***best Bowlers***

[Tom Halsey]

Murali wins again, fair enough, susprising.

 

[a massive zebra]

Murali wins again.

How irritating.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Halsey does, but that is down to hero worship rather than logical thinking.

No, I wouldn't rate Warne above several contempory bowlers (including McGrath), and definately nowhere near best ever, I just feel Murali is overrated, especially when it doesn't turn. Everyone is going to take wickets in Sri Lanka, even James Middlebrook. When I looked at his away stats, I saw most of them were in Pakistan, and filtered them out, and Murali averages 28.25.

Warne outside Sub-Continent in peak period: averages 21.13.

I've also noticed that Murali's 'peak' period you've given contains few games away from home at all and takes much less sustaining.

 

[Tom Halsey]

1) When and where?



2) I cannot believe you just said that.

1) When I tried to manually work out what he averaged 93-95. then I did the easy thing and look at Stats Guru, and it was 21 point something.

2) I know what you mean. The problem is, he was in Pakistan for most of the time you mentioned, and that counts as turning Asian pitches.

 

[a massive zebra]

No, I wouldn't rate Warne above several contempory bowlers (including McGrath), and definately nowhere near best ever

You voted for Warne in the 'Greatest Australian Bowler' thread when McGrath was available. Make your mind up.

When I looked at his away stats, I saw most of them were in Pakistan, and filtered them out, and Murali averages 28.25.

Fair enough, Murali is not god and there are bound to be places where he performs worse than others.

I've also noticed that Murali's 'peak' period you've given contains few games away from home at all and takes much less sustaining.

I'm sure this

Warne outside Sub-Continent in peak period: averages 21.13.

involves a similar number of matches.

 

[Tom Halsey]

1) You voted for Warne in the 'Greatest Australian Bowler' thread when McGrath was available. Make your mind up.

2) I'm sure this involves a similar number of matches.

1) Fair enough. That is where there is no best ever, there are alot of equals, so I voted for my favourite out of those, and a bit of bias too, I'm sure. I wouldn't rate him ahead of McGrath, but since he was my favourite, I voted for him.

2) No it doesn't. Look it up. I think he took around 170 wickets outside Asia from 1st january 1993 to 31st December 1995.

EDIT: Just read the post, and found I said he was equal with about 4 bowlers, but not McGrath, which I can only say I didn't see him or something, can't remember though. What I did say was I only voted for him because he was my favourite.

 

[a massive zebra]

2) No it doesn't. Look it up. I think he took around 170 wickets in the from 1st january 1993 to 31st December 1995.

Yes you are right. My apologies.

 

[marc71178]

Warne has had one truly amazing series, Murali has had two.

Then you look at the opposition in these "amazing" series.

Kind of makes amazing appear a bit OTT.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Nah, Murali is more devastating at his best than Warne.

As Halsey has pointed out, there are selectively chosen statistics which make Warne look better as well. His record away from his country of origin is superior, and his record excluding matches in the subcontinent and against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is superior. If you exclude the West Indies as well, it becomes even more lopsided. Warne's record in India is superior, and Murali's record against Australia and his refusal to tour there in recent times leaves a hole in his statistical armour.

However, it's really beside the point. Either of us could pick and choose stats all day, but the fact of the matter is that while Murali's statistical record is generally superior to Warne's, I still consider Warne a more lethal bowler, a-la the Lara/Tendulkar argument. And for what it's worth, considering that Tendulkar has a better average, scoring rate, more hundreds etc the same thing applies in this case.

Two or three runs of difference in average never has and never will convince me entirely that one bowler or batsman is unquestionably better than another, the difference is minimal and it's just ludicrous to place so much value on it. I judge players on what I see of them, stats are merely a guide. And while both players have weaknesses in their game, I consider Murali more consistent, less likely to have an off-day or an off-spell, and certainly better on his home tracks most of the time, while Warne is more valuable in conditions not well suited to spin, and when he is on-song he is more lethal.

