*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Migara]

Murali vs Warne

away/neutral record excl zim/bang

warne 372 wickets@24.56

murali 252 wickets@28.78

diff in averages= 4.22



Just to highlight the inconsistentcy and double standards on the part of some posters

tendu vs punter away /neutral record excl zim-bang(pls mods move it to a diff thread if u see fit)

tendu 6759 runs@53.22
punter 5238@48.50

diff in averages= 4.72

Using the above criterion either murali>warne or tendu>punter.Both are IMPOSSIBLE

Oh my! That cannot happen! ">" is an overloaded operator according to Ikki and when comparing Tendulkar vs ponting actually ">" is overloaded as "<"

 

[akilana]

 

[Ikki]

Murali vs Warne

away/neutral record excl zim/bang

warne 372 wickets@24.56

murali 252 wickets@28.78

diff in averages= 4.22




Just to highlight the inconsistentcy and double standards on the part of some posters

tendu vs punter away /neutral record excl zim-bang(pls mods move it to a diff thread if u see fit)

tendu 6759 runs@53.22
punter 5238@48.50

diff in averages= 4.72

Using the above criterion either murali>warne or tendu>punter.Both are IMPOSSIBLE

Actually Ponting averages almost 50 away IIRC as he has some neutral tests. But no; 4 points in bowling average =/= 4 points in batting average.

This is when arguments get silly, as people clearly don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

That includes neutral tests as mentioned in the post.

 

[Ikki]

This. Don't see why it is still an argument. Statswise, Murali is ahead of Warne. How much ahead depends on how much you value certain stats, but on the raw stats, Murali > Warne (with or without minnows). But there are many who feel stats don't tell everything and there are reasons why would one would prefer Warne to Murali but let us not keep breaking stats down to such ridiculous levels just to support our argument.

Because if you remove minnows he isn't. How is breaking up stats into home and away a ridiculous level? HB I hold you in higher esteem than the likes of Avada, and it really shouldn't need this much explaining but:

Without B/Z
Warne: avg. 25.40 sr. 57.6
Murali: avg. 24.87 sr. 58.6

 

[Ikki]

Oh, my bad, you did. Must have come down recently. Of course, Ponting's away record is far better than that. It's only held back by his performances in India as everywhere else he is pretty much superb.

But that's for another thread.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Remove the worst record for a player and it becomes better :O Surprise surprise!!!!!remove aus and ind for murali and it becomes better.OMG!!!

Your blatant double standards have been brought to light.My job is done.Keep your excuses ready for those who want to hear them.

 

[bagapath]

Yeah, that news came on only one TV set.

ha ha. dont be mean sanz. i have read that interview too. ikki is speaking the truth. lara did rate wasim and warne as the greatest.

 

[Ikki]

Honestly, if you can't see how his 1 bad record in India devalues his overall away record then it's pointless to argue. You have to have a modicum of sense for us to debate.

With India, his away record is 48.5...yet Ponting averages 50+ in every country bar 2; England and India. And in England he averages 44.

 

[ankitj]

Because if you remove minnows he isn't. How is breaking up stats into home and away a ridiculous level? HB I hold you in higher esteem than the likes of Avada, and it really shouldn't need this much explaining but:

Without B/Z
Warne: avg. 25.40 sr. 57.6
Murali: avg. 24.87 sr. 58.6

And of course the fact that if you remove B/Z, Murali's average value of wicket becomes more than Warne's. So without B/Z, Murali takes more valuable wickets at lesser cost.

Of course, you think that methodology is flawed, but none of the flaws you pointed out were actually flaws.

 

[Ikki]

That's because Murali still bowled half his tests on a spinner's paradise whereas Warne bowled his on a spinner's nightmare. The fact that your methodology can't differentiate between that means it is basically useless in that comparison. Not to mention it was also shown that if one bowler gets the same value from wickets of minnows as the other does against better batsmen, it helps him in that analysis.

 

[ankitj]

ha ha. dont be mean sanz. i have read that interview too. ikki is speaking the truth. lara did rate wasim and warne as the greatest.

