# Thread: *Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

1. Originally Posted by a massive zebra
Warne wins but only by a hair's breath which is explained by the higher quality of bowlers that support Warne at the other end,
A drop of 1 compared to 3.

And how come whenever Warne beats Murali it's excused as because he has better bowlers around him, but when Murali beats Warne it's clear statistical proof?

2. Originally Posted by C_C
Okay, i still didnt get that.
2 degrees in 50 is a 4% error, 2 in 15 is 13.33%

3. Originally Posted by C_C
For pete's sake, even the most highly sophisticated, utterly state of the art electron microscopes have a margin of error associated with them !!!!!!!!
ARGH!
It's a fact that lab testing has a lower margin of error than tests utilised in the Champions Trophy.

Say it, once or twice, you might enjoy it!

Even alchos have 12 steps so Im not asking you to admit youre wrong just yet.

4. Okay i understand then - and i agree.
But we are dealing with an absolutist law( the old one) here - 'thou shalt not bend elbow' - as long as the minima of the error range doesnt go below zero for the data recorded, its a valid observation.
ie, as long as your values dont fall within the error ange ( ie, 2 degrees flexion,with +/- 2 degrees error range), you * are * chucking.

5. Originally Posted by social
It's a fact that lab testing has a lower margin of error than tests utilised in the Champions Trophy.

Say it, once or twice, you might enjoy it!

Even alchos have 12 steps so Im not asking you to admit youre wrong just yet.

Incorrect. the latter was not discarded - it was taken into account for the law -change ( which is why the law is 15 degrees for all and not for various degrees tolerance for various kinds of bowlers). So how the hell is the latter 'discarded' ?

You are talking about a field where you are not an expert but i am ( error analysis). So, in short, i suggest you shut up and stop making a fool of yourself.

Haha, that's a good one. So, what's Warne's record in the fourth and fifth tests of a series, compared to the early tests?
There is no point in discussing this as Murali has never played in 4 or 5 Test series so no one can say for sure how he would perform. The chances are, however, that as he performs Warne in almost every other category, that he would come out on top.

What's the difference between their records in the first and second tests of a series, and why didn't you post that?

What's Murali's record in third tests excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and how exactly are we to judge him in a long series given that he has never played one?
Substantially better than Warne's as most of these series have consisted of 2 Tests so the impact on his average has been minimal. It's actually 83 wickets at 27.92 compared to Warne's average of nearly 32.

You really are the worst user of statistics on this forum by a mile. You pick a random example which happens to go with your pre-concieved opinion, and quote it as if it is the gospel truth without considering the context that the record in question was achieved in.
What a hypocrite. In this case I was simply using the statistics that you had claimed were in Warne's favour, and the so called 'notepad file' is one of the most thorough statistical analyses you can come across, incorpirating all matches that the two bowlers have played in and a looking at things from a wide variety of angles.

And as far as you accusing me of blind patriotism, well you can shove it as far as I'm concerned. You know nothing about me, and if you think I'm blindly patriotic you clearly don't read any posts I write on this forum on any topic other than Murali vs Warne. And frankly, if anyone here can be accused of being blind on the subject its certainly you, as your contribution to every debate on Murali and Warne is to paste a notepad file of misleading stats and repeat ad-nauseum that Murali has a superior statistical record without addressing any of the arguments on the subject which go beyond who has a better average.
I might not know anything personal about you but 7000 posts is more than enough from which to develop a picture about somene and I have read nearly all your posts on other threads - they have only reinforced my views. For example, your choice of Australians for current and all time World XIs over many players from other countries who have performed better, your choice of Lillee over many other fast bowlers despite statistical proof to the contrary. I could go on and on but that wouldn't solve anything. If you actually read my well known analysis of this subject you will see that it goes well beyond who has the better average.

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.

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
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
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?

8) Murali on top form is more devastating than Warne on top form.

Best innings:

9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02 [1583]
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998 [1423]
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001 [1559]

10) 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.

Also, this is not a notepad file that I have saved on disk as you have claimed so many times, but infact a post I originally made on this board about a year ago. When it is required I just use the search button to find it and then copy and paste.

