mendis and murali

[Napier16]

You don't think support from other bowlers and fielders plays any role in a bowler's success?

Correct.

Which form of "support "are you saying Warne has benefitted from?

Mcgrath taking all the wickets and depriving Warne of much work in a number of tests?

Or Warne having poor support in the 05 Ashes and did it all himself picking up 40 wickets at 20?

 

[Uppercut]

Correct.

Which form of "support "are you saying Warne has benefitted from?

Mcgrath taking all the wickets and depriving Warne of much work in a number of tests?

Or Warne having poor support in the 05 Ashes and did it all himself picking up 40 wickets at 20?

Superior fielding, Napier.

 

[Dissector]

They do, but it's a bit of a random distribution. There's a good chance Warne benefited from better fielding than Kumble, but it's only a chance. You can only give a gentle nod in the direction of that factor, you can't use it to say "Kumble would have averaged 3 or 4 runs less...".

Far more important factors IMO would be:

1. Kumble never had to play against one of the greatest ever generations of players at batting against spin.
2. Kumble had far more helpful pitches to bowl on. Shown by his failings outside of India.

Frankly I think fielding is much more than a matter of "chance" when it comes to helping bowlers. It's not just a matter of taking catches. It's about preventing singles that take the batsman off strike. Stopping 2's being converted to 3's. Stopping boundaries. At a more general level it's about building pressure on the batsman which often induces a bad stroke against a spinner. I reckon the difference between an oustanding side and a mediocre one is easily 30-40 runs per innings which works out to 3-4 per wicket . Just an estimate of course but a reasonable one IMO.

As for tracks in India it's a valid point to some extent but often exaggerated. Indian wickets haven't always or even mostly been square turners. They have sometimes just been flat wickets with very little for the bowler. The same goes for Sri Lanka incidentally.

The bottom line for me is that bowlers and spinners in particular often get wickets by pressure more than anything else. It is a team which creates pressure by piling up big scores, taking early wickets, fielding sharply and building a strong position by the second innings by when the pressure is often at a maximum and the pitch is at its worst. If your team isn't even in the game by the time the second innings is around you are going to struggle to take wickets. That has been a huge handicap for Kumble when he has bowled abroad particularly in the first half of his career. It's interesting that his figures abroad have improved significantly even though he is probably not as good a bowler as he was 10 years ago. That's because the Indian team as a whole has performed much better.

 

[Migara]

He's also bowled about 60 overs a match and played B&Z a quite a bit. That's also something no one in history has done.

Don't want to get into this and demean his great record. But Murali has not been the phenomena you quite envisage and his distance with Warne, whatever way you wish to rank them is very small. I don't think it's "pretty silly' to think either is greater than the other. Murali, himself, thinks Warne is the greatest ever.

Problem is, even without them the number does not chage much. And he didin't get to bowl at the rubbish that Warne produced the "ball of century"

 

[zaremba]

And he didin't get to bowl at the rubbish that Warne produced the "ball of century"

I don't understand a word of this. Care to explain what you're on about?

 

[Migara]

I don't understand a word of this. Care to explain what you're on about?

i.e. If Murali bowled more at rubbish players of spin as often as Warne, he would have got lot more wickets. And among the king pile of them are the English in 1992-1996 era. Only time they played in SL, Murali was very young, and had to play second fiddle to Warnaweera who has hit a purple patch during that time.

 

[zaremba]

i.e. If Murali bowled more at rubbish players of spin as often as Warne, he would have got lot more wickets. And among the king pile of them are the English in 1992-1996 era. Only time they played in SL, Murali was very young, and had to play second fiddle to Warnaweera who has hit a purple patch during that time.

Er... what's any of that got to do with the "ball of the century"?

 

[Migara]

Er... what's any of that got to do with the "ball of the century"?

That was bowled to the one of the ****tiest players of quality spin. Now don't jump and tell that he averaged 50 in India. But he averaged less than 20 when either Kumble, or Murali were in respective sides.

 

[zaremba]

Right. Great point.

I would suggest that, if you feel you have anything useful to say, you say it on the Warne v Murali thread.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

 

[JBH001]

Frankly I think fielding is much more than a matter of "chance" when it comes to helping bowlers. It's not just a matter of taking catches. It's about preventing singles that take the batsman off strike. Stopping 2's being converted to 3's. Stopping boundaries. At a more general level it's about building pressure on the batsman which often induces a bad stroke against a spinner. I reckon the difference between an oustanding side and a mediocre one is easily 30-40 runs per innings which works out to 3-4 per wicket . Just an estimate of course but a reasonable one IMO.

