*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Tom Halsey]

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?

You're still missing the point.

 

[C_C]

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

Yes, it can be used retrospectively given that their analysis was done with multiple footages from different camera angles.

 

[C_C]

Why?

How can you possibly know more about his body than he does?

Oh i don't. I just dont trust a character, who is very insecure and defensive along with a dodgy reputation to be truthful about his shortcommings.

 

[C_C]

You said most people.

Most people are not worldclass batsmen.

Okay- change that to worldclass batsmen then. Most people is irrelevant to the discussion, as most players who get to face Murali or Warney in tests arnt 'most people' but excellent batsmen.

 

[C_C]

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

Where are you getting this 8 degrees out of 14 ?
That is the maximum possible difference between Warney and Murali's flexion.
Their actual figures ( 9-10 degrees for Warney with an error of 3 degrees and 13 degrees for Murali with an error of 1 degree) do not have any overlap with the error margin-even for minimum possible flexion. Ie, since Murali's flexion is 13 degrees with plus/minus 1 degree, it is very much credible data. If it were 2 degrees with plus minus 1 degree flexion, it would be dubious, as the minima is the same as the margin of error. Same with Warney. Which is why, as long as the recorded data's minima is higher than the error rating itself, it is reliable.

 

[C_C]

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.

No, they are not IMO. I would rather have Tatenda Taibu or Haibul Bashar batting for me than Warney.

 

[C_C]

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.

This comming from somoene commenting about who chucks and who doesnt based on pure personal prejudice and not facts ?

 

[Tom Halsey]

This comming from somoene commenting about who chucks and who doesnt based on pure personal prejudice and not facts ?

He was still right in that Moo repeatedly misses the point.

 

[C_C]

He was still right in that Moo repeatedly misses the point.

I dont think Moo is missing the point- the pro-Warney cohort are missing the point.
Yes, Murali's bowling suits his home surface more than it suits Warney. But that is a minor fact, given that most players adapt to their home conditions and for any nation, the bulk of their players average better at home than away from home. This indicates adaptation and it makes sense - you bowl/bat best in situations you are familiar with and growing up on a certain type of pitches make it far more 'homely' . Which is why subcontinental pacers tend to do better at home, despite the subcontinental wickets not being suitable for pace bowling as much as non subcontinental ones.
But it is a matter nonetheless and one for Warney's cap.
However, Murali does remarkably well overseas aswell, just a whisker behind Warney, despite not having a cutting-edge pace attack like Warney does to pry out the top order batsman before the spinners come on. And in most conditions outside the subcontinent, the cards are stacked in Warney's favour- most pitches outside the subcontinent favour pacers more than spinners and Warney capitalises massively due to the cutting edge pace attack, whereas Murali gets the short end of the stick. Despite this, he is just a fraction behind Warney.
Murali is a lone-warrior, who can be played out of the attack to a far greater degree than Warney can be. And when Warney is in similar situation as Murali - where he has to carry the bowling in the absence of McGrath, his average is not much different from Anil Kumble. This shows the gulf between the two players - that in situations where Warney is doing what Murali does everyday, Murali is far superior. ( bowl with very little support- mind you, even McGrathless OZ attack gives Warney more support than SL attack does, as throughout Warney's career he's had excellent bowlers such as McGill, Gillespie and Fleming to share his load and the only bowler of that class in SL, apart from Murali, is Vaas).
Warney has been decimated more often than Murali and this has been attributed to his so-called 'injuries', which is patently untrue when it comes to playing IND atleast.
His so-called 'career threatening injury' happened in the ODI series following the test series in 97. To attribute his decimation at the hands of Indians to a career threatening injury is to say something has happened before it has even happened ! It is a bit like trying to say Germany's woes in WWI was due to Hitler.
He wasnt injured in 1999 when he played IND - he had played 7-8 matches on the trot, had been back from injury for almost a year and he was bowling pretty well the series before IND.
He wasnt injured in 2001 either- just had a rotten patch but too often people tend to excuse the rotten patches and concentrate only on the golden runs- forgetting that the crests must be taken into account along with the troughs to get a complete picture.

