Shane Warne.

[Son Of Coco]

How can Shane Warne be called the best bowler in the world. He has played More games then 6 of the top ten and around 25 (not sure) More then Muttiah Muralitharan I would have thought in theory that if I got 100 wickets in 50 games I would be better then say someone who got 101 wickets in 60 games. Discuss.

Well you'd have to look at a lot of other things besides matches played (as suggested by others). Overs bowled would come into it as well as everything else mentioned here.

 

[C_C]

in depth statistical analysis is not just average,strike rate,wickets taken and five-fers/10-fers.
Its home-n-away record,its the record against good teams vs the bad teams.

I personally rate only Bradman, Miller,O'reiley, Hammond and Hobbs from the pre-WWII era as class.
And even then, i dont think anyone apart from Bradman and Miller would've excelled in the modern generation.
Simply because that era was not the era of professionals but amatuers masquerading as professionals. The only reason i pick bradman is because his statistical gap is huge from the second-best bat of his era(Hammond) and that cannot be ingnored.
Cricket was not as cut-throat and competitive in those days. Simply put, every single aussie got annihilated by Bodyline apart from Bradman(and even he suffered) and bodyline style bowling was the norm for the 70s and 80s.

Not to forget the fact that cricketing technique and methodology has developed since then. When i look at pre-war players, i subtract atleast 10-15 from their batting averages( higher the actual average, more i take away) and add 5-10 to their bowling averages.
The reason i think bradman is the greatest bat ever is not because of his 99 average and runfeast but because of the gap he had between himself and the 2nd best. If bradman had played post 1970s, he would've struggled to average 65+....but a 65 average by itself garantees that he leaves the likes of Viv,Sunny,Tendy and Lara in the dust.

 

[SJS]

in depth statistical analysis is not just average,strike rate,wickets taken and five-fers/10-fers.
Its home-n-away record,its the record against good teams vs the bad teams.

I personally rate only Bradman, Miller,O'reiley, Hammond and Hobbs from the pre-WWII era as class.
And even then, i dont think anyone apart from Bradman and Miller would've excelled in the modern generation.
Simply because that era was not the era of professionals but amatuers masquerading as professionals. The only reason i pick bradman is because his statistical gap is huge from the second-best bat of his era(Hammond) and that cannot be ingnored.
Cricket was not as cut-throat and competitive in those days. Simply put, every single aussie got annihilated by Bodyline apart from Bradman(and even he suffered) and bodyline style bowling was the norm for the 70s and 80s.

Not to forget the fact that cricketing technique and methodology has developed since then. When i look at pre-war players, i subtract atleast 10-15 from their batting averages( higher the actual average, more i take away) and add 5-10 to their bowling averages.
The reason i think bradman is the greatest bat ever is not because of his 99 average and runfeast but because of the gap he had between himself and the 2nd best. If bradman had played post 1970s, he would've struggled to average 65+....but a 65 average by itself garantees that he leaves the likes of Viv,Sunny,Tendy and Lara in the dust.

GREAT !!

You win with vastly superior logic

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Let me help you.

The only statistic on which Warne does better is the
strike rate (bals/wkt)

Warne : 59.8
Orielly : 66.2
Grimmett : 66.9

However, as any student of cricket and cricket statistics will tell you a strike by itself tells nothing otherwise Agarkar would be India's best bowler and MacGill with a strike rate of 55.6 a better bowler than all the three being discussed her. Thats why the economy rate is also important. And the average (runs/wicket) generally accepted as , overall, the best available figure since it has built into it both the strike rate AND the economy rate of a bowler. Here are the figures :-

Economy Rate (runs/100 balls)

Orielly: 34.2
Grimmett : 36.2
Warne : 42.7

Average (Runs/wkt)

Orielly : 22.6
Grimmett : 24.2
Warne : 25.5

The other thing which makes us (figure hungry masses) seek greatness in volumes is the number of wickets by which standard of course Border is the greatest batsman produced by Australia )

So Warne has 527 wickets. But this is purely a function of how many tests you play. It must be seen with another bit, that is the wickets per test (Barnes regarded by many as the greatest bowler has 7 wkts per test 187 in 29 matches). Here are the figures of the legspinners in quetion.