As for tracks in India it's a valid point to some extent but often exaggerated. Indian wickets haven't always or even mostly been square turners. They have sometimes just been flat wickets with very little for the bowler. The same goes for Sri Lanka incidentally.

The bottom line for me is that bowlers and spinners in particular often get wickets by pressure more than anything else. It is a team which creates pressure by piling up big scores, taking early wickets, fielding sharply and building a strong position by the second innings by when the pressure is often at a maximum and the pitch is at its worst. If your team isn't even in the game by the time the second innings is around you are going to struggle to take wickets. That has been a huge handicap for Kumble when he has bowled abroad particularly in the first half of his career. It's interesting that his figures abroad have improved significantly even though he is probably not as good a bowler as he was 10 years ago. That's because the Indian team as a whole has performed much better.

Great points. Am in complete agreement.

 

[Precambrian]

Frankly I think fielding is much more than a matter of "chance" when it comes to helping bowlers. It's not just a matter of taking catches. It's about preventing singles that take the batsman off strike. Stopping 2's being converted to 3's. Stopping boundaries. At a more general level it's about building pressure on the batsman which often induces a bad stroke against a spinner. I reckon the difference between an oustanding side and a mediocre one is easily 30-40 runs per innings which works out to 3-4 per wicket . Just an estimate of course but a reasonable one IMO.

As for tracks in India it's a valid point to some extent but often exaggerated. Indian wickets haven't always or even mostly been square turners. They have sometimes just been flat wickets with very little for the bowler. The same goes for Sri Lanka incidentally.

The bottom line for me is that bowlers and spinners in particular often get wickets by pressure more than anything else. It is a team which creates pressure by piling up big scores, taking early wickets, fielding sharply and building a strong position by the second innings by when the pressure is often at a maximum and the pitch is at its worst. If your team isn't even in the game by the time the second innings is around you are going to struggle to take wickets. That has been a huge handicap for Kumble when he has bowled abroad particularly in the first half of his career. It's interesting that his figures abroad have improved significantly even though he is probably not as good a bowler as he was 10 years ago. That's because the Indian team as a whole has performed much better.

AWTA. I would also emphasise on the quality of close-in catching as well wicketkeeping. Post Mongia, Kumble suffered a lot due to poor wicketkeeping by way of lost stumpings and catches, not to mention umpteen byes and legbyes, which do a lot to the morale of the bowler to experiment. I do believe that Kumble's average would have been surely been better by atleast 3 points by presence of Eknath Solkaresque (Okay Akash Choprasque atleast) close-in fielders and Kirmani-like keeper.

 

[Top_Cat]

AWTA. I would also emphasise on the quality of close-in catching as well wicketkeeping. Post Mongia, Kumble suffered a lot due to poor wicketkeeping by way of lost stumpings and catches, not to mention umpteen byes and legbyes, which do a lot to the morale of the bowler to experiment. I do believe that Kumble's average would have been surely been better by atleast 3 points by presence of Eknath Solkaresque (Okay Akash Choprasque atleast) close-in fielders and Kirmani-like keeper.

Agree that fielding makes a massive difference but for Kumble's average to drop by 3 points, assuming the same number of deliveries, he'd have to have taken 70+ more wickets or bump his wickets-per-match up by 0.5 when it's already at a very high 4.75 per match (law of dimishing returns and all that). And that's for his whole career, not just post-Mongia which would mean he'd have to have taken even more per match. That's a massive difference to put down to fielding alone and I find it pretty unlikely.

I don't disagree that Kumble has suffered a bit due to poor fielding but by that much? Nup, don't buy it.

 

[Precambrian]

Agree that fielding makes a massive difference but for Kumble's average to drop by 3 points, assuming the same number of deliveries, he'd have to have taken 70+ more wickets or bump his wickets-per-match up by 0.5 when it's already at a very high 4.75 per match (law of dimishing returns and all that). And that's for his whole career, not just post-Mongia which would mean he'd have to have taken even more per match. That's a massive difference to put down to fielding alone and I find it pretty unlikely.

I don't disagree that Kumble has suffered a bit due to poor fielding but by that much? Nup, don't buy it.

Okay my fault I didn't back up my earlier argument with statistics. So here they are :

Kumble had the services of the capable Nayan Mongia from 1994 to 2000. During which time, his stats were as follows:

Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
42 72 2079.4 496 5232 185 10/74 14/149 [B]28.28[/B] 2.51 67.4 10 2

So for the remaining period, his stats are as follows:

Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
88 159 4620.1 1063 12803 431 8/141 13/181 [B]29.70 [/B]2.77 64.3 25 6

Clearly an average differential of about 1.42. Also note that the period when Mongia was in operation was before 2000, i.e, when Kumble was peaking into being India's premier bowler. So, obviously, it can be extrapolated that a Mongia-esque keeper would have ensured an even better average, and the presence of a Solkaresque infielder would have even done better.

