*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Yes, but today you can also bowl with Warnie's injury during the India series.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I don't care how one does against poor oppositions.

Well you should because if someone's struggling against very poor opposition there's a problem. Obviously if they do well against them it shouldn't really matter because they should be doing well against poor opposition.

 

[Deja moo]

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.

And dont you think it would be wise to dwell on those other factors, which Murali would have some degree of control over, rather than one tiny one which he has had absolutely no control over ( and its not even a minus for him, because he still comes out on top in the breakup of wickets after the minnows are removed)..

 

[C_C]

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?

Warney averages 25.32 in the opposition's den.
Murali averages 27.33 in the opposition's den.
That is a negligible gap really, considering that Murali doesnt have the vaunted support cast Warney has had for most of his career. Yes, Vaas is an excellent bowler but Vaas is in Gillespie's class and Warney still has had McGrath, McGill,Fleming, etc. all of whom are either alltime great bowlers or excellent ones. As such, minus Murali and Vaas, SL bowling is marginally better than club bowling. In that sense, Murali is very much a lone horseman compared to Warne.
How much you adapt is dependent not on how you do in home conditions but how you do away from home.
The only reason batsmen havn't produced monster series vs OZ like some have against SL is because OZ have far more depth in bowling attack and if one doesnt clean you up, others will.
What you are arguing is flawed, simply because it is like arguing Richard Hadlee is not as good as Courtney Walsh because more batsmen have annihilated NZ attack than WI attack of which Walsh was a part of.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And dont you think it would be wise to dwell on those other factors, which Murali would have some degree of control over, rather than one tiny one which he has had absolutely no control over ( and its not even a minus for him, because he still comes out on top in the breakup of wickets after the minnows are removed)..

How Murali taking loads of wickets against naff opposition isn't a minus is beyond me.

Murali also doesn't have any control over the wickets he plays on, but it certainly inflates his average.

 

[C_C]

Yes, but today you can also bowl with Warnie's injury during the India series.

No you cannot. Warney's injury prevented him from turning his arm over.
And before Warney left for IND, he had an evaluation from the team physio in OZ- he got the all clear ( which isnt given in case of career-threatening injury).
It is simply utterly baseless and media BS that says Warney had a career threatening injury vs IND in 1997 tests- just as baseless as applying my current injury,incurred yesterday to my performance 3 weeks ago.

 

[C_C]

Well you should because if someone's struggling against very poor opposition there's a problem. Obviously if they do well against them it shouldn't really matter because they should be doing well against poor opposition.

One cannot reward success against an opponent when one isnt willing to criticise the failing against the same opposition and vice versa.
If Murali's bad series against ZIM is a cause of criticism, then his success against them is equally worthy of praise.
Which is why i completely remove minnows from the equation, simply because performance against minnows is largely irrelevant.

 

[Deja moo]

How Murali taking loads of wickets against naff opposition isn't a minus is beyond me.

Murali also doesn't have any control over the wickets he plays on, but it certainly inflates his average.

It would be a minus, and to the same degree, as runs against minnows would be to Sachin in that hypothesis.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And before Warney left for IND, he had an evaluation from the team physio in OZ- he got the all clear ( which isnt given in case of career-threatening injury).

Only because, as I understand it, it was decided to get through the india series on painkillers, and sort it out afterwards. Because it deteriorated worse than they thought it would, the operation after then was more serious than it was thought.

 

[C_C]

Only because, as I understand it, it was decided to get through the india series on painkillers, and sort it out afterwards. Because it deteriorated worse than they thought it would, the operation after then was more serious than it was thought.

Yes. Which means his injury was nominal/bothersome when he went to IND and blew up into a career-threatening injury later on. I have no reasons to believe that Warney's condition, upon landing in IND was any worse than most players carrying minor niggles and aches.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It would be a minus, and to the same degree, as runs against minnows would be to Sachin in that hypothesis.

Agreed.

 

[Deja moo]

Agreed.

I'm glad we agree on this, because I'm also pretty sure most people would agree that it wasnt a minus for Sachin at all.

 

[luckyeddie]

One cannot reward success against an opponent when one isnt willing to criticise the failing against the same opposition and vice versa.
If Murali's bad series against ZIM is a cause of criticism, then his success against them is equally worthy of praise.
Which is why i completely remove minnows from the equation, simply because performance against minnows is largely irrelevant.