Go back to plagiarising other people's film reviews and pasting the same thing in every thread on a pet subject, rather than accusing me of being biased.
Personal insults are a sure sign of someone who knows he is losing an argument but is too stubborn to change his view even after he has run out of ideas to support his opinion.

7. Originally Posted by C_C
Incorrect. the latter was not discarded - it was taken into account for the law -change ( which is why the law is 15 degrees for all and not for various degrees tolerance for various kinds of bowlers). So how the hell is the latter 'discarded' ?

You are talking about a field where you are not an expert but i am ( error analysis). So, in short, i suggest you shut up and stop making a fool of yourself.
You are impossible.

If you read the reports, which I have (and I can only assume that the ICC and its independent experts have done likewise, given their findings) you'll find that this testing had too great a margin of error to be definitive or accurate. As such, lab-testing is a pre-requisite to any decision.

They were used for data collection purposes only.

They bear little significance on the way that the "testers" view any bowler.

I would hope, given that you are a self-proclaimed expert in error analysis, that you do not spend too much time analysing your own posts as the holiday season is too short.

Over and out.

8. Originally Posted by a massive zebra
There is no point in discussing this as Murali has never played in 4 or 5 Test series so no one can say for sure how he would perform.
There's not much point using these numbers at all.

If you compare Murali & Warne in 1st, 2nd and 3rd Tests played, Murali's numbers hold up better than Warne's, but that doesn't mean that Murali out plays Warne in three Test series. Without any context, the numbers are pretty meaningless.

9. Originally Posted by a massive zebra
Whatever people may think, there can be no argument that statistically Murali outdoes Warne against England in almost every way possible. Warne has never taken anything like 16 wickets in a Test against England and never dominated our batsmen to such an extent as to prevent any of our batsmen from averaging over 30 in an entire series. Warne has never averaged anything close to 12 in a series against England, never taken more than half the wickets for his country in the series, and never gone at just 1.6 an over throughout an entire series. People were raving about Warne's admitedly outstanding 40 wickets in the Ashes, but the fact of the matter is that if the last Eng vs Sri Lanka series had consisted of 5 Tests, Murali would have gone past that figure.

All this despite Warne having 3 times as many chances show off his talents. You can only perform in the matches you play, and going by current figures, if Murali had played as many matches against England as Warne, he would have well over 200 wickets against them by now.
Warne's never played on an Oval pitch that looks more like Columbo.

10. Originally Posted by a massive zebra
1) 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
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
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

2) 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.

3) 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?

4) Murali on top form is more devastating than Warne on top form.

Best innings:

9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02 [1583]
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998 [1423]
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001 [1559]

5) 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.
1) As you so often point out, Murali has less competition for wickets. Therefore in long innings, with lots more bowling directed at Murali, he's bound to take more wickets. I believe these stats have a condition of less than 3 wickets taken in an innings. Not sure here, but take this condition out and it might look quite different.

2) Actually, Australia's bowling attack in the early 90s wasn't great and not hugely better than Sri Lanka's now. This is exemplified by the fact that Warne's economy rate going into the 1994/5 Ashes was 2.2, and his average was just over 23 (came down to 22 temporarily in The Ashes series), which shows he was often blocked out much like Murali is. Yet at his peak he still took wickets. And not on dustbowls.

3) Better that than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

4) Similar to point one, Murali has less competition for wickets, as you admit. Therefore, he's bound to take more 8 and 9 wicket hauls.

5) I certainly don't think it was the Ball of the Century, and anyone who does, without having seen everything, is deluding themselves. Fair enough here. It was however, a brilliant ball.

11. 2) Actually, Australia's bowling attack in the early 90s wasn't great and not hugely better than Sri Lanka's now. This is exemplified by the fact that Warne's economy rate going into the 1994/5 Ashes was 2.2, and his average was just over 23 (came down to 22 temporarily in The Ashes series), which shows he was often blocked out much like Murali is. Yet at his peak he still took wickets. And not on dustbowls.
Even in the early-mid 90s the OZ attack was superior to the current SL attack. But it wasnt massively superior like it has been over the past decade or so - and yes, Warney took a lotta wickets then, being the major bowler.But he didnt, either at Murali's stunning average, or wicket/match ratio or strike rate.