 

[Top_Cat]

I consider Murali more consistent, less likely to have an off-day or an off-spell

You also have to consider the relative difficulty in bowling over-the-wrist spin as opposed to finger-spin when you determine averages and the rest. Not only is wrist-spin more difficult to bowl but the line one has to bowl (leg-stump or middle-and-leg) means that there is a higher probability of bowling deliveries the batsman can score off (if we take deliveries on the leg-stump as easier to score from than the converse as an assumption). So naturally, leg-spinners have a higher probability of conceding more runs and the flow-on effects (batsman confidence, ER, etc.).

This is why commentators have been waxing lyrical about Warnie's accuracy for years. He's unusually precise for a leg-spinner if history is any guide and indirectly, it's why Stuey MacGill is judged a little too harshly sometimes, in my book. He's more like the 'usual' leggie who bowls a long-hop or full-toss per over because of the difficulty involved in bowling over-the-wrist spin.

This, in my book, is why comparing Warnie to Murali is actually quite difficult. The raw numbers don't tell the whole story (just try quantifying the probability of a scoring stroke being hit off your leg-stump line vs that of an off-stump line) and certainly don't give any indication as to the relative physical difficulties involved in bowling either discipline.

Say, for example someone said to Warnie and Murali "Throw a ball in that direction. Whoever throws it further is the winner." But say that Murali had to throw it over-arm whereas Warnie had to throw it under-arm. Would you just compare the distances and ignore the relative difficulties in doing each type of throw? Obviously this example is an exaggeration but the point stands; if you ignore the different ways in which both bowlers bowl the ball, you ignore a pretty important factor for determining who is the 'better' bowler.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Exactly. This is yet another reason why saying "Murali's average is 22 and Warne's is 25, therefore Murali is a better bowler" is absolutely ludicrous, just like saying Tendulkar is better than Lara because he averages 57 to Lara's 52, or McGrath is better than Murali because his average is only 21.

 

[Deja moo]

Seems everyone has given up with the murali vs warne debate and realise the only viable option is mcgrath vs murali. Thought something like this might happen .

Yeah, Warne couldnt keep up

 

[SJS]

Without going into which of the two is a better bowler let me adress the issue of off break being easier to bowl, more difficult to score off because of the direction it has to be bowled to etc.

1. Off break is not easier to bowl but it is easier to control. Which might sound like saying the same thing but isnt really.

2. Almost anyone who tries a leg break will turn it but not everyone who tries an off break will turn it and certainly much less than the leg break.

3. Off break has a more natural action particularly the shoulder position (in the overarm style) compared to leg break where the shoulder and wrist are 'contorted' for want of a better word, to try and bowl in an over arm action. This clearly makes it much more difficult to master for consistency and control. This is what people normally mean when they say leg breaks are more difficult. That is why many club and lower level leg spinners bowl lots of loose deliveries but also bowl some real snorters.

4. However, the leg break is a much more difficult delivery to play than the off break because it goes away from the batsman (we are talking right handed batsman off course). Thats why good leg spinners down the history of the game have been fewer but when they are good they are invariable more successful and with better strike rates than their finger spinning counter parts.

5. Once googly was developed leg spin got a very potent variation. The same was lacking in off spin till Saqlain and the now famous (or infamous till ICC decided to legalise everything !!) "doosra" Overall, down history, leg spinners have had more variations available than off spinners and they have been more potent too. The latter due to the stock delivery being such a big turner (normally) that a straighter one (top spinner lets say), for example, was much more effective for leg spinners than for off spinners.

Thus to conclude, while leg spin IS more difficult to master, it has the advantage of being more difficult to master for the (right handed) batsman too, does more off the wicket and has more potent variations overall. A difficult craft but once mastered a more effective weapon. This is proved without a shred of doubt along time.

As far as leg spin being easy to score off due to the direction or line of attack, this is the most disingenuous and fallacious argument one has ever heard.

Yes wrist spin is , normally, scored off more but that is not because of the direction BUT because of the relatively higher propensity for loose deliveries as stated above.

As far as direction is concerned, it is the off stump to middle stump line which is the preferred mode of attack of all great leg spinners down the history of cricket. This is the more ATTACKING line for leg spinners. The leg stump line was used only rarely to attack like when exploting the rough spots outside the legstump as done by Benaud in the famous Ashes deciding test in the 60's.

