*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[honestbharani]

Both Brian Lara and Stephen Fleming, who to be fair have both dominated Murali on his home turf, have stated during the week that Warne and McGrath are by far the best bowlers that either have encountered during their international careers.

Not bad endorsements.

Brian Lara said something similar about Murali in an interview before the SL tour of WI, when he was captain...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

did u see the match, Sean? It is not about competition for wickets.. You could have had a bowling line up of Ambrose, McGrath, Warne and Murali and Murali would have still got those 7 wickets today. He got them all with very good balls, except for Sachin which wasn't a great shot... It had nothing to do with how good or how bad the bowler at the other end was.


Edit: And there was a BALL OF THIS CENTURY involved there too, the one with which he got Dhoni. He bowled around the stumps, from wide of the crease, it was a doosra, it pitched quite a distance outside leg stump and turned and hit off stump. It would have been called an awesome delivery if it had been bowled by a leg spinner, but this was from an OFF SPINNER. I personally felt honoured to have watched that ball live, even though it was on live TV.

No, I didn't see it, it's not televised in Australia.

I'm not commenting on the way be bowled today, but one of the reasons I don't particularly rate Murali's wickets-per-match ratio is the huge number of times I've seen him be handled pretty well (not bowl poorly, as he never really bowls poorly, just be played well) and still end up with say 6/120 from 50 overs or something, simply beacuse nobody else was taking wickets. If a bowler bowls 20-30 overs and takes 1 or 2 wickets, in a good side that's all the overs they're going to get, unless the other bowlers are also being played extremely well. There were plenty of examples of this in the Australian tour of Sri Lanka last year, where Australia would get to like 4/300 out of which Murali would have 1/80 or 2/100 or whatever, and then he'd run through the tail as Australia got out for 400 odd and finish with 5 or 6 wickets without having bowled particularly remarkably.

So, when I saw him with 2/78 or something at stumps on day 1, and then 7/100 when the innings ended, I kind of assumed it was the same phenomenon. Obviously, based on the testimony of those who watched it, it wasn't exactly that.

 

[greg]

No, I didn't see it, it's not televised in Australia.

I'm not commenting on the way be bowled today, but one of the reasons I don't particularly rate Murali's wickets-per-match ratio is the huge number of times I've seen him be handled pretty well (not bowl poorly, as he never really bowls poorly, just be played well) and still end up with say 6/120 from 50 overs or something, simply beacuse nobody else was taking wickets. If a bowler bowls 20-30 overs and takes 1 or 2 wickets, in a good side that's all the overs they're going to get, unless the other bowlers are also being played extremely well. There were plenty of examples of this in the Australian tour of Sri Lanka last year, where Australia would get to like 4/300 out of which Murali would have 1/80 or 2/100 or whatever, and then he'd run through the tail as Australia got out for 400 odd and finish with 5 or 6 wickets without having bowled particularly remarkably.

So, when I saw him with 2/78 or something at stumps on day 1, and then 7/100 when the innings ended, I kind of assumed it was the same phenomenon. Obviously, based on the testimony of those who watched it, it wasn't exactly that.

Sounds like the Australian Ashes attack to me...

 

[a massive zebra]

I'm not commenting on the way be bowled today, but one of the reasons I don't particularly rate Murali's wickets-per-match ratio is the huge number of times I've seen him be handled pretty well (not bowl poorly, as he never really bowls poorly, just be played well) and still end up with say 6/120 from 50 overs or something, simply beacuse nobody else was taking wickets. If a bowler bowls 20-30 overs and takes 1 or 2 wickets, in a good side that's all the overs they're going to get, unless the other bowlers are also being played extremely well. There were plenty of examples of this in the Australian tour of Sri Lanka last year, where Australia would get to like 4/300 out of which Murali would have 1/80 or 2/100 or whatever, and then he'd run through the tail as Australia got out for 400 odd and finish with 5 or 6 wickets without having bowled particularly remarkably.

This sounds very reminiscent of Warne in the Ashes if you ask me, and nearly everyone hailed his performance in this series as among the best of his entire career. Christ, the got the BBC overseas sports personality of the year with performances similar to those you mention above.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Except Warne consistently took wickets throughout the innings. He took the first wicket to fall in six of the ten English innings in the Ashes, and regularly took them in his first over or two as well. Regularly England would be 0/100+ when he came on, and be 2/120 at lunch or something.

It's certainly true that Warne taking 8 wickets a match was because of the impotence of the rest of the attack from tests 2-4, but what I'm talking about with Murali is a little different.

In the first test against Australia in 2004, Murali had 1 wicket for well over 100 when Australia were 3/450, and when Australia declared at 8/512 he had 5/153 from 56 overs. Those wickets didn't contribute to anything. Now obviously, that's a slog leading to a declaration, and every bowler gets cheap wickets then, but a similar thing happened in the second test as well. Australia lost their last 5 wickets for 82 in a big score of 442, and Murali took 4 of them and finished with 5/126 from 38 overs.

