*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[parttimer]

Watching Murali field is like watching 'Eric the Eel' cough and splutter his way to 50 at the Syd Olympics. Ok maybe not that bad but to compare him to Warne is just wrong. Whats next, in his heyday he was also a better bat than Warne?

 

[Ikki]

FOR THE LAST TIME : A slow motion replay is irrelevant unless seen from different simultaneous camera angles, simply because you are trying to judge a 3-d motion from a 2-d frame of reference. This means split screen, precise timing replays, etc etc.

And if you knew something about cricket, you'd realise that Warne has been pasted more often and more violently than Murali has been. Infact i consider Warne to be far more padded up than Murali, given that Murali carries his attack and Warne is only marginally better than Kumble when he doesnt have McGrath to make things easy for him. Meanwhile people pandy out bull***** excuses about Warne being injured even before the injury occured,the magical feat of bowling 150 overs in 3 weeks despite a debilitating shoulder injury ( supposedly career threatening), being pandied the injury stuff despite him being back into the game for over a year after the injury related issues, etc. etc.
This is what you call media management - something the OZ media excells at. Another overhyped one is Denis Lillee but then again, OZ and the prime tormentee English consider a bowler with abyssimal track record on unfriendly surfaces ( which is negligible experience anyways) along with a mediocre record against the best batting lineup of his time to be 'one of the best' pace bowlers.
Perhaps if you turned down the blind patriotism and machismo, you can view things differently.

I've heard some whoppers in my time but..... None as consistant from our dear mate C_C.

Regarding the simultaneous slow-mo cameras...They've done that more than a few times on T.V. . With splitting screens while both played at the same speed and displaying the action and release. I actually wonder, if you've seen Murali bowl C_C. If you have, how many times?

 

[JBH001]

Anyway, rather continuing a futile discussion, Ill state the really really obvious: Murali bowled absolute crap the other night for the umpteenth time in Aus. If I had absolutely no knowledge of cricket or was completely biased in my views, I could draw the conclusion that Murali's record is the most padded in history as he is shown up whenever he plays decent batsmen in decent batting conditions.

Actually you could say the same of almost any bowler - great or otherwise.

More to the point, I believe Murali has been in a decline recently.
This decline exacerbated during and since the Test series against India.

Of course, from one point of view he is overdue for a form slump and it was bound to happen sooner or later.

But from another - it may simply be mental and physical exhaustion.
As commented on in a recent interview he gave in Australia, he is contemplating retirement in 2007. The record for test wickets now seems to mean little - something you would not have found him saying a year or so ago.

I have thought for a while that if he want longevity in the game he needs to follow Warnes example and give up on the one day cricket. As Alex Kontouris (sp?) the ex SL physio commented a while ago - his action, given his physique, is a biomechanical mess and causes a great deal of stress on his body, especially the shoulder. Thus the number of surgical procedures. Unfortunately the paucity of Lankas bowling stocks (where will they be when Vaas and Murali retire?) means that this is not an option.

Also, IMO and as already mentioned by a couple of others in this forum the doosra - or more precisely the sharp doosra has had an inimical effect on his bowling.
I believe he was the better bowler when he simply had the offie, the top spinner, and the weaker form of the doosra. In those days he was more the classic Offie in terms of mentality and spirit - more willing to use his brain and tease and attack and attack.

With the advent of the sharper doosra he has become lazy and seems to be constructing his whole attack based on this ball - which is really not all that great, and can be read.
This over-reliance on the doosra and the circumstances that led to his development of it, illustrates the trouble he has had with lefties in his career and the ascendance that Thorpe had over him in 2001 (?) and especially Lara after that. He simply could not touch Lara.

As to where I stand on this overhyped repetitive debate?
I believe Warne has the edge - a slight edge.
Why? I believe he is mentally stronger - IMO Murali tends to retreat if a good batsman goes after him and consistenty gets at him. Warne welcomes the battle even if he is getting clobbered. Of course this may be a result of the comparative bowling stocks of both countries (Murali often stock and strike) but you can only comment on what you see on the field. Warne seems more of a competitor.

As to whom I like watching more? Murali by a long, long mile.
There is something about seeing him wheeling away - the spinning of the ball, the look of concentration, the eyeballs popping out, and the big grin at the end.
I would rather watch him bowl than Warne - maybe even for that undercurrent of fallibility he has exhibited over the years, which seems to be sadly more pronounced now.

 

[honestbharani]

Watching Murali field is like watching 'Eric the Eel' cough and splutter his way to 50 at the Syd Olympics. Ok maybe not that bad but to compare him to Warne is just wrong. Whats next, in his heyday he was also a better bat than Warne?

