Who will overtake Murali's test wicket record?

[Richard]

You know, if I'd been posting at the time this thread was started, I'd have made a post as early as I could saying:

I propose that this thread be merged with this one.

Fortunately, as you can see, Precambrian beat me to it.

 

[Ikki]

Do both of you (Migara and lkki) keep excel files icons on your desktops with Murali/Warne comparisons/stats?
Just seems that way for me

LOL, funny enough I do have those excel files.

But this is not a comparison, really. I mentioned that unless someone has similar circumstances to Murali they cannot hope to achieve his record. That was met with a comment about how had he been Australian he would have gotten even more...which is very wrong.

 

[SJS]

If Murali had played similar proportion of test that Warne has played against each opposition he would have taken roughly equal number of wickets (or was it higher? has toc hech it)

There are two ways to do this excercise. Either assume Murali played as many matches as Warne did or that Warne played as many Tests as Murali has played till date.

I have done this both ways.

Before that it is important to remember that Warne never bowled against Australia and Murali never bowled against Sri Lanka. Thus these games have to be removed from the comparison. In addition, Warne played one game against the ICC World XI which too has been removed. That leaves eight opponents against who their figures have been compared -

1. Bangladesh
2. England
3. India
4. New Zealand
5. Pakistan
6. South Africa
7. West Indies
8. Zimbabwe

Warne played 131 games against these teams while Murali has played 113 so far.

In the 131 games Warne played he took 643 wickets. Had he played the number of Tests against each side equal to the number Murali has against each (and with his Tests per wicket against these sides as it is in Warne's actual record) he would have taken only 561 wickets.

In the same number of Tests (113) Murali has actually taken 711 wickets (150 more than Warne's projected tally).

Reversing the situation, while Murali has taken 711 wickets in his 113 Tests, he would have ended up with 833 in 131 if he had played as many Tests against each side as has Warne. This figure is 160 wickets more than Warne's actual tally.

We can also do this excercise by taking number of overs against each side instead of test matches and strike rate instead of Wickets per Test, but trust me the figures will be still heavily in Murali's favour.

You cant use stats to prove Warne a better bowler

And stats are no way to judge two all time greats in anyway. so leave it alone

 

[Ikki]

Bad use of stats. "There are two ways to do this excercise. Either assume Murali played as many matches as Warne did or that Warne played as many Tests as Murali has played till date." doesn't make sense at all.

1) By not including Sri Lanka and Australia you effectively remove Warne's best team and Murali's worst.
2) Warne has a better SR than Murali (when you exclude minnows, of course) which means he'd take more wickets with regards to the number he bowls - if they bowl the same amount.
3) When you are talking about wickets-per-match, you should take into account that Murali bowls almost 10 overs more than Warne per match. For example, Murali has bowled some 1000 more balls than Warne, despite playing 19 less matches.
4) Stats are a great way of judging all time greats - on the condition that the analysis is not riddled with simple flaws.

As said about Murali: He bowls much more than everyone else; with much less competition; is one of the best bowlers of his generation; and is a spinner. Until a similar situation occurs it's unlikely anyone will overtake him.

It was a given in the beginning that Warne would not get as many wickets per match as Murali does. No one bar Barnes does.

 

[SJS]

By the way while I have left out Sri Lanka and Australia (besides ICC) only because otherwise the comparison is one sided in each case (since the other hasnt played that side) just in case any smart Alec thinks this has been done to manipulate figures let me just give below the figures of these bowlers against each others Test sides.

Murali versus Australia : 59 wickets in 13 Tests at 4.54 wkts/test

Warne versus Sr Lanka : 59 wickets in 13 Tests at 4.54 wkts/test

The difference : 0 wickets in 0 tests at 0.00 wkts/test

 

[Richard]

 

[SJS]

 

[Ikki]

By the way while I have left out Sri Lanka and Australia (besides ICC) only because otherwise the comparison is one sided in each case (since the other hasnt played that side) just in case any smart Alec thinks this has been done to manipulate figures let me just give below the figures of these bowlers against each others Test sides.

Murali versus Australia : 59 wickets in 13 Tests at 4.54 wkts/test

Warne versus Sr Lanka : 59 wickets in 13 Tests at 4.54 wkts/test

The difference : 0 wickets in 0 tests at 0.00 wkts/test

You're lucky there is a smart alec around.

The difference: 685.3 overs vs. 527.5 - or an SR of 69.7 vs 53.6.

 

[Lostman]

cant sneak anything by the spreadsheet

 

[Ikki]

cant sneak anything by the spreadsheet

Well, I am just trying to help . Comparing wickets-per-match is ludicrous when one bowls much more than the other. Statistics are like Democracy. It can be the greatest thing, or the worst thing, depending on the hands that drive them.

 

[weldone]

6 pages gone...



20 more to go...



Q. And after that?
Ans:- Those who now think Murali>Warne will continue thinking so, and those who now think Warne>Murali will continue thinking so...

P.S.: And may I add that the same is true for those who now think Murali>O'Reilly>Warne (yes, you guessed it, that's me)

 

[Ikki]

Q. And after that?
Ans:- Those who now think Murali>Warne will continue thinking so, and those who now think Warne>Murali will continue thinking so...

P.S.: And may I add that the same is true for those who now think Murali>O'Reilly>Warne (yes, you guessed it, that's me)

It's not about Murali vs. Warne. It's about the simple fact that no one can hope to take as many wickets as Murali, not even someone like him (Warne) because of the amount of overs he bowls and the lack of competition of wickets he has. So comparing them in terms of wickets-per-match is irrelevant. That's like saying Richard Hadlee would still take more than Malcolm Marshall...well no duh, he bowls more and has less competition for wickets. It doesn't change the fact that Marshall was a better wicket-taker than Hadlee.

 

[Richard]

6 pages gone...



20 more to go...



Q. And after that?
Ans:- Those who now think Murali>Warne will continue thinking so, and those who now think Warne>Murali will continue thinking so...

I think watching Owais Shah bowling his assorted nonsense is more interesting than reading that TBH.

TBF, the first 60 or 70 or so posts of this thread (that's 2 pages for me, 5 for those with the forum default) weren't all that bad.

 

[Burgey]

After watching the past few days, I am comfortably of the view that Andrew McDOnald will take Murali's mantle

 

[SJS]

After watching the past few days, I am comfortably of the view that Andrew McDOnald will take Murali's mantle

I think A K Singh will

 

[chrisbroxton]

I dont think any will come close in this era of cricket, but i think mendis will come close, but i think hes more of an ODI player

 

[SJS]

I dont think any will come close in this era of cricket, but i think mendis will come close, but i think hes more of an ODI player

Mendis will not even be in the top five wicket takers of all time. I am willing to lay 10000 green backs on that.