*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[marc71178]

Not all the time actually. Some camera angle footages are left intact.

Nowhere near enough to provide any relevant shots.

 

[marc71178]

Every recording equipment- even an electron microscope- is inaccurate. As long as your minimum range value remains over the margin of error, the values are acceptable.

8 degrees out of 14 is more than 50% - that is not acceptable.

 

[marc71178]

Firstly, you cannot use your tv screen to comment on anyone's action- you cannot analyse a 2-d projection of a 3d movement without the benifit of a different camera angle simultaneously showing its point of view.

Yet when it suits you, you say the TV images can be used retrospectively...

 

[marc71178]

I think the margin of error was not big enough to rule that they weren't chucking.

Oh I agree - I think that those old images are useless for what's being discussed here.

 

[marc71178]

yeah, a record which included more tailenders as a proportion of his wickets than Muralis. So you arent wise enough to get this, after all

And you're glossing over the large number of minnow wickets in Murali's record, or do they suddenly become better players because it suits?

 

[Deja moo]

And you're glossing over the large number of minnow wickets in Murali's record, or do they suddenly become better players because it suits?

Proportion marc, not absolute numbers.

 

[parttimer]

I'd rather be facing whoever's less likely to take my wicket and on most pitches, that would probably be Lee.

 

[marc71178]

Proportion marc, not absolute numbers.

Yes, but why should wickets of minnow batsmen who may bat at 4 be classed as "top" wickets?

 

[Pratters]

I'd rather be facing whoever's less likely to take my wicket and on most pitches, that would probably be Lee.

It wouldnt make a difference as you would be out whether its Lee or Warne who is bowling.
Lee could hurt you more though. Think about that.

 

[Deja moo]

Yes, but why should wickets of minnow batsmen who may bat at 4 be classed as "top" wickets?

When Murali plays Zim, I'm assuming he picks up wickets from all over the batting order, not just the top-order. Hence when you remove any Zimmie wickets from his analysis, you remove wickets from all 3 categories, not just the tailender category, which essentially means that I dont see the proportions changing.

 

[parttimer]

It wouldnt make a difference as you would be out whether its Lee or Warne who is bowling.
Lee could hurt you more though. Think about that.

I think most batsmen would rather cop a bouncer on the noggin than lose their wicket. Well anyone worth their salt.

 

[Pratters]

I think most batsmen would rather cop a bouncer on the noggin than lose their wicket. Well anyone worth their salt.

Well you would lose your wicket to BOTH the players, whoever bowls. And Lee presents the danger of you getitng hurt as well.

 

[parttimer]

How do you get out by getting hit on the noggin? No such thing as Out. Hit Noggin. If that were the case, Langer never would have had a test career :P

 

[Pratters]

How do you get out by getting hit on the noggin?

When have I said that.

 

[parttimer]

I said this: I think most batsmen would rather cop a bouncer on the noggin than lose their wicket. Well anyone worth their salt.

Then u said this.

Well you would lose your wicket to BOTH the players, whoever bowls. And Lee presents the danger of you getitng hurt as well.

Pretty self evident is it not?

 

[Pratters]

I said this: I think most batsmen would rather cop a bouncer on the noggin than lose their wicket. Well anyone worth their salt.

Then u said this.



Pretty self evident is it not?

You said that you would rather face some one who is less likely to take your wicket. The thing is you would get out in the first ball whether its Warne or Lee 99.9% of the times. So I referred to the BOTH.

If it wouldnt happen on the first ball, it would on the second or maximum third.

And if a ball from either of the two does touch your boudy, you are likely to be hit harder by a Lee ball.

Its not as if you would be surviving 100 balls against either of the two and helping the team cause. Why increase their medical bills by choosing to face Lee?

 

[parttimer]

You said that you would rather face some one who is less likely to take your wicket. The thing is you would get out in the first ball whether its Warne or Lee 99.9% of the times. So I referred to the BOTH.

If it wouldnt happen on the first ball, it would on the second or maximum third.

And if a ball from either of the two does touch your boudy, you are likely to be hit harder by a Lee ball.

Its not as if you would be surviving 100 balls against either of the two and helping the team cause. Why increase their medical bills by choosing to face Lee?

Hehe. I wasn't speaking personally if i was i'd have to agree with you, gimme S.K anyday i'll hit him back over his head! Against Lee tho i'd probably back off off the pitch

 

[Ikki]

yeah, a record which included more tailenders as a proportion of his wickets than Muralis. So you arent wise enough to get this, after all

And Murali has a MUCH bigger proportion of his wickets against minnows (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe). I do get it sunshine, the arguments will go back and forth for every hole Murali has, so does Warne.

ADD: Wouldn't you agree the tail enders of competitive nations are better than the top/middle order of say: Bangladesh. However, I see you like to gloss over this aspect.

 

[Deja moo]

And Murali has a MUCH bigger proportion of his wickets against minnows (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe). I do get it sunshine, the arguments will go back and forth for every hole Murali has, so does Warne.

ADD: Wouldn't you agree the tail enders of competitive nations are better than the top/middle order of say: Bangladesh. However, I see you like to gloss over this aspect.

I have. Repeatedly. It goes like this:

Remove all the Zim-Ban wickets Murali has taken in his career. Now, unless hes picked up only their tailenders, I'm sure you'll agree that this would cause a reduction in wickets in all 3 categories for Murali; top, middle and tailend. So what follows is that he will still end up with roughly the same break-up wrt percentages of top, middle and lower order wickets among the nations remaining, ie non-minnows. Which means that if you consider only non-minnow nations, Murali still has a lower tail-end to overall wickets ratio than Warne. Now, whats your objection to that?

 

[Ikki]

I have. Repeatedly. It goes like this:

Remove all the Zim-Ban wickets Murali has taken in his career. Now, unless hes picked up only their tailenders, I'm sure you'll agree that this would cause a reduction in wickets in all 3 categories for Murali; top, middle and tailend. So what follows is that he will still end up with roughly the same break-up wrt percentages of top, middle and lower order wickets among the nations remaining, ie non-minnows. Which means that if you consider only non-minnow nations, Murali still has a lower tail-end to overall wickets ratio than Warne. Now, whats your objection to that?

I think you're missing the point. Actually, reading some of your posts again, you miss a lot of points. Not just new ones, the ones mentioned 10-20 times.