If you have not seen Murali as a fielder around 98-2002 or so, I can understand you making the point. He was easily the quickest among the Sri Lankan fielders at that time. Warne is a very good first slipper, but not that great elsewhere. Murali is a very good outfielder. You are comparing two guys who do different jobs in the field. But since you cannot have slips all the time in ODIs, I would easily rate Murali above Warney as a fielder in ODIs. In tests, I think they are equal. But Murali, today, is not a good fielder at all, because of injuries and everything. HIs throw is very weak and he is not as quick as he used to be.

 

[social]

If you have not seen Murali as a fielder around 98-2002 or so, I can understand you making the point. He was easily the quickest among the Sri Lankan fielders at that time. Warne is a very good first slipper, but not that great elsewhere. Murali is a very good outfielder. You are comparing two guys who do different jobs in the field. But since you cannot have slips all the time in ODIs, I would easily rate Murali above Warney as a fielder in ODIs. In tests, I think they are equal. But Murali, today, is not a good fielder at all, because of injuries and everything. HIs throw is very weak and he is not as quick as he used to be.

Correct.

Years ago, Murali was an excellent fieldsman.

However, he is barely serviceable these days and, if forced to run and throw, somewhat of a liability because the batsmen can generally take an extra run.

 

[Dissector]

"Regarding the simultaneous slow-mo cameras...They've done that more than a few times on T.V."

Is this simultaneous cameras for the same delivery by the same bowler? What are the angles? Anyway two is not nearly enough to get a proper three-dimensional analysis. In the lab you have at least 4 or 5 cameras and IIRC for the official tests on Murali you had 12 cameras. And of course there is the matter of actually identifying and measuring the different angles :extension/hyperextension/abduction etc. The bottom line is that the untrained eye can't tell anything much from replays no matter how convincing they look.

 

[parttimer]

If you have not seen Murali as a fielder around 98-2002 or so, I can understand you making the point. He was easily the quickest among the Sri Lankan fielders at that time. Warne is a very good first slipper, but not that great elsewhere. Murali is a very good outfielder. You are comparing two guys who do different jobs in the field. But since you cannot have slips all the time in ODIs, I would easily rate Murali above Warney as a fielder in ODIs. In tests, I think they are equal. But Murali, today, is not a good fielder at all, because of injuries and everything. HIs throw is very weak and he is not as quick as he used to be.

How is not Warne not that great elsewhere i remember him taking some great catches in the gully and point so theres no doubt he's has the better pair of hands. I'm afraid you don't become first slip without them. He is good along the boundary too with a very strong arm and decently quick across the outfield, on the rare occasion when asked to field there. Show me some clips of Murali fielding like Symonds (to make up for Warne's superior hands) and i'll agree with you.

 

[social]

"Regarding the simultaneous slow-mo cameras...They've done that more than a few times on T.V."

Is this simultaneous cameras for the same delivery by the same bowler? What are the angles? Anyway two is not nearly enough to get a proper three-dimensional analysis. In the lab you have at least 4 or 5 cameras and IIRC for the official tests on Murali you had 12 cameras. And of course there is the matter of actually identifying and measuring the different angles :extension/hyperextension/abduction etc. The bottom line is that the untrained eye can't tell anything much from replays no matter how convincing they look.

The naked eye doesnt have to measure degrees of flexion in an action - it only has to determine whether a bowler's action warrants further investigation.

In this regard, the slo-mo is also irrelevant - it only confirms viewers point of view. It has no relevance for the umpires.

Unfortunately, anyone that saw clips of Murali bowling the other night would have to say that his action was dodgy. IMO, it was as bad as Ive ever seen it.

Now, it may simply reflect the fact that he wasnt bowling well and, as such, things werent working as they should. However, that's irrelevant for the purpose at hand.

In any event, the chances of Murali being reported in Aus by an Aus umpire again would be around about zero.

 

[C_C]

Regarding the simultaneous slow-mo cameras...They've done that more than a few times on T.V. . With splitting screens while both played at the same speed and displaying the action and release. I actually wonder, if you've seen Murali bowl C_C. If you have, how many times?

And pray tell, learned one,how many slow motion camera working simultaneously, do we need to accurately project and analyse a 3-d motion in a 2-d frame of reference with 1-2 degree margin of error.

 

[C_C]

Murali a better fielder than Warne, who just so happens to Aus' first slip? Surely you jest..

Murali is a far better fielder than Warne. Warne is a better catcher.
Its a bit like comparing Mark Waugh with Azharuddin or Herschelle Gibbs.

 

[Dissector]

"The naked eye doesnt have to measure degrees of flexion in an action - it only has to determine whether a bowler's action warrants further investigation."

As I mentioned earlier it doesn't makes any sense to keep testing the same bowler unless there is some significant change for the worse in his action. So if a bowler's action "looks dodgy" that might be a good reason to test him once but it's not a sufficient reason to keep testing him. Anyway the only naked-eye opinion that matters is that of the umpires and referee. They haven't reported Murali and that's that.