 

[Top_Cat]

Okay my fault I didn't back up my earlier argument with statistics. So here they are :

Kumble had the services of the capable Nayan Mongia from 1994 to 2000. During which time, his stats were as follows:

Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
42 72 2079.4 496 5232 185 10/74 14/149 [B]28.28[/B] 2.51 67.4 10 2

So for the remaining period, his stats are as follows:

Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
88 159 4620.1 1063 12803 431 8/141 13/181 [B]29.70 [/B]2.77 64.3 25 6

Clearly an average differential of about 1.42. Also note that the period when Mongia was in operation was before 2000, i.e, when Kumble was peaking into being India's premier bowler. So, obviously, it can be extrapolated that a Mongia-esque keeper would have ensured an even better average, and the presence of a Solkaresque infielder would have even done better.

Yet India's fielding, as a rule, has improved immeasurably since the 90's when, let's face it, they were a running joke amongst commentators, teams and punters alike. Putting a 1.42 average increase down to the 'keeper? Harsh on the 'keepers and too easy on Kumble, for mine. Particularly since I would guess he's played more outside of Asia from 2000 with the ICC's 10-year-plan in effect?

 

[adharcric]

They do, but it's a bit of a random distribution. There's a good chance Warne benefited from better fielding than Kumble, but it's only a chance. You can only give a gentle nod in the direction of that factor, you can't use it to say "Kumble would have averaged 3 or 4 runs less...".

Far more important factors IMO would be:

1. Kumble never had to play against one of the greatest ever generations of players at batting against spin.
2. Kumble had far more helpful pitches to bowl on. Shown by his failings outside of India.

No, Warne definitely benefited from fielding support more than Kumble did - no doubt at all if you've watched India and Australia in the field over the past two decades. The two other factors that you've brought up are also valid and there are several other factors that can be accounted for as well. The point here is not that Kumble is as good as Warne just because of these disadvantages - that is completely false - but rather that these disadvantages exist for Kumble, just as others exist for Warne.

 

[adharcric]

Correct.

Which form of "support "are you saying Warne has benefitted from?

Mcgrath taking all the wickets and depriving Warne of much work in a number of tests?

First of all, wickets per test is a very skewed statistic - look at average and strike rate and the argument that McGrath hurt Warne's numbers goes out the window.

Or Warne having poor support in the 05 Ashes and did it all himself picking up 40 wickets at 20?

Yeah, that's only one series. Good one.

 

[Precambrian]

Yet India's fielding, as a rule, has improved immeasurably since the 90's when, let's face it, they were a running joke amongst commentators, teams and punters alike. Putting a 1.42 average increase down to the 'keeper? Harsh on the 'keepers and too easy on Kumble, for mine. Particularly since I would guess he's played more outside of Asia from 2000 with the ICC's 10-year-plan in effect?

Am not attributing entirely to the keeper. Am not saying it's fully coincidental.

As to your saying yes, India do have played more outside Asia after 2000 and that might been a factor for the increased averages.

		[B]Mongia as WK	Others as WK	TOTAL[/B]
In Asia		27		53		80
Outside Asia	15		35		50
[B]TOTAL		42		88		130[/B]% Tests In Asia	64%		60%		62%

 

[honestbharani]

I think the value of having an equally good bowler at the other end is understated (and underrated criminally) around here.. u juz need to see how much it helped Murali to have Mendis at the other end in the first test to understand what it means...

 

[Ikki]

I think the value of having an equally good bowler at the other end is understated (and underrated criminally) around here.. u juz need to see how much it helped Murali to have Mendis at the other end in the first test to understand what it means...

I think comparing Mendis to McGrath is different. Having two world class spinners is quite different to having a world class pace man and a world class spinner. Murali has actually done worse discounting the first test, to what he usually does in Sri Lanka.

And Warne, when McGrath hasn't been there is relatively the same. In reality, the one whose stats are affected are McGrath's when not having Warne to rely on.

As for the other discussion, Kumble is disadvantaged by certain things, Warne by others...sure. To say that Kumble would be naturally Warne's equal or thereabouts were it not for these disadvantages is pushing it...a lot. Warne as a spinner is comparable really to only 2, possibly 3, other spinners in history.