Wkts/test

Grimmett : 5.8
Orielly : 5.3
Warne : 4.7

If there are other relevant statistics I have missed (like how well they bowled to people who knew how to use their feet) we can discuss again

I'm impressed that the Grimmett and O'Reilly bagged so many wickets considering the featherbeds that made up average 1930's pitches.

 

[twctopcat]

in depth statistical analysis is not just average,strike rate,wickets taken and five-fers/10-fers.
Its home-n-away record,its the record against good teams vs the bad teams.

I personally rate only Bradman, Miller,O'reiley, Hammond and Hobbs from the pre-WWII era as class.
And even then, i dont think anyone apart from Bradman and Miller would've excelled in the modern generation.
Simply because that era was not the era of professionals but amatuers masquerading as professionals. The only reason i pick bradman is because his statistical gap is huge from the second-best bat of his era(Hammond) and that cannot be ingnored.
Cricket was not as cut-throat and competitive in those days. Simply put, every single aussie got annihilated by Bodyline apart from Bradman(and even he suffered) and bodyline style bowling was the norm for the 70s and 80s.

Not to forget the fact that cricketing technique and methodology has developed since then. When i look at pre-war players, i subtract atleast 10-15 from their batting averages( higher the actual average, more i take away) and add 5-10 to their bowling averages.
The reason i think bradman is the greatest bat ever is not because of his 99 average and runfeast but because of the gap he had between himself and the 2nd best. If bradman had played post 1970s, he would've struggled to average 65+....but a 65 average by itself garantees that he leaves the likes of Viv,Sunny,Tendy and Lara in the dust.

And if that isn't fullproof i don't know what is. Uncovered wickets anyone?

 

[honestbharani]

Finally, an actual cricketing debate without any flaming. Long live CC and SJS! You guys made my day.

 

[SJS]

Finally, an actual cricketing debate without any flaming. Long live CC and SJS! You guys made my day.

Thanks. But I must state that I got out of the argument since it wasnt getting anywhere. Not because I agreed with CC

 

[C_C]

uncovered wickets were there till the late 1960s actually.
I know that uncovered wickets played a part- to the detriment of the batsmen and benefit of the bowlers.
But like i said, you cannot ignore the fact that those blokes wernt really professionals and the bodyline series ( a taste of the WI four prong quartet) kinda showed that they'd all suffer if they played in the modern era( bradman apart)....

 

[vic_orthdox]

How can Shane Warne be called the best bowler in the world. He has played More games then 6 of the top ten and around 25 (not sure) More then Muttiah Muralitharan I would have thought in theory that if I got 100 wickets in 50 games I would be better then say someone who got 101 wickets in 60 games. Discuss.

what about who the wickets were? murali has greatly enhanced his statistics by playing a large number of games against the weaker teams (bangers and zimbos). this is not a fault, but just fact, while warne has only played one test in total against either team IIRC. also, one could argue that mcgrath and gillespie to a certain extent have reduced the quality of warne's statistics, as they take wickets off him that he could have otherwise earnt. and when comparing spinners to pacemen on a statistical basis, the inability of a spinner to "blast out" an opponent means that they often have to sacrifice runs to take wickets, or take longer to execute plans, therefore increasing strike rates and averages.

finally, i'd say that warne mid 90's was a better bowler, but murali has him covered now rather substantially. i'm not daring enough to say who is the best ever.

 

[vic_orthdox]

bodyline involved having (at times) seven players on the leg side and as many as four men behind square leg. this would both be illegal nowadays and possibly (????) during the 70s and 80s. and surely if these players were playing in modern times, they would be groomed to play as professionals, and not amateurs?

 

[vic_orthdox]

and keith miller didn't play a test pre WWII (are we talking about the same miller?)

 

[C_C]

hat about who the wickets were? murali has greatly enhanced his statistics by playing a large number of games against the weaker teams (bangers and zimbos). this is not a fault, but just fact, while warne has only played one test in total against either team IIRC. also, one could argue that mcgrath and gillespie to a certain extent have reduced the quality of warne's statistics, as they take wickets off him that he could have otherwise earnt.

Okay...Murali has played the Zimboks a lot....
and he has taken around 107 wickets from 16 matches at an average of 15.66

take that out and his figures are: 425 wickets from 75 matches at an average of 24.68
Thats still superior to warne's.

