle. However his average against Australia would just be around 8% more than Gayle.

And in your book, Gayle would thus be a better batsman.

Good thinking, Halsey.

No, Gayle would not be a better batsman solely on the back of that.

I also don't think Warne is a better bowler solely on the back of Minnow wickets. There are other factors.

My point is that Minnow wickets more than counter out tailend wickets in the Warne/Murali case. (20% to 6%)

 

[Tom Halsey]

You cannot run with a broken foot for day after day.
You cannot bowl with a broken arm for weeks straight
You cannot bowl with a dislocated shoulder for weeks.
Ask a doctor if you wish to confirm.

PS : To the best of my knowledge, Warney's shoulder was completely bolloxed and blew in the ODI series- he couldnt turn his arm over physically, painkiller or no painkiller. To say that the injury was the same and his painkillers simply wore off is misrepresenting the facts- i dont think( and unless a doctor confirms it categorically) that he would be physically able to turn his arm over with that kind of an injury. Minor discomfort/pain, maybe. Not a major injury.

How did he bowl in the ODIs, then?!

As to the first part of the post, you can, and plenty of bowlers have proved it.

 

[C_C]

However, due to Warne being put into Test cricket way too early, I took off his first 2 series when he bowled garbage, and I did say this.

Sorry but that is specifically modelling the stats to suit a particular player. Your debut series and early part of the career is just as important as your pinnacle, simply because, how fast you adapt to international cricket is also a benchmark to how good you are. I didn't remove Murali's initial series and neither did i for Warney.

 

[C_C]

How did he bowl in the ODIs, then?!

As to the first part of the post, you can, and plenty of bowlers have proved it.

Because his shoulder blew at a particular point, after which he withdrew from competition.
And while several bowlers have bowled a session or on a day while nursing a serious injury ( Imran Khan bowling with a broken foot or Malcolm Marshall bowling with a broken thumb), it is not possible to bowl an entire series with a serious injury. That is seriously devaluing the word 'serious'.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Because his shoulder blew at a particular point, after which he withdrew from competition.
And while several bowlers have bowled a session or on a day while nursing a serious injury ( Imran Khan bowling with a broken foot or Malcolm Marshall bowling with a broken thumb), it is not possible to bowl an entire series with a serious injury. That is seriously devaluing the word 'serious'.

2 things:

1) no-one knew how serious it was 'til he got home.

2) You couldn't do it with a broken foot, no, but you can do it with other injuries (and I'd say you could bowl in a whole series with a broken thumb, long as it was on the non-bowling hand).

 

[Deja moo]

No, Gayle would not be a better batsman solely on the back of that.

I also don't think Warne is a better bowler solely on the back of Minnow wickets. There are other factors.

My point is that Minnow wickets more than counter out tailend wickets in the Warne/Murali case. (20% to 6%)

In that case, Tendulkars runs against minnows would more than counter out the performances against quality opposition in the above mentioned Sachin/Gayle hypothesis. Theres no two ways about it. You cannot hold one true without holding the other true too. They're that similar. Make up your mind.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Sorry but that is specifically modelling the stats to suit a particular player. Your debut series and early part of the career is just as important as your pinnacle, simply because, how fast you adapt to international cricket is also a benchmark to how good you are. I didn't remove Murali's initial series and neither did i for Warney.

I removed Murali's initial series when saying he's had 6 series 40+.

EDIT: This is including Zimbabwe, because it's very poor to have a series so bad against a minnow.

 

[Tom Halsey]

In that case, Tendulkars runs against minnows would more than counter out the performances against quality opposition in the above mentioned Sachin/Gayle hypothesis. Theres no two ways about it. You cannot hold one true without holding the other true too. They're that similar. Make up your mind.

Yes they would, in terms of inflating averages. But there's much more to deciding who's better than that.

 

[C_C]

2 things:

1) no-one knew how serious it was 'til he got home.

2) You couldn't do it with a broken foot, no, but you can do it with other injuries (and I'd say you could bowl in a whole series with a broken thumb, long as it was on the non-bowling hand).

