*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Mike5181]

Mike, you may want to see this:

How valuable is that wicket!

Yeah, again there is a lot that has been missed/overlooked in this statistical analysis. For example the use of batting averages although on face value looks like a good way to compare players etc. A player that averages 40 in New Zealand is not the same as a player who averages 40 in India. Different conditions, different records/high scores in those particular conditions.

On a side note i think someone who can knock off tailenders/lower order batsmen should not be punished as that is also a skill (knowing where/how to bowl to these guys to get the best results).

As i said before the difference in players statistics do not tell the whole story nor do they necessarily mean this player is better than this player etc.

[ankitj]

Yeah, again there is a lot that has been missed/overlooked in this statistical analysis. For example the use of batting averages although on face value looks like a good way to compare players etc. A player that averages 40 in New Zealand is not the same as a player who averages 40 in India. Different conditions, different records/high scores in those particular conditions.

On a side note i think someone who can knock off tailenders/lower order batsmen should not be punished as that is also a skill (knowing where/how to bowl to these guys to get the best results).

Agree on the first part. It's not perfect. Yet you'd think a flat track bully who averages 55 is perhaps worth 45 but not 15 by any stretch. So this method is making lesser error than the conventional averages. Not to mention that substantial amount of these differences will have different signs will cancel out each other. Agree though that it's not perfect.

On the second part, yes it is a skill. But at the same time you must be removing them at a much lesser cost. So there is no penalty for taking tailenders once you take into account the bowling average too.

[Flem274*]

Is this thread still going? Sheesh.

[JBH001]

Hmmm....

Which was the best team in the world through the vast majority of Murali's career, and how did he go against them?

On the whole, pretty well, no?

[0RI0N]

Is this thread still going? Sheesh.

This thread will never die, this thread is the soul of cricketweb.
One thread to rule them all.

[Migara]

Is this thread still going? Sheesh.

Horrible isn't it?

[ankitj]

Welcome back, Migara

[Furball]

At the same time Aus haven't been the single biggest challenge for spinners in last 2 decades.

You sure about that?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...s;type=bowling

[GotSpin]

It's a shame Murali didn't play here more. Only averaged 75

[Cricketismylife]

Mike5181 Warne may have played against Aus batsman in first class cricket, but it's irrelevant when discussing his test statistics.

I'm obviously not blaming Warne for not bowling against his own line up, but I was just looking into reasons why statistically Murali's quality of wicket is as high as Warne's and one of those reasons is that Murali played against the 2 best batting lineups (India and Australia) a lot more than Warne.

With regards to the tailenders, again its not Warne's fault Mcgrath etc took the top order out a lot, but the fact remains a higher percentage of his wickets were lower order batsman than Murali. I agree that you need to be able to remove tailenders, but that does not make their wickets more valuable than top order batsman. Warne's dismissal of Michael Vaughan obviously counts a lot more than his dismissal of say Steve Harmison.

The bottom line is even including Zim and Bang Murali's quality of wicket is equivalent to Warne (or very slightly better/worse).

With regards to wicket per match Murali is ahead, but for me that's not so important as Warne had more competition per wicket. For me what is special about Murali is that he kept his average lower than Warne despite bowling with far less support. I think its obvious that bowling in a pack helps the bowling average.

For a start I think it was shown that both Warne and Murali bowl worse in the first innings of tests, but thats something that Murali's had to do far more than Warne. Imagine how good his bowling average would be if he had more support and didnt have to bowl as much in the first innings.

Secondly, it was shown that the very long spells that Warne and Murali bowl, their averages are usually worse. Murali has had to bowl more of those long spells than Warne. Again imagine if Murali had more support and didn't have to bowl as many long spells, his bowling average would be even better.

If Murali had a better attack around him, he would probably have something like 600 wickets at 19!

I believe also Murali is underrated because general public do not watch many test matches in Sri Lanka. I have seen him run through the Indian line up on the flattest wicket like the SSC. He has ran through teams so many times with very little fanfare. For example, no one made a fuss when he took 10-172 v SA in the same match that Sanga and Mahela scored 624. He has turned in so many performances like that, which many people do not see. Whereas test matches Warne play in attract a lot of hype such as the Ashes etc. I have been fortunate to watch most test matches that both play in, both world class bowlers, no doubt for me that Murali was better.

[Tom 1972]

Mike5181 I think its obvious that bowling in a pack helps the bowling average.

One could argue that in either direction - if players can score up the other end, they maybe don't attack Murali and get out trying to survive. Or because Warne had quality up the other end applying pressure, batsmen got out trying to score.

ie: Murali's average is artifically low due to batsmen's ability to score quickly at the other end.

Of course, none of these types of generalistions are really all that "obvious" or valid me thinks. I'm glad I lived in a generation that had both of these guys,

Who's better?
Statistically: Murali.
Better to watch: Warne IMHO.

I'm an Aussie so pretty biased anyway.

[Cricketismylife]

Fair point Tom 1972, I don't really see preferring to watch Warne as being biased, I see watchability as a subjective thing, and being an Aussie it's natural you would prefer to watch Warne anyway. For me biased is more when a person promotes their own favourties players as being better than others without logically and fairly rationalising, which I don't see your post as doing.

Personally, I would say I find both Warne and Murali equally watchable, both are absolutely box office. But if I was not a Sri Lankan supporter I would rather watch Warne, simply because the test matches he plays in are more hyped up, and his theatrics while not making him a better bowler are magnetic. In this way I think Murali has been unlucky; when is the last time a SL serious generated serious coverage?

About the bowling in a pack if I could just give an example. When Warne comes to England, on the first day when it's not ideal for spinners Mcgrath etc would dismiss the top order. Warne would then clean up some of the tail plus the odd top order batsman. Then in the second innings when it's suitable for spinners, he would run through the England line up.

Compare to Murali, who comes to England, finds the rest of his attack completely toothless, has to bowl on the first day regardless of conditions. He's bowling more out of his comfort zone than Warne. Warne can be taken off if bowling badly, Murali does not have that luxury. If Warne is bowling well he will continue to bowl and take wickets. Sure he's got better bowlers at the other end to take wickets, but it's not like they are gonna strike so fast to take wickets away when Warne is in an absolute purple patch. At least I reckon the negative of having to bowl whatever the circumstance outweighs the fact that Warne might have a few wickets nicked during a purple patch.

An interesting thing is, how many all time great bowlers do we know who didn't have class support? Only Murali and Hadlee. Surely that must indicate it's much harder to keep your average down without much support than with. Ambrose had Walsh +Bishop/Patterson/Benjamin/Dillon etc. Wasim and Waqar had each other plus Mustaq/Saqlain plus another useful seamer. Donald and Pollock had each other +Fanie De Villiers/Ntini etc. Warne and Mcgrath had each other +Gillespie/Lee/Clark/Fleming.

Murali only had Vaas.

[akilana]

headache.

[vcs]

I would say Warne was often making top-order breakthroughs even in first innings when he bowled to England. The opening day of Ashes 2001 always comes to mind for me. I take your general point, though.

[Cricketismylife]

Lol akilana I don't blame you, I have droned on a lot. Have felt very passionately for a long time that Murali is/was severely underrated. Tendulkar 50 centuries is amazing and deserves recognition, but what about Murali's 67 five fors! With the next best 37! True he played in a weak attack but still a fantastic achievement...we don't see Shakib constantly taking 5 even though his attack is so weak.