Lets compare records against teams they've both played against(minus the minnows BD and ZIM):

ENG:

Warne: 26 matches, 132 wickets @ 23.03
Murali: 10 matches, 69 wickets @ 20.73

IND:

Warne: 14 matches, 43 wickets @ 47.18
Murali: 12 matches, 52 wickets @ 32.94

NZ:

Warne: 15 matches, 75 wickets @ 25.08
Murali: 10 matches, 52 wickets @ 23.69

PAK:

Warne: 12 matches, 76 wickets @ 18.60
Murali: 12 matches, 68 wickets @ 23.69

RSA:

Warne: 18 matches, 101 wickets @ 22.34
Murali: 13 matches, 82 wickets @ 23.34

WI
Warne: 16 matches, 49 wickets @ 32.26
Murali: 8 matches, 53 wickets @ 19.60

So you see, he outshines warne in average against all opposition except PAK and RSA.

Now, you say that McGrath and Gillespie has robbed Warne some wickets.... which is true.
Having 3-4 excellent/great bowlers mean that wickets are shared instead of skewed to one or two players....which is why when the WI four prong were in action, you rarely saw a 7-1-1-1 spilt and saw many more 3-3-2-2 split in terms of wickets.
However, you are forgetting one detail:
having a team of great/excellent bowlers means the opposition batsman is under continous pressure. He doesnt get a breather and doest get to 'see off' the dangerous bowlers and whack around the lesser ones....
This sustained pressure forces batsmen to make mistakes more often than not and helps your average
Having a support cast means you are much more likely to get a 3-40 or 4-60 figure whereas being the lone warrior means you are more likely to have 5-90 or 7-120.
So Murali having a higher wickets/match ratio than Warne is expected. But he manages to average LESS than warne....indicating that despite the 'see off Murali tactic', he has enough pizazz to neutralise that factor.
Thats what makes Murali greater than Warne IMO.
Only three 'lone horsemen' bowlers have had phenomenal success- Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan and Murali.
I think thats why they are the great players and in case of Murali, i think thats what makes him greater than Warne.

 

[C_C]

bodyline involved having (at times) seven players on the leg side and as many as four men behind square leg. this would both be illegal nowadays and possibly (????) during the 70s and 80s. and surely if these players were playing in modern times, they would be groomed to play as professionals, and not amateurs?

thats the trouble with comparing people across the eras. Different situations. I think the only way you can make a fair comparison is to say " how would the player fare in so-n-so era if he had played just the same as he did during his time"

Bodyline and WI four-prong bowling were about par in terms of hostility.
In bodyline you had bowlers targetting your body and the leg side was packed.
The WI didnt pack the leg-side but targetted your body anyways.
They were both designed to target the batsmen's body and did the job spectacularly.... and inorder to succeed against them, a player needed the same skillsets- the ability to play the short ball.

and keith miller didn't play a test pre WWII (are we talking about the same miller?)

You are right. My apologies.

 

[vic_orthdox]

like to clarify that i was just saying that it works both ways, it can both help or hinder having other top class bowlers in the attack. and it would be unfair to label the rest of the SL attack as substandard aside from vaas.

re: bodyline...in the end it didn't matter how well u played the short ball in the bodyline series. if you attacked it, you would hole out, and if u defended it didnt matter how good at it u were, eventually you would pop one up to one of the three short legs employed. and the bowlers england had were very good bowlers for their time.

 

[C_C]

like to clarify that i was just saying that it works both ways, it can both help or hinder having other top class bowlers in the attack. and it would be unfair to label the rest of the SL attack as substandard aside from vaas.

i dunno but bowlers like Malinga, Fernando, Zoysa, Chandana etc. arnt exactly wordlclass and in the same league as McGrath-Gillespie-Kaspa-Fleming-McDermott...

re: bodyline...in the end it didn't matter how well u played the short ball in the bodyline series. if you attacked it, you would hole out, and if u defended it didnt matter how good at it u were, eventually you would pop one up to one of the three short legs employed. and the bowlers england had were very good bowlers for their time.

same with the 'pace like fire' concept of the WI four prong. The bowlers england employed were pretty darn good but still not a patch on Marshall-Holding-Roberts-Garner.

You wouldnt be 'holing out' if you were an excellent hooker and puller of the ball.