From what I gather from this video however, Lara has lot of respect for Warne's fighting spirit but doesn't consider him the most skilled. So it's rather odd that he said that Warne was the 'greatest bowler to ever pick the ball'. Was he just saying that because he was being pushed to? Like any visiting cricketer in India gets pushed to say that Tendulkar is the greatest batsman to ever live?

 

[ankitj]

That's because Murali still bowled half his tests on a spinner's paradise whereas Warne bowled his on a spinner's nightmare. The fact that your methodology can't differentiate between that means it is basically useless in that comparison. Not to mention it was also shown that if one bowler gets the same value from wickets of minnows as the other does against better batsmen, it helps him in that analysis.

That bolded part is so completely wrong. Didn't I show with an example that outlier performances (on the good side or bad) against stronger teams have a bigger influence on the overall number?

And I did compare the away performances against each opposition, and Murali came out ahead against 4 out of 6. So it didn't swing it into Warne's favour, though agreeably the difference does appear to narrow. But again that was considering all of Murali's career including the period he wasn't really a great bowler.

 

[Ikki]

That bolded part is so completely wrong. Didn't I show with an example that outlier performances (on the good side or bad) against stronger teams have a bigger influence on the overall number?

You showed that if a bowler did better than his own standard against better teams it would advantage him. Of course, doing better than you'd usually do against a good team seems logical to award. However, if two players perform under their own standard, the one facing the weaker side gets more of a benefit than the one facing a stronger side. Anyway, not sure this is relevant here since we removed minnows.

And I did compare the away performances against each opposition, and Murali came out ahead against 4 out of 6. So it didn't swing it into Warne's favour, though agreeably the difference does appear to narrow.

Bolded part is key. Heck, you can even make more points to make that difference seem negligible. For one, Warne had competition for upper order wickets. This means in many matches through no fault of his own the batsmen with the higher averages would be taken out by teammates. And if Warne has conceded runs to said batsmen and then takes a batsman with a lower average it hurts him. Something which is far less likely to occur for Murali who also tended to be brought on earlier.

But again that was considering all of Murali's career including the period he wasn't really a great bowler.

Maybe we should start picking what we'll count, eh. How about not counting the years where Warne had numerous injuries/operations; had to change how he bowled and was consequently **** out of form?

 

[Ikki]

ha ha. dont be mean sanz. i have read that interview too. ikki is speaking the truth. lara did rate wasim and warne as the greatest.

IIRC it was during the Ashes whitewash which was Warne's last series. Lara laid on the tributes thick and fast.

 

[bagapath]

oh! i thought it was lara's retirement interview when he had to name the best bowlers he had faced etc. around the same 2007 season IIRC

 

[smash84]

Yeah, that news came on only one TV set.

Once Kaneria had been taken for 26 in an over and got that glint in his eye, there was no better bowler...

 

[Ikki]

oh! i thought it was lara's retirement interview when he had to name the best bowlers he had faced etc. around the same 2007 season IIRC

He may have again, not sure.

 

[smash84]

Nah uh, that was a deadly bouncer, you probably have not seen that match, Pakistan was bowled out for like nothing, it was an extremely pacy pitch with a lot of zip, Shoaib was steaming in during that spell, he got Gayle with an unplayable delivery, was bowling well past 90 mph during that spell, insanely quick on a damn quick wicket.

TBH I didn't see much of that match except for a few overs of the WI innings and in those few overs Lara got hit. I thought Lara didn't really spot the bouncer coming and hence made a mess of it.

I thought it was a very good bouncer by Akhtar at the right height and great pace. I believe a genuinely good bouncer is around chest-throat height that makes the batsman move his body quite a bit even if he wants to duck.

Lara later said it was the first time he was facing Akhtar in international cricket (indeed, Akhtar bowled just 2 or 3 deliveries to Lara in his entire Test/ODI career - and all of them in that very match) and he just could not read Akhtar's delivery. Lara clearly did not "see" the ball until it was too late.

I remember seeing Lara pull/hook/duck Brett Lee's bouncers which were nearly as quick as the one bowled by Akhtar. But I guess Lara could read Lee better partly because he played Lee a lot more.