12. Originally Posted by social
You are impossible.

If you read the reports, which I have (and I can only assume that the ICC and its independent experts have done likewise, given their findings) you'll find that this testing had too great a margin of error to be definitive or accurate. As such, lab-testing is a pre-requisite to any decision.

They were used for data collection purposes only.

They bear little significance on the way that the "testers" view any bowler.

I would hope, given that you are a self-proclaimed expert in error analysis, that you do not spend too much time analysing your own posts as the holiday season is too short.

Over and out.
The lab test is a pre-requisite to determine the level of flexion to the most accurate degree. However, the ICC champion's trophy testing, along with analysis of bowlers from yesteryears clearly establishes that every single bowler barring Sarwan flexes his elbow and thus, chucks. McGrath's ICC champion's trophy testing shows him to flex around 12 degrees, with a margin of error of around 2 degrees. That means his flexion level ( from what is determined so far), is between 10 and 14 degrees.
It is not lower than 10 and not higher than 14, no matter how more precise you wanna get.
If it is around 10, he is around the average flexion levels for a pacer and if it is around 14,he flexes more than most pacers and spinners - and his arm speed is slower than Murali's. ( Murali's arm completes its revolution faster than McGrath's does - much like Wasim's arm action was faster than most, ie, his arm completed the revolution faster than most players - ones who've played against Wasim or seen him bowl agree to this without the requirement of science to back it up anyways)
Since elbow flexion is primarily dependent on arm speed ( one of the few major factors), if anything, McGrath is a bigger chucker than Murali is.
That is the logical conclusion.
Simple as that.

PS: I am not a self-proclaimed expert in error analysis - any engineering/pure science student is after the first few years - and i got my degree to back up my talk, not to mention, my current line of work requires a complete mastery of error analysis. So in short, stop arguing with me when it comes to error analysis, unless you are qualified to do so. You may've played FC cricket and you certainly know who plays cover drives better or who turns the ball more, atleast amongst the players you've played with. You may know more than me about how to bowl leg cutters or reverse swingers. But this is my area of expertise, so kindly, shut up instead of arguing about something you do not know of.

13. Originally Posted by Tom Halsey
1) As you so often point out, Murali has less competition for wickets. Therefore in long innings, with lots more bowling directed at Murali, he's bound to take more wickets.
That doesn't make it any easier for Murali to take wickets. Look at all the marathon spells he's had to bowl, only to get a respectable tally from bowling the tail.

A better indicator of their wicket taking ability is strike rate -- Murali's 56.8 to Warne's 57.4, and if anyone wants to quibble over .6 of a ball, well...

14. Warne vs Murali on cricketing ability = too close to call in my opinion.

However, Warnie pulls more chicks.

Warnie wins on points.

15. Originally Posted by a massive zebra
There is no point in discussing this as Murali has never played in 4 or 5 Test series so no one can say for sure how he would perform. The chances are, however, that as he performs Warne in almost every other category, that he would come out on top.

Substantially better than Warne's as most of these series have consisted of 2 Tests so the impact on his average has been minimal. It's actually 83 wickets at 27.92 compared to Warne's average of nearly 32.

What a hypocrite. In this case I was simply using the statistics that you had claimed were in Warne's favour, and the so called 'notepad file' is one of the most thorough statistical analyses you can come across, incorpirating all matches that the two bowlers have played in and a looking at things from a wide variety of angles.

I might not know anything personal about you but 7000 posts is more than enough from which to develop a picture about somene and I have read nearly all your posts on other threads - they have only reinforced my views. For example, your choice of Australians for current and all time World XIs over many players from other countries who have performed better, your choice of Lillee over many other fast bowlers despite statistical proof to the contrary. I could go on and on but that wouldn't solve anything. If you actually read my well known analysis of this subject you will see that it goes well beyond who has the better average.

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.

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
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
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?

8) Murali on top form is more devastating than Warne on top form.

Best innings:

9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02 [1583]
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998 [1423]
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001 [1559]

10) 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.

Also, this is not a notepad file that I have saved on disk as you have claimed so many times, but infact a post I originally made on this board about a year ago. When it is required I just use the search button to find it and then copy and paste.

Personal insults are a sure sign of someone who knows he is losing an argument but is too stubborn to change his view even after he has run out of ideas to support his opinion.
Longest post ever?

And yes, I just had to quote it