Often, people remove them because they think they are irrelevant.

These people are not statisticians.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'm glad we agree on this, because I'm also pretty sure most people would agree that it wasnt a minus for Sachin at all.

He's definately a better player, but it would inflate his average compared to Gayle's much like Murali's compared to Warne.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If Murali's bad series against ZIM is a cause of criticism, then his success against them is equally worthy of praise.

No because most people have success against minnows, very few fail. Murali was one of the few who's had a very bad series against Zimbabwe.

 

[C_C]

No because most people have success against minnows, very few fail. Murali was one of the few who's had a very bad series against Zimbabwe.

Sorry, doesnt compute.
Again, if one is to be criticised for failing against X, one has to be praised equally for performing against X.
If a player is criticised for being 'crap' because they stuffed up against the best opposition( for eg, OZ), it is fair to be praised equally if they succeed against the said opposition. Simply because that is consistent.
And vice versa.
The reason nobody is praised overly for performing against the minnows is because the minnows arnt very challenging. Thus nobody should be overly criticised either for failing against the minnows for the very same reason.
If the challenge is missing, the performance is much less significant, be it for the better or for the worse.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Again, if one is to be criticised for failing against X, one has to be praised equally for performing against X.

No, because it's all relative. Murali had a failure against Zimbabwe. He's pretty much on his own here. No praise should go out for success against Zimbabwe, everyone succeeds, but criticism should go out for failing, because he's one of the only ones who has.

How someone can be let off for having what can only be described as an awful series against the then worst side in Test cricket is beyond me.

 

[C_C]

No, because it's all relative. Murali had a failure against Zimbabwe. He's pretty much on his own here. No praise should go out for success against Zimbabwe, everyone succeeds, but criticism should go out for failing, because he's one of the only ones who has.

How someone can be let off for having what can only be described as an awful series against the then worst side in Test cricket is beyond me.

Criticism and failure are related to the same subject and therefore, must go hand in hand.
It is inconsistent to criticise someone's greatness ( for eg. Saurav Ganguly) when they've done poorly against top shelf bowling while praising someone's greatness ( for eg. Tendulkar) when they've done excellently against top shelf bowling and not to apply it in the reverse.

The only reason one can be let off for having an aweful series vs a poor side is the very same reason why one will not be overly praised for success against a poor side- consistency in evaluating the performance against the same side.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry, doesnt compute.
Again, if one is to be criticised for failing against X, one has to be praised equally for performing against X.
If a player is criticised for being 'crap' because they stuffed up against the best opposition( for eg, OZ), it is fair to be praised equally if they succeed against the said opposition. Simply because that is consistent.
And vice versa.
The reason nobody is praised overly for performing against the minnows is because the minnows arnt very challenging. Thus nobody should be overly criticised either for failing against the minnows for the very same reason.
If the challenge is missing, the performance is much less significant, be it for the better or for the worse.

So, when Australia loses to Bangladesh, the same criticism should be equal to the praises when beating Bangladesh? Sorry, mate that whole post is bordering on the imbecilic. How about the other way round? Bangladesh beating Australia should only be as happy as they are when failing against Australia?...Whew...stuff up there mate

 

[C_C]

So, when Australia loses to Bangladesh, the same criticism should be equal to the praises when beating Bangladesh? Sorry, mate that whole post is bordering on the imbecilic. How about the other way round? Bangladesh beating Australia should only be as happy as they are when failing against Australia?...Whew...stuff up there mate

Nothing imbecillic about that- if the record is relevant, then all record is relevant against the said team- both victory/loss, good performance and bad performance. It is contradictory to froth at the mouth condemning the failure against team X when success against team X is not praised with the same vigour and vice versa. How Bangladesh reacts in winning/losing to OZ is an entirely different ballgame than OZ reacting to BD, simply because while BD is a minnow, OZ isnt. This example isnt a minnow vs minnow or a major vs major, but rather, minnow vs major, where two teams are evaluated on differing criterias ( performance against minnows are largely irrelevant- performance against every other team is relevant.You cannot take only losses or victories or bad records/good records against a particular team selectively).

PS: You still havn't explained what is 'culturally accepted' bowling method.