 

[a massive zebra]

Okay...Murali has played the Zimboks a lot....
and he has taken around 107 wickets from 16 matches at an average of 15.66

take that out and his figures are: 425 wickets from 75 matches at an average of 24.68
Thats still superior to warne's.

Lets compare records against teams they've both played against(minus the minnows BD and ZIM):

ENG:

Warne: 26 matches, 132 wickets @ 23.03
Murali: 10 matches, 69 wickets @ 20.73

IND:

Warne: 14 matches, 43 wickets @ 47.18
Murali: 12 matches, 52 wickets @ 32.94

NZ:

Warne: 15 matches, 75 wickets @ 25.08
Murali: 10 matches, 52 wickets @ 23.69

PAK:

Warne: 12 matches, 76 wickets @ 18.60
Murali: 12 matches, 68 wickets @ 23.69

RSA:

Warne: 18 matches, 101 wickets @ 22.34
Murali: 13 matches, 82 wickets @ 23.34

WI
Warne: 16 matches, 49 wickets @ 32.26
Murali: 8 matches, 53 wickets @ 19.60

So you see, he outshines warne in average against all opposition except PAK and RSA.

Now, you say that McGrath and Gillespie has robbed Warne some wickets.... which is true.
Having 3-4 excellent/great bowlers mean that wickets are shared instead of skewed to one or two players....which is why when the WI four prong were in action, you rarely saw a 7-1-1-1 spilt and saw many more 3-3-2-2 split in terms of wickets.
However, you are forgetting one detail:
having a team of great/excellent bowlers means the opposition batsman is under continous pressure. He doesnt get a breather and doest get to 'see off' the dangerous bowlers and whack around the lesser ones....
This sustained pressure forces batsmen to make mistakes more often than not and helps your average
Having a support cast means you are much more likely to get a 3-40 or 4-60 figure whereas being the lone warrior means you are more likely to have 5-90 or 7-120.
So Murali having a higher wickets/match ratio than Warne is expected. But he manages to average LESS than warne....indicating that despite the 'see off Murali tactic', he has enough pizazz to neutralise that factor.
Thats what makes Murali greater than Warne IMO.
Only three 'lone horsemen' bowlers have had phenomenal success- Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan and Murali.
I think thats why they are the great players and in case of Murali, i think thats what makes him greater than Warne.

Furthermore...

Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (43 wickets at 47.18). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94).

Murali has a better average, strike rate, economy rate, and takes more wickets per match than Warne; despite the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team.

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 91 5187.2 1380 12165 532 22.86 9-51 44 13 58.5 2.34
Warne 115 5388.2 13846 541 8/71 25.59 2.56 59.7 28 8

Murali has a better record against all countries, except South Africa and Pakistan.

Murali is far more consistent. 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.

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
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
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

Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee - Marshall having a better average because the high class West Indian bowlers put greater pressure on the batsmen, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. Same with Lindwall vs Bedser, Ambrose vs Akram, Laker vs Tayfield, and many, many others. Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.

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?

Although Warne has been less effective since his shoulder injury, even at his peak (1993-97) he was not as good as Murali has been this century.

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 2000-2003 37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97 57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24

You could take a look at their respective records in the English county championship:

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 19 1049.1 322 2195 149 14.73 7-39 17 6 42.2 2.09
Warne 24 962.5 259 2682 113 23.73 6-34 8 0 52.7 2.69

One reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.

Murali was recently voted the best bowler ever in an objective Wisden analysis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2572069.stm

 

[tooextracool]

absolutely brainless.....

 

[honestbharani]

I agree about the averages part. With three other quality bowlers in the side, I, for one, surely expected Warne's average to be less. Plus, I expected his strike rate to be higher than Murali's too. Again, because batters try to play him out, he might take longer to get people out. But because of the quality of bowlers Warne has in his side, he should be striking at a better rate than Murali,which he is not. So, I think that makes Murali better, although Warne is still one of the best ever and definitely very exciting to watch.

 

[vic_orthdox]

could anyone find out how warne's statistics compare pre injuries of 1998 and 1999 to now?. IIRC he came back at the west indies seried of 1999. he has never gained the same purchase on the ball that he used to have, IMO.

 

[_Ed_]

He has stupid hair at the moment.

Just felt like saying that.

You can carry on the debate now.