IMO, as long as Warney's average remains higher than Murali ( despite having a better bowling attack), as long as Murali's performance against IND remain superior to Warney ( and Murali's homeground advantage is irrelevant - the last two series involving IND and SL were played on batting beauties, which were harder to bowl on than OZ pitches) and as long as Murali average far superior to Warney when both are operating as the main strike bowlers, Warney cannot be said to be equal to Murali as a bowler, let alone superior.
No player has absolute statistical domination- there were areas ( batting on sticky wickets for example) where even Bradman took a backseat to others. Who is a better player can only be determined with the overall picture in mind and overall, Murali has more feathers in his cap than Warney does.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I dont think Moo is missing the point- the pro-Warney cohort are missing the point.

No, the original point was nothing to do with weightings of tailend wickets after Zimbabwe and Bangladesh were taken out of things, which seems to be what Moo is arguing. It was simply to do with the amount of wickets Murali gets against Minnows, it wasn't anything to do with tailend wickets after they're taken out.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That is a bit like saying ' i dismiss the mirage excuse smack in the middle of the desert and there IS bloody water near the horizon'.



Culture is irrelevant. Facts are however, not.

That kind of depends on what your 'fact' is based on.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Whatever the 'cultural' definition of chucking, one cannot make a pronouncement based solely on prejudice of a pathetic media and the inaccuracy of an instrument ( the human eye). Whatever the 'cultural' crap you come up with, fact remains, the only reason McGrath appears to have a perfect action and Murali does not is because the eye is fooled easily and isnt accurate enough to tell that McGrath is just as much a chucker as Murali is.
And if Murali isnt considered great in OZ, perhaps the said OZ folks should learn a thing or three about cricket, its laws and the capabilities of the human body. For obviously they know very little of it all to come to that conclusion.

You're being a little too simple there, one of the main reasons Murali appears to chuck and McGrath doesn't (to the naked eye) is because Murali starts with a bent elbow and McGrath doesn't...then we get back to this hyper-extension thingy.

 

[sqwerty]

Very true.

Simple experiment - try spinning a golf or table tennis ball using only your fingers i.e. with as straight an arm as possible. Then compare the results to those achieved by adopting a moderate throwing action.

Chalk and cheese.

Anyway, its all irrelevant as both are now deemed legal.

Only because he is tested in a laboratory rather than on the field

 

[Slow Love™]

Personally, I don't think hyper-extension constitutes throwing, as it can't be controlled...as I said before. I was informed (obviously unreliably) around the time of the tests that declared 'Everyone Throws' that hyper-extension wasn't taken into account, which made me very dubious. Now I'm told it was, which means that technically, yes, a lot of people would be over or very close to the limit. Using a common-sense approach however, I wouldn't think this should constitute a 'throw'.

I'm very surprised that the updated rule re: chucking takes hyper-extension into account when measuring the 15 degrees, it would seem to make more sense to measure bend from the natural straightening point and back, not flexion from that point with no obvious bending to start with...unless we are going to start playing in braces. A 0 degree limit on bending would be fair, a 0 degree limit on flexion obviously isn't...obviously taking into account the starting point of the arm.

I think you'll find you were informed reliably in the first place, so you should pat whomever that was on the back and say "mate, you were right". Whomever's told you different has their facts wrong. Hyperextension is NOT related to the current tolerance levels, and isn't considered as an illegal action by the ICC.

From the recommendations of the Bowling Review panel:

- Clarifying that the focus of the rules is to concentrate on bowlers who straighten their arm from the flexed position during their bowling action rather than on those players who involuntarily hyperextend (i.e. move the arm backwards) or whose arm moves sideways at the elbow joint during the bowling action.

From page 9 of the current (subsequent to the March 2005 rule changes) Procedure for the Review of Bowlers with Suspect Bowling Actions at the ICC's website:

1.4 The ICC has determined that it is the degree of elbow extension, as opposed to hyperextension or abduction/adduction that is prohibited. Elbow hyperextension and elbow abduction/adduction are involuntary movements that cannot be controlled by the individual during the bowling action.

 

[Slow Love™]

The problem with throwing is never with the 'stock' ball but with the 'effort' one - whether that's (insert anyone's name here) doosra, Tony Lock's effort ball, Shabbir's quicker one or Charlie Griffith's bouncer.

