• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Kumble vs Warne - just stats

C_C

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Kumble's poorer reputation is based almost entirely on his abysmal record outside of India. It is extremely difficult for a bowler to gain a massive reputation similar to Warne or Murali when they do not perform often in front of the eyes of the rest of the cricketing world.

For those who don't know them:

Kumble in India
52 tests, 302 wickets @ 23.38, 22 5-fors, 7 10-fors, strike rate: 56.24, economy rate: 2.49.

Kumble outside of India
47 tests, 176 wickets @ 36.00, 8 5-fors, 1 10-for, strike rate: 80.40, economy rate: 2.69.


And also...

Kumble in Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies (excluding Zimbabwe and the sub-continent)
32 tests, 115 wickets @ 38.75, 6 5-fors, 1 10-for, strike rate: 87.90, economy rate: 2.64.

It's not too hard to see why he isn't considered by the worldwide cricket public to be in the same bracket as the others mentioned. There's also the point that Warne's stats look the worst of his career as a whole after around 100 tests, because that was at the height of his 1998-2001 form slump.

No doubt Kumble is a great bowler, of course, and I am not attempting to discredit him, simply to explain his inferior reputation.

Yes, he isnt as good as Warney and Murali i agree - but why dont you use precisely the same reasoning when you evaluate Lillee, given that Lillee's stuff is pretty similar - he played mostly on pitches taylor made for his type of bowling ( England and Australia) - much like Kumble's bowling is tailormade for the subcontinent and like Kumble, he failed massively out of his 'tailormade pitches' , though he played overseas far less than Kumble has and thus had the chance to protect his overall figures ??
:)
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Any chance in seeing the amount of balls bowled? I find that a lot more useful than matches, in my opinon.
 

C_C

International Captain
balls bowled = strike rate * number of wickets.

Kumble = 31023
Warne = 27425
Murali = 32773

Note - since it is calculated from only 1 decimal place, the margin of error could be a dozen balls, give or take.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
C_C said:
balls bowled = strike rate * number of wickets.

Kumble = 31023
Warne = 27425
Murali = 32773

Note - since it is calculated from only 1 decimal place, the margin of error could be a dozen balls, give or take.
*slaps head*

Of course, thanks for that
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
Yes, he isnt as good as Warney and Murali i agree - but why dont you use precisely the same reasoning when you evaluate Lillee, given that Lillee's stuff is pretty similar - he played mostly on pitches taylor made for