Today leg spin bowlers are bowling the leg stump line to CRAMP and SLOW DOWN the batsmen. Warne is hit LESS because of his leg stump line. This is also part 'gift' of the one day menatlity and part due to his not posessing a really good googly. But to say that the leg stump attack makes for the leg spinner to become more expensive is to show total lack of understanding of the game.

To bowl a leg stump and outside it line is a choice excercised by todays leg spinner (not necessarily forced by the compulsions of his craft as can be seen from other leg spinners over time) and the choice is made to PREVENT being scored off heavily rather than the contrary !

 

[C_C]

You also have to consider the relative difficulty in bowling over-the-wrist spin as opposed to finger-spin when you determine averages and the rest

Murali is a wrist spinner...not a finger spinner....his bowling involvees a LOT of wrists.

The raw numbers don't tell the whole story (just try quantifying the probability of a scoring stroke being hit off your leg-stump line vs that of an off-stump line) and certainly don't give any indication as to the relative physical difficulties involved in bowling either discipline.

irrelevant how difficult one discipline is or how easy the other is. Your objective is to get 20 wickets for less runs than the opposition conceded. Not do a pirouette before delivery and a complete split after it.
Thus, the performance matters.This is not ice skating or gymnastics where its about your technical mastery of the discipline. Its about your effectiveness against the opposition.

His record away from his country of origin is superior, and his record excluding matches in the subcontinent and against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is superior.

No it isnt.

Murali in ENG,NZ,RSA,WI:

17 matches, 97 wickets @ 23.36, B-B: 9-65 5: 10 10: 2 St/R : 57.8

Warne in ENG,NZ,RSA,WI :

39 matches, 184 wickets @ 24.11 B-B : 7-165 5: 6 10: 1 St/R : 60.9

As usual, Warne is behind in EVERY category.

If you exclude the West Indies as well, it becomes even more lopsided.

Why ? The west indians of the last 10 years or so are easily better players of spin than the english or the saffies.

Warne's record in India is superior, and Murali's record against Australia and his refusal to tour there in recent times leaves a hole in his statistical armour.

Considering that Warne's stats in India were pathetic until last series and Murali hasnt toured IND in the last 7-8 years, its understandable. However, SL play in IND this year and i am willing to bet that Murali would end up with an overall better record, simply because he is a BETTER bowler than Warne easiy.
As regards to OZ, its not as big a hole as in Warne's resume against IND.
Your performance against the best count. OZ maybe the best team but IND is the best player of spin and Murali is a LOT better against them overall.

but the fact of the matter is that while Murali's statistical record is generally superior to Warne's, I still consider Warne a more lethal bowler, a-la the Lara/Tendulkar argument.

Disagree.
Despite having a much inferior bowling cast around him, Murali has 12 five-fors with under 50 runs conceded ( 4 of them vs BD or ZIM) as opposed to 6 times for Warne.
Murali has taken 5 or more wickets in an innings with under 100 runs conceded 31 times and Warne has done it 21 times.
Based ont he above, i dont see how Warne is more lethal a bowler, as when Murali gets going, he usually is cheaper and more prolific than Warne.

Two or three runs of difference in average never has and never will convince me entirely that one bowler or batsman is unquestionably better than another, the difference is minimal and it's just ludicrous to place so much value on it.

do you know the theory called 'law of diminishing returns' ?
Basically it means that closer you get to perfection, harder it is to do so.
a bowler with 22 ave is FAR more superior to a bowler with 25 average compared to a bowler with 30 ave and 33 average.
Its not the fact that Murali has a significantly ( when good bowlers are considered to be 0-30 average, a 3 pt difference is TEN PERCENT difference)
better average, its the fact that he has a significantly better average DESPITE bowling in an inferior attack.
If you are very close to skill level and effectiveness and have a superior cast around you, you should have less wicket/match ratio(since # of wickets -10-is set but there is more competition) but better average and strike rate(since the quality of your bowling support means batsmen cannot see you off and a much higher degree of pressure is sustained).
Murali has a significantly higher wicket/match ratio(expected) AND a considerably better average and slightly better strike rate(This shouldnt be the case if murali was more or less the same skill/effectiveness as Warne).

I judge players on what I see of them, stats are merely a guide.

in other words, you let your prejudices speak and not the facts.


Murali is a significantly better spinner than Warne and thats the end of the story really. He has nothing left to prove.

 

[Top_Cat]

As far as leg spin being easy to score off due to the direction or line of attack, this is the most disingenuous and fallacious argument one has ever heard.

Yes wrist spin is , normally, scored off more but that is not because of the direction BUT because of the relatively higher propensity for loose deliveries as stated above.

That's what I meant. My explanation wasn't succinct but I *think*I said that (eventually).

As far as direction is concerned, it is the off stump to middle stump line which is the preferred mode of attack of all great leg spinners down the history of cricket. This is the more ATTACKING line for leg spinners. The leg stump line was used only rarely to attack like when exploting the rough spots outside the legstump as done by Benaud in the famous Ashes deciding test in the 60's.

I disagree. A leg-stump line seems a far more attacking line because with leg-spinner's drift you go outside the line of vision of the batsman (i.e. the batsman's head has to move to keep track of the ball) whereas with an off or middle-stump line, the batsman's head movements are less (i.e. less requirement to 'track' the ball). Also, a leg-stump line forces a batsman to play at the ball whereas if you have a big-turning leg-spinner bowling an off-stump line, it's easier to leave the ball go and watch it harmlessly spin away from the bat knowing you're well and truly out of danger. With a leg-stump line, at no point are you sure whether you can leave the ball safely and considering the amount of spin a leg-spinner can get, the strokes to the leg are tougher to control, especially if the ball grips and really turns.

But to say that the leg stump attack makes for the leg spinner to become more expensive is to show total lack of understanding of the game.

Again, that's not what I meant. I was referring to the issue of control on a leg-stump line.

To bowl a leg stump and outside it line is a choice excercised by todays leg spinner (not necessarily forced by the compulsions of his craft as can be seen from other leg spinners over time) and the choice is made to PREVENT being scored off heavily rather than the contrary !

I disagree with your assertion that a leg-stump line is the more conservative, run-saving option and also that 'most' leg-spinners in history have bowled the middle to off-stump line. Not from what I've seen they haven't.

Murali is a wrist spinner...not a finger spinner....his bowling involvees a LOT of wrists.

Murali is NOT an 'over-the-wrist' spinner. All off-spinners use a fair bit of wrist. Murali just uses more. My point still stands that bowling over-the wrist is physically more difficult.

irrelevant how difficult one discipline is or how easy the other is. Your objective is to get 20 wickets for less runs than the opposition conceded. Not do a pirouette before delivery and a complete split after it.
Thus, the performance matters.This is not ice skating or gymnastics where its about your technical mastery of the discipline. Its about your effectiveness against the opposition.

No it's NOT irrelevant. The physical difficulties involved in mastering either discipline affect the results. I don't see how you can deny this. You're talking abotu something completely different (i.e. UNECCESSARILY making a craaft difficult to perform). I'm talking about the INHERENT difficulty in performing each type of delivery and again, you can't dispute that the inherent physical difficulty affects the results.

What you're talking about is akin to the difference between using the Fosbury Flop in the Olympic high jump vs the scissor kick (i.e. same discipline, different method, one more difficult than the other). What I'm talking about is more akin to the difference between the long jump and the triple jump (i.e. different disciplines, different methods and the inherent physical difficulty in both affects the distance one can jump).

Why ? The west indians of the last 10 years or so are easily better players of spin than the english or the saffies.

That's not borne out by the results against other spinners (particularly offies). Yes they've succeeded against Warnie more than SA or Eng but then again, the WI of the 90's had a high proportion of left-handers in their top 6 for a long time which any leggie will tell you makes it more difficult.

Murali is a significantly better spinner than Warne and thats the end of the story really. He has nothing left to prove.

It's far from the end of the story if what you've said is any indication.

And don't prattle on about diminishing returns when you haven't even tested the significance of those differences (like any good economist would).

 

[Natman20]

Opening bowlers

The best opening bowlers lately I think are Glenn Mcgrath, Chaminda Vaas and Darryl Tuffey (purely because he picks up wickets in his first over)