*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Tom Halsey]

It works both ways though - Warne could be setting someone up and then greedy Glenn gets him out first!

 

[honestbharani]

It works both ways though - Warne could be setting someone up and then greedy Glenn gets him out first!

not to forget guys like Lee, Kasper, Fleming, Miller etc. ... They are guys who may have cashed in on the good work done by those two fine gentlemen.

 

[a massive zebra]

Those of you familiar with the pre-eminent Australian statistician, Charles Davis, and his book "The Best of the Best", will be pleased to know that he has written a feature for Australian Wisden 05/06.

After five years, he has finally updated his all-time bowling ratings in a 6 page article on the Murali vs Warne debate.

I read the article in a bookstore today, and from memory Murali rose from 13th place to 2nd (behind SF Barnes). McGrath made the top ten, and more importantly for the debate, Warne rose from 24th to the top ten (I think from my short memory 8th position).

The issue is summed up by Davis who concludes that, personal bias aside, Murali is undeniably the leading bowler of the modern era - his record is hard to surpass - and that essentially any thorough objective analysis will find that he is better than Warne by a considerable margin.

 

[Tom Halsey]

For those of you familiar with pre-eminent Australian statistician, Charles Davis, and his book "The Best of the Best", will be pleased to know that he has written a feature for Australian Wisden 05/06.

After five years, he has finally updated his all-time bowling ratings in a 6 page article on the Murali vs Warne debate.

I read the article in a bookstore today, and from memory Murali rose from 13th place to 2nd (behind SF Barnes). McGrath made the top ten, and more importantly for the debate, Warne rose from 24th to the top ten ( I think from my short memory 8th position)

The issue is summed up by Davis who concludes that, personal bias aside, Murali is undeniably the leading bowler of the modern era - his record is hard to surpass - and that essentially any thorough objective analysis will find that he is better than Warne by a considerable margin.

Well there's a surprise - the guy who reckons Murali's better is also a statistician - and on top of that, one man's opinion is not the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[Jono]

A whole team of Wisden experts also ranked him higher actually. Again that doesn't make it so, but its just not only one man that rates Murali that highly.

 

[Dasa]

A whole team of Wisden experts also ranked him higher actually. Again that doesn't make it so, but its just not only one man that rates Murali that highly.

Hey, don't let reason get in the way of a good argument!

 

[Jono]

Yeah well when Warne continously demolishes England time and time again, its a bit hard for them not to elevate him to 'God and best spinner ever' status. But Warne's failures against India has generally resulted in most Indian fans seeing him at a level a rung or two below.

I rate Warne and Murali pretty much equally. Both have faults. Warne's poor record in India (and against them) and Murali's lack of cricket in Australia.

 

[Top_Cat]

I still say they're impossible to compare considering the different types of bowler they are. Statistics be damned and I do the stuff for a living. Screw it; I love watching them both. And if there's one opinion that no amount of reason or statistics from anyone can ever change, it's that one.

 

[ClownSymonds]

The difference between Warne and Murali is this: Warne has a ton of wickets because he's a great bowler, whereas Murali has a ton of wickets because he was born with a defective arm. In fact, Warne is the only one of the two who should have any wickets at all according to the traditional Laws of Cricket, because he's the only one of the two who doesn't chuck. I don't care if Murali "was just born that way". He's a chucker, whether he can help it or not, and should be called every time he bowls. The fact that they've changed the rules to accomodate him is absurd. The only Murali known to world cricket should be Murali Kartik.

 

[luckyeddie]

The difference between Warne and Murali is this: Warne has a ton of wickets because he's a great bowler, whereas Murali has a ton of wickets because he was born with a defective arm. In fact, Warne is the only one of the two who should have any wickets at all according to the traditional Laws of Cricket, because he's the only one of the two who doesn't chuck. I don't care if Murali "was just born that way". He's a chucker, whether he can help it or not, and should be called every time he bowls. The fact that they've changed the rules to accomodate him is absurd. The only Murali known to world cricket should be Murali Kartik.

I wondered when you would discover this thread.

Let's hope you content yourself with depositing all your bile here instead of polluting the rest of the site.

 

[ClownSymonds]

I wondered when you would discover this thread.

Let's hope you content yourself with depositing all your bile here instead of polluting the rest of the site.

That was uncalled for. I suppose you are in a very foul mood as a result of the 7th-ranked test team taking apart your beloved English nancies, but there's no reason to take out that frustration in such a malicious manner.

 

[Top_Cat]

That was uncalled for. I suppose you are in a very foul mood as a result of the 7th-ranked test team taking apart your beloved English nancies, but there's no reason to take out that frustration in such a malicious manner.

Well what do you expect? The opinion that you hold is in opposition to the findings of various scientific groups on the most tested (and subsequently cleared) bowler in cricket history. They know a heck of a lot about human movement than you, I or Ed will ever know. Ed is a scientist as am I so guess who we're going to decide has more merit?

 

[ClownSymonds]

Well what do you expect? The opinion that you hold is in opposition to the findings of various scientific groups on the most tested (and subsequently cleared) bowler in cricket history. They know a heck of a lot about human movement than you, I or Ed will ever know. Ed is a scientist as am I so guess who we're going to decide has more merit?

As I'm sure you'll agree, Murali bowls with a bent elbow. It's as simple as that. It doesn't take a human movement expert to see it. Not until they changed the Laws to accomodate him was he really cleared.

 

[C_C]

As I'm sure you'll agree, Murali bowls with a bent elbow. It's as simple as that. It doesn't take a human movement expert to see it. Not until they changed the Laws to accomodate him was he really cleared.

Before you yap, learn the rules first.
The law in cricket has always been that you can bowl either with or without a bent arm, as long as you dont flex your elbow ( ie, change the angle of the bend, if any).
Murali was accused of changing the flex of his elbow.
It was proven that every single bowler in history of cricket has flexed his elbow to some extent or another - including Warne and McGrath.
McGrath's flexion figure is quite close to Murali's while Murali's arm action(ie, the rotation of the arm before delivery) is a whole lot faster than McGrath's ( the decieding factor in determining the torque subjected on the joints).
Therefore, if Murali is a chucker, every single bowler in history of cricket is a chucker.

That is the plain and simple fact and before you shoot off your mouth again, understand that i know what i am talking about - engineering is my degree and analysis is my profession.

 

[C_C]

It works both ways though - Warne could be setting someone up and then greedy Glenn gets him out first!

Err no.
It would work both ways if both were usually introduced around the same time into the attack.
McGrath opens the attack, Warne comes in around the 20th over.
Factually, Warne comes in to bowl with more opposition wickets down than Murali.
The biggest advantage of having a strong bowling attack is that each bowler benifits in the average stakes(since batsmen are under more pressure and face far more superb balls) but loses out in wickets/match rate(since there is a finite # - 20- wickets available).
The WI quartet is a prime example of this.
The biggest advantage of having a weak bowling attack (whilst you are a great bowler) is that you bowl the large majority of superb deliveries and thus you take a lot more wickets/match but owing to the lack of overall pressure, batsmen can afford to 'see you off' and thus impact your average.
Richard Hadlee is a prime example of this.
The fact that Murali has a better average than Warne and more wickets/match despite operating in a significantly lower quality attack shows that he is an overall superior and more consistent bowler.

 

[marc71178]

As I'm sure you'll agree, Murali bowls with a bent elbow. It's as simple as that.

So no doubt you will also appreciate that bowling with a bent elbow is not in itself an offence.

 

[ClownSymonds]

Before you yap, learn the rules first.
The law in cricket has always been that you can bowl either with or without a bent arm, as long as you dont flex your elbow ( ie, change the angle of the bend, if any).
Murali was accused of changing the flex of his elbow.
It was proven that every single bowler in history of cricket has flexed his elbow to some extent or another - including Warne and McGrath.
McGrath's flexion figure is quite close to Murali's while Murali's arm action(ie, the rotation of the arm before delivery) is a whole lot faster than McGrath's ( the decieding factor in determining the torque subjected on the joints).
Therefore, if Murali is a chucker, every single bowler in history of cricket is a chucker.

That is the plain and simple fact and before you shoot off your mouth again, understand that i know what i am talking about - engineering is my degree and analysis is my profession.

So if the Laws say it's fine to bowl with a bent elbow as long as you don't change the flex, I suppose one could still say that Murali has an unfair advantage over others for being able to keep his elbow from flexing while still bowling with it bent, since that makes it a lot easier to spin the ball either way.

 

[C_C]

So if the Laws say it's fine to bowl with a bent elbow as long as you don't change the flex, I suppose one could still say that Murali has an unfair advantage over others for being able to keep his elbow from flexing while still bowling with it bent, since that makes it a lot easier to spin the ball either way.

As long as it isnt illegal to the letter of the law, it is a matter of style, not a matter of cheating.
By your logic ( or the lack of it), Warne has an unfair advantage because he posesses extremely strong shoulders and a flexible spine, allowing him to literally 'rip' his body like he only can do during delivery.
If its easier to spin the ball with a bent arm ( which, btw, is not true - it is actually harder to spin the ball with a bent arm, as long as you dont change the angle, since you cannot snap your fingers - and thus give spin- with a bent elbow while keeping it bent within legal limit as hard as you can with a straighter arm).

 

[a massive zebra]

To be fair they did change the rules to allow his doosra - under the old conditions this delivery would have been illegal.

 

[C_C]

To be fair they did change the rules to allow his doosra - under the old conditions this delivery would have been illegal.

No. To be fair (and informed), ICC re-defined its flexion limits owing to the doosra controversy.
That was a much overdue move, considering that ICC's initial guideline on 'acceptable flexion limits' was totally based on opinion of past/present cricketers ( who know f-all about biomechanics) and their administrative lechers and no scientific fact-finding or logic whatsoever.

Somehow speed of the delivery was equated with degree of flexion ( shows the ignorance of people - speed comes from various different factors - core strength, stability, flexibility, skeletal strength, rate of movement, etc).
Apparently if you bowl faster, you should have more 'flexion'. Or so they thought whimsically.
Infact, scientific research and biomechanics proves that flexion is not related to speed but far more related to the style of delivery and the speed of the arm action .
So on scientific basis, somene like McGrath or Kallis should flex far less than someone like Murali or Wasim should, simply because the latter two have far faster arm actions than the former two.

Ofcourse, this makes the practical application far more complicated therefore, they set the appropriate flexion limits based on a general survey of flexion limits according to the type of bowling and set a simple statistical benchmark on it.

Still a lot better than just picking some random numbers for no good reason and victimising somoene due to the collective ignorance and idiocy of the governing body.