Now, I'm not actually suggesting he doesn't deserve these wickets, because obviously he's bowled well enough to get them and he does, but it seems to me that instead of going from 1/120 to 5/150 and bowling 50+ overs, if he were in a better team he might just take 1/60 instead. Running through the tail is a skill every bowler needs, btu when the opposition has already scored over 500 it really isn't worth as much as it is if you take the ball at 5/100 and knock them over for 150. Murali took 28 @ 21 in that series, which is almost 10 wickets a test, and is obviously a superb series, but I don't think his impact on the outcome of the series was anything like that significant. He bowled superbly on several occasions, but on others he was handled well, Australia amassed huge scores and by the time Murali took his wickets the contest was over.

 

[honestbharani]

I am not sure about that particular instance against Australia, but I can tell you today he bowled a brilliant spell, and the pitch was such that well set batsmen had it easy but it was very difficult for new batsmen. So there is little surprise that both Murali and Kumble picked up a few wickets once they got one.

 

[Tom Halsey]

This sounds very reminiscent of Warne in the Ashes if you ask me, and nearly everyone hailed his performance in this series as among the best of his entire career. Christ, the got the BBC overseas sports personality of the year with performances similar to those you mention above.

Not really. The only time I remember him benifitting from running through the tail significantly was the 1st Innings at OT.

 

[hamesh]

Warney

i think that warney is a much better cricketer
At least he can bat a bit and he can field!!!!

 

[hamesh]

And

he may be older and have less time in test match cricket,
but he has played very few matches against the (relatively) rubbish teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh subsequently he hasnt got many wickets against them

 

[hamesh]

murali however

On the otherhand Murali has got a very high proportion of his wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh

 

[C_C]

Look, taking wickets and averages are directly proportional to the quality of the attacks.

If you are the lone great horseman, you will take more wickets than you would if you had backup from other great bowlers. Simply because the majority of wicket-taking balls come from you. But being the lone great horseman, the opposition has a much better chance of seeing you off ( while attacking other lesser bowlers) than if you were in a great bowling attack.
A classic example would be the aussie attack vs the sl attack. Australia has two great bowlers- McGrath and Warne, who often wreck the opposition. Gillespie is/was excellent and Lee, while being an ordinary test bowler, is definately better than anything SL has gotto offer barring Vaas and Murali.
As such, Warne has more competition for his wickets which is why he gets less wickets/match. But owing to the fact that OZ bowling maintains a much tighter pressure than the SL one( since OZ has more quality bowlers and as such, you cannot play off one quality bowler and wait for a mediocre one) the pressure on the batsmen is stronger.
Since the batsmen dont have the luxury of playing you out of the attack, you should have an excellent average. This is classic of the WI pace quartets- you simply COULDNT play the 'good bowlers' off and wait for mediocres to pop in the crease- you play off Marshall and Holding and you get Garner and Roberts waiting for their chance. You play them off and Holding and Macco are back in the attack. Its not like with Hadlee or Imran, where you could play them off and capitalise on lesser bowlers.
This is the sole reason ( IMO) why Hadlee and Imran average more than Marshall/Holding/Garner etc.
But considering the fact that Murali takes more wickets than Warne and averages significantly lesser - lesser even IF you leave out ZIM/BD, along with the fact that Murali is far more successful against the best players of spin- India- than Warne, it isnt surprising that many consider Murali as a superior bowler.
True, Murali has more favourable pitch conditions, but Warne has a much much better bowling attack at his disposal and favourable pitch conditions are overrated.
Simply because one adapts to the conditions one faces the most often.
In the subcontinent, you need balls that shoot off the pitch and subtle variations of flight to snag wickets - which is the forte of Kumble and which is why Kumble is deadly in the subcontinent. Great spinners from outside the subcontinent - such as Gibbs, Laker, Warne, etc. typically rely on exgaggerated bounce and bigger turn to snag wickets- and they dont do that well in the subcontinent.
Same with pace bowlers - the non subcontinental pace bowlers have typically relied on bounce and short pitched deliveries to take wickets while the subcontinental pacers typically pitch it up far more often and rely on sheer speed and/or movement to snag wickets. This is adaptation- outside the subcontinent the pitches are bouncier and jucier, giving the bowlers an obvious pattern of attack. Short pitched ones dont work in the subcontinent, simply because the bounce is not as exgaggerated. On the other hand, the abrasive pitches in the subcontinent helps reverse the ball better and cut it better too.
Which is why non-subcontinental pacers typically do worse in the subcontinent while subcontinental pacers do worse outside the subcontinent.
Owing to this, i think if positions were switched- Warne in SL attack and Murali in OZ attack, you would see Warne pick up more wickets- 5+ wickets/match but his average would balloon up by a few points. And you'd see Murali drop to under 5 wickets/match but his average shrink by a few points ( putting him in the below 20s zone).