 

[social]

Murali is a far better fielder than Warne. Warne is a better catcher.
Its a bit like comparing Mark Waugh with Azharuddin or Herschelle Gibbs.

Still having trouble admitting youre wrong, I see.

 

[social]

"The naked eye doesnt have to measure degrees of flexion in an action - it only has to determine whether a bowler's action warrants further investigation."

As I mentioned earlier it doesn't makes any sense to keep testing the same bowler unless there is some significant change for the worse in his action. So if a bowler's action "looks dodgy" that might be a good reason to test him once but it's not a sufficient reason to keep testing him. Anyway the only naked-eye opinion that matters is that of the umpires and referee. They haven't reported Murali and that's that.

The problem is that a bowler's action can change for any no. of reasons - injury, tiredness, etc.

Look at Shabbir - action deemed OK for the first 3 days of a test, banned for his bowling during the last 2.

 

[displaced]

FOR THE LAST TIME : *snip*.

I presume we can hold you to that...

 

[Ikki]

And pray tell, learned one,how many slow motion camera working simultaneously, do we need to accurately project and analyse a 3-d motion in a 2-d frame of reference with 1-2 degree margin of error.

You tell me scientist? For my reply, or implication, read Social's posts. They're on the same lines. I was implying that with those cameras, at different angles and simultaneously, one can definately conclude if an action is "dodgy" or not. Nevermind tests...I'll leave that to your lab-mates. BTW I asked if you had seen Murali bowl? If a lot at that and if recently at all? Honestly please...let's not pollute the discussion if you are really judging the matter on different merits.

 

[Ikki]

Murali is a far better fielder than Warne. Warne is a better catcher.
Its a bit like comparing Mark Waugh with Azharuddin or Herschelle Gibbs.

Another Whopper...at this rate I'd advise you to open a Hungry Jacks/Burger King chain.

 

[C_C]

You tell me scientist? For my reply, or implication, read Social's posts. They're on the same lines. I was implying that with those cameras, at different angles and simultaneously, one can definately conclude if an action is "dodgy" or not. Nevermind tests...I'll leave that to your lab-mates. BTW I asked if you had seen Murali bowl? If a lot at that and if recently at all? Honestly please...let's not pollute the discussion if you are really judging the matter on different merits.

I will tell you this- it depends on how far the test subject is from the camera(s) and normally, atleast 3 simultaneous perspective cameras are required.
And what you are implying, is something i am well aware of. Trouble is, it is NOT a valid way to conclude, since you need to do frame by frame analysis with control over the frame-rate projections.
And i've seen Murali bowl considerably in the past. Havnt seen much of him in the past 9-10 months.

And i would request likes of you and social not to pollute the thread about flexions and its judgement/guaging without having an iota of knowledge on what physics principles are involved and what the correct methodology is. Its a bit like me telling Picasso how to paint. Which would be preposterous.

 

[C_C]

Another Whopper...at this rate I'd advise you to open a Hungry Jacks/Burger King chain.

I get the impression that either some of the Aussies havnt seen much of Murali fielding or if they have, they really got their nationalistic blinkers on. How anyone can say Warne is a better fielder than Murali is beyond me, for the only thing Warne can do competently in the field is catch, while Murali does catching, running and diving stops ( atleast, he did diving stops until 2-years ago with brilliant results) with far greater aplomb than Warne can muster.

 

[Top_Cat]

You tell me scientist? For my reply, or implication, read Social's posts. They're on the same lines. I was implying that with those cameras, at different angles and simultaneously, one can definately conclude if an action is "dodgy" or not. Nevermind tests...I'll leave that to your lab-mates.

You sound distinctly anti-intellectual here. It's like you calling C_C a 'scientist' should be something of an insult when by definition, science is neutral so calling someone a scientist can neither be insulting nor complementary without some form of bias attached to the insinuation.

As for whether Warne is a better fielder than Murali, it's too hard to say because Warne has almost never been a boundary-rider. He's almost always been in the slips or close-in but mostly slips. I do distinctly remember that Murali was an absolute gun in the field in his early days both with the mitts and along the ground. Now, he's a bit of a liability.

 

[luckyeddie]

I get the impression that either some of the Aussies havnt seen much of Murali fielding or if they have, they really got their nationalistic blinkers on. How anyone can say Warne is a better fielder than Murali is beyond me, for the only thing Warne can do competently in the field is catch, while Murali does catching, running and diving stops ( atleast, he did diving stops until 2-years ago with brilliant results) with far greater aplomb than Warne can muster.

I've seen Warney do diving stops - although it was more 'aplop' than 'aplomb'.