The problem with testing is that invariably the 'effort' ball isn't going to be that - it's going to be what the bowler thinks he can get away with - usually accompanied by the chorus of "Praise de lawd, Hallelujah, I am cured".

Yeah, you raise an important question. Is the margin for error regarding in-match testing realistically less accurate than the margin of error in laboratory testing?

I'd like to think that bowlers try their best to honestly replicate their in-game actions during lab-testing, although it's obviously plausible that some would seek to be far more careful in this process than they would in a match where things get more ragged. Although it appears the ICC is achieving a 1 +/- degree of margin of error in their measurement, an additional margin of error is encountered in trying to replicate what happens in a match in artificial conditions. Also, I'm not entirely sure what's considered a "reasonable" standard of accuracy when it comes to measuring moving degrees of angle, etc in other contexts.

Hopefully we'll be able to get better standards of match-day assessment down the track. Although what's happened with Shabbir - where they are comparing match footage of his action to ensure he is following directions he was given on advised changes to it - seems a step in the right direction.

 

[sqwerty]

Incorrect.

The ICC uses 2 criteria.

1. In the case of Murali, whether he turned the ball in lab testing.

2. The speed at which the ball is delivered.

However, the stresses are plainly different between match and lab-testing.

In the former, you are trying to get someone out.

In the latter, you are trying to keep your arm "straight."

Lab testing is simply the closest anyone has come to producing a reliable scenario and, as such, is given some credibility.

However, even the ICC admits it is open to abuse.

All true.

Look, why do people still try to argue Murali doesn't chuck it when it is obvious he does? I'm sure the majority of cricket fans in the world believe he does.

Call it a 'gift' or an abnormality at birth or whatever you want to call it but the fact is he draws benefit from his dodgy action.

Having said that though the stuff he chucks down is bloody effective.

It's funny, My memories of Murali and Sri Lankan cricket will always be as follows though:

1. Sri Lanka turn up as minnows in Aus and their off spinner (who I'd never heard of) gets called for chucking.

2. They kick up a huge fuss about it which I couldn't understand because it was so obvious he was chucking it.

3. I remember thinking, what do they care?, just get rid of him and find a new offie. Afterall your nation is a cricketing minnow and what difference will it make in the scheme of things?

4. They keep on whinging about it....why?

5. All of a sudden this offie has 400 test wickets...where the hell did he get those?

....and they're suddenly World champions.........did I miss something?

 

[C_C]

Look, why do people still try to argue Murali doesn't chuck it when it is obvious he does? I'm sure the majority of cricket fans in the world believe he does.

For the 10 millionth time - Murali chucks the ball. So do McGrath, Warney, Kumble, Lee, Akhtar, etc. and so did Lillee, Marshall, Ambrose, etc.
So instead of picking on Murali for chucking, pick on someone else- Murali has had more than his fair share of chucking controversies. Its about time we targetted another (sic) alltime great player- lets start with Warney.

 

[SJS]

... All of a sudden this offie has 400 test wickets...where the hell did he get those?.....

I dont recall exactly when Murali started bowling the doosra but his bowling figures before and after 1998 are remarkable and need revisiting.

PERIOD - Matches - Wkts - 5w/I - 10w/T - Avg - SRate - Eco Rate - W/Test - Tests/5W - Tests/10W

1992-97 ----- 34 ---------135 ------9 ------ 0 ------31.2 ----- 72.1 ---- 43.2 ---------- 3.97 ----- 3.8 ---------- NA

1998-05 ----- 65 -------- 449 ---- 39 ---- 14 -----19.8 ------ 52.0 ---- 38.0 ---------- 6.91 ----- 1.7 ---------- 4.6

Clearly he is a changed bowler since 1998.

At least one might be naughty enough to suggest that whatever changed in him post Jan 1998 is what makes him the great bowler we know and without that change he may have been another ordinary off spinner (very ordinary indeed from the suggestion of those first SIX years)??

 

[GotSpin]

lets start with Warney.

Typical

 

[C_C]

Typical

Hey c'mon, its only fair.