Most lone-horsemen bowlers show this pattern when compared to one who has support.
Hadlee took more wickets/match but had a worse average than Marshall.
Donald's average improved markedly when pollock showed up ( before Pollock he averaged 25-ish, after pollock he averaged 21 ish) while his wickets/match didnt change significantly.
The fact that Murali takes more wickets and averages more than Warne, as well as doing significantly better against the best players of spin clinches it for Murali as far as i am concerned.
Warne is a more brainy bowler than Murali is IMO - he is better at sniffing out a player's weakness and constructing a plan to bowl to that.
But Murali is a more skilled bowler than Warne - he has more control than Warne ( which is why he is hit around the park far less often than Warne is) and his bag of variations are far more lethal.
Both are world champions and i would love to have both in the attack but i think Murali edges Warne by a little.

 

[social]

But Murali is a more skilled bowler than Warne - he has more control than Warne ( which is why he is hit around the park far less often than Warne is) and his bag of variations are far more lethal.
QUOTE]

I respect that people can have their favourites, but sweping statements like the above are simply nonsense.

(BTW, you forgot to mention that Warne has never been dominated in a fashion like Lara, Fleming, Ponting, etc all managed to do to Murali for entire series at a time in conditions specifically designed to assist him)

 

[a massive zebra]

Murali is far more consistent. This is an undeniable and statistically provable fact. Warne has been known to be hammered occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he is very rarely hit around the park. Lara, Fleming, Ponting have never destroyed Murali in the manner that Tendulkar, Lara and Shastri have dominated Warne. Take a look at the instances where either bowler has gone at over 3.3 an over for at least 30 overs while taking no more than 3 wickets.

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur

Murali
36 6 123 1 3.42 1 L 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
54 3 224 2 4.15 2 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1 L 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin

No contest. Also, a high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway). What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?

 

[Tom Halsey]

No contest. Also, a high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway). What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?

Numbers 8-11 n most Test teams aren't a whole lot worse than most Zimbabweans and Bangladeshis against whom Murali benefits against so often.

Warne v India has already been discussed, and Warne does trouble Lara - in the Super Test, he troubled all of the top batters, and Warne's had a good record against Lara apart from the '99 series where he was in the worst form of his life, so if you take that out he's got a very good record against Lara actually. (Of course there's no excuse for poor form but everyone's allowed a poor series now and again, especially as it was right after his shoulder).

 

[Tom Halsey]

Warne has been known to be hammered occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he is very rarely hit around the park.

Rubbish - and the stats with which you use to back this up are very selective. I'm sure if you did your research about Murali v Lara etc (as you did for Warne a while ago) you'd find Murali has an atrocious record against quite a few top players (and on pitches on which he should be in his element).

 

[Tom Halsey]

favourable pitch conditions are overrated.

When Ashley Giles has turned it square whenever he's been in SL, no they're not.

(This isn't a slight on Gilo, but it cannot be denied that he does not turn it much).

 

[C_C]

But Murali is a more skilled bowler than Warne - he has more control than Warne ( which is why he is hit around the park far less often than Warne is) and his bag of variations are far more lethal.
QUOTE]

I respect that people can have their favourites, but sweping statements like the above are simply nonsense.

(BTW, you forgot to mention that Warne has never been dominated in a fashion like Lara, Fleming, Ponting, etc all managed to do to Murali for entire series at a time in conditions specifically designed to assist him)

Err.
Murali does have more control than Warne- Warne tends to have bad matches far more often than Murali does - Murali has a far better economy rate than Warne, particularly against top teams - and economy rate is the best guage of control and accuracy.

As per Warne never being dominated by Lara where he should be in his element, Warne has been whacked by lara a few times - 99 series is one ( and yes, it IS in his element because if subcontinental pitches are to Murali's element, the caribbean pitches of the 90s is definately right up Warney's ballpark as the WI pitches of the 80s and 90s were very similar to AUS pitches of the 80s and 90s).
Ponting is irrelevant to the discussion, as Ponting never gets to face Warne( which is why you have to leave out SL and AUS players when discussing Warne and Murali).
However, Warne has been absolutely massacred by Tendulkar, Azhar, etc. while Murali has done far better against them.
Even when Lara dominated SL in the 2001/02 series, Murali rarely went for massive runs- Lara played him cautiously ( i have large chunks of the matches in that series).

 

[C_C]

When Ashley Giles has turned it square whenever he's been in SL, no they're not.

(This isn't a slight on Gilo, but it cannot be denied that he does not turn it much).

Except that simple turn is irrelevant against topnotch players of spin, just like simple pace is irrelevant against top players of pace. The point isnt whether Warne can turn it massively in the subcontinent- he can. Or whether Murali can get more bounce in OZ- he does. The point is, who is better adept at using the conditions to aid them- subcontinental bowlers simply are more adept at subcontinental conditions while non subcontinental bowlers are more adept at non subcontinental conditions. Warne uses the bouncier pitches of of OZ far better than the square turners of the subcontinent and vice versa for Murali.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Warne uses the bouncier pitches of of OZ far better than the square turners of the subcontinent

Not really, because Warne has top-notch records in both SL and Pakistan, and India has already been discussed.

 

[C_C]

Not really, because Warne has top-notch records in both SL and Pakistan, and India has already been discussed.

India has already been discussed ? You will find that your excuses for Warne's performances in India are spurious. Simply because during his performance in India, he was neither injured, nor was he enduring a bad patch- he was doing fine and just hit a brick wall against India.