1. Perhaps. But it was still over-exgaggerated when applied to the test series. Simply no way can you bowl 50 overs a match while having a serious enough shoulder injury that prevents you physically from turning your arm over.

2. Not necessarily with a broken thumb,even if it were the non-bowling hand. Try moving your arm( even when the thumb is in plaster) and stomping around- the sheer amount of pain would be unbearable without sophisticated painkillers- which Marshall didn't have. In Warney's case, his injury, to my knowledge, prevented him from turning his arm over, which is why he went for surgery. Cant bowl when you cant turn your arm over. Sorry.

 

[C_C]

I removed Murali's initial series when saying he's had 6 series 40+.

EDIT: This is including Zimbabwe, because it's very poor to have a series so bad against a minnow.

Yes, but Warney still has a higher % of series averaging over 40 and 50 if you remove their initial series and look against quality opposition.

 

[Tom Halsey]

2. Not necessarily with a broken thumb,even if it were the non-bowling hand. Try moving your arm( even when the thumb is in plaster) and stomping around- the sheer amount of pain would be unbearable without sophisticated painkillers- which Marshall didn't have.

In which case this becomes completely irrelevant, because they do now.

 

[Deja moo]

Yes they would, in terms of inflating averages. But there's much more to deciding who's better than that.

And what comes out of it is that performances against minnows is such a tiny factor in such evaluations, simply because you can edit them out easily and compare just performances against non-minnows ( as has also been done) instead of harping on about them

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yes, but Warney still has a higher % of series averaging over 40 and 50 if you remove their initial series and look against quality opposition.

Not disputing that, but that's being selective because Murali also had a crap series against Zimbabwe. And this should be included because to have a bad series against Zimbabwe is even worse.

 

[C_C]

In which case this becomes completely irrelevant, because they do now.

When i mentioned Marshall's broken thumb, i was talking with the-then medicines in mind. I am sure you could bowl one day with half your brain blown off but today you cannot.

 

[social]

Not really. Adaptability = ability to modify one's abilities ( in this case, bowling) based on circumstances. Ie, how well you adapt to unknown circumstances - overseas bowling is a good indicator of adaptability and Murali is just as adaptable as Warne ( his overseas bowling ave. is marginally worse than Warney's).



Quite a few batsmen have produced superb series against lone-horsemen attacks, such as Imran-led Pakistan ( late 70s to mid/late 80s, before the emergence of Akram), Hadlee led NZ, Murali led SL, etc. It is simply because you dont face pressure all the time and sometimes you get to settle in before the main bowler comes back.
Against OZ, batsmen have no such luxury, largely due to the presence of McGrath.
But the few times Warney has had to carry the OZ attack in the absence of McGrath, much like Murali carries SL, Warney has been royally whacked- most notably in IND 1997. And overall he averages 27+ while bowling without McGrath, indiciating that he is less capable than Murali without McGrath making the initial strikes and Warney comming in to mop up.

Murali averages 19 at home BUT 27 away.

How you can claim that's being adaptable is beyond me.

Murali has a guy at the other end who's taken 300 test wickets - that's hardly being a lone horseman.

What does playing India in India have to do with the mountains of runs that have been scored by certain players against Murali in Sri Lanka?

What does playing India in India have to do with the fact that no batsman has had remotely the same success against Warne in Aus as others have had against Murali in India?

 

[Tom Halsey]

And what comes out of it is that performances against minnows is such a tiny factor in such evaluations, simply because you can edit them out easily and compare just performances against non-minnows ( as has also been done) instead of harping on about them

Taking out minnows would have a much bigger effect on Murali's average than taking out tailenders would have on Warne. Obviously Murali's average would still be better but there's other things to come into it than that.

 

[C_C]

Not disputing that, but that's being selective because Murali also had a crap series against Zimbabwe. And this should be included because to have a bad series against Zimbabwe is even worse.

I don't care how one does against poor oppositions. I do care how one does against the quality oppositions, given that the test of one's ability is performance against the best, not against the worst.
Sobers had a pathetic average against NZ too- but then again, NZ back then were a pathetic team.
It is irrelevant, since minnows are irrelevant to discussions of quality performances.