Akhtar's bouncers in general are very difficult to read, partly because of his action. This, in addition to sheer pace, makes hooking him a very difficult and dangerous gamble. I have seen only De Silva connecting a hook shot off Akhtar when he was bowling flat out at full speed (in the Asian Test Championship in 1999 I think). Ponting hooked him a couple of times but never looked convincing (either top-edges or ball hitting the logo of the bat). This over of Akhtar to Ponting (especially the first 2 deliveries) was quite possibly the quickest I have seen in the game of cricket.

Lara's toughest examination against hostile pace (that I know of), came in Trinidad against Lee in the 2003 Aus-WI Test series immediately after 2003 World Cup. Lee was at his best during those few months including the World Cup. He was bowling consistently at a fearsome pace. I remember him hitting Tendulkar twice on the shoulder in the league match between India and Australia. Just incredible pace.

Lee never was the same bowler again after his ankle surgery later that year.

Tony Cozier described that Lara-Lee battle beautifully in his report:

In the two hours to lunch, captain Lara fashioned an innings of exceptional brilliance, even by the standards of the several that have confirmed him as the game's most devastating batsman.

On the way to finally completing his first hundred in his tenth Test on the ground that has been his cricketing home since he was a boy, he had to endure a searching examination of his skill and courage from the raw speed and hostility of Brett Lee.

It was a confrontation worth the price of admission on its own. After five hours all told in the middle, that included a six and 13 fours, the champion left-hander fell to Matthew Hayden's sharp slip catch as he cut at a bouncing leg-break of Stuart MacGill.

It was a huge letdown after a morning session that advertised Test cricket at its best.

The 12,000 or so who made their way to the Oval came in the confident expectation that, this time, Lara, with 52 already in the book, would treat them to the kind of miracle he had performed only on foreign fields.

He did not disappoint.

Australia knew, as everyone with even a passing interest in the game knew, that Lara was their only threat. He had beaten them off his own bat before, twice and most famously in their last series in the Caribbean four years ago.

This time, when he entered the contest at a precarious 12 for two the previous afternoon, he brought with him the form of successive scores of 110 and 91.

The Australians went at him with everything they had. It was not until Lee was introduced after five overs from Hogg that Lara was most severely tested.

Disregarding the character of the pitch that produced a double and five singles hundreds, Lee sprinted in with malice aforethought and consistently delivered his thunderbolts in the mid-90 miles an hour range.

Lara and Sarwan took blows on the shoulder and Sarwan just managed to keep out the kind of yorker that shattered his middle and leg stumps in the first innings.

Lara had to keep bobbing and weaving and wicket-keeper Adam Gilchrist stretching to his full height to gather. Lara's skill and eye enabled him to get out of harm's way at the last moment, as deliveries whistled past his head at well over 90 miles per hour. Lesser batsmen would not have survived the ordeal.

There has not been a more lethal bouncer at the Oval since the heyday of Michael Holding and Malcolm Marshall than Lee's, that only Lara's form and keen eye saved him from decapitation.

It was hair-raising stuff that had the Oval in a ferment. It goes straight into the indelible memory bank alongside Holding's celebrated over to Geoff Boycott in 1981 and Jeff Thomson's fearsome hour and a half burst that removed Gordon Greenidge, Alvin Kallicharran and Viv Richards in 1978, both at Kensington Oval.

Lara rode the storm, taking 33 balls of Lee's seven overs and twice counter-attacking with two crisp pull shots and a confident cut, before falling to the leg spin of Stuart MacGill.

Well written.

De Silva was probably the best ever Asian player of the hook and pull shots. I always thought that there were few players who had at times played Wasim, Waqar, Imran, and Shoaib (yes he had played against all of them) as well as De Silva did. He is one of those players whose average doesn't really tell the true story of how good he really was.

 

[smash84]

Exceptional point. Everyone should apply this to ATG pacers too and crown the pacer who struck over 11 balls faster over an entire decade and about 20 balls faster over five years, not only in SL but overall, while still conceding about the same amount of runs per wicket to be better than everyone else tbh.

Let me guess. Coming from Teja. Is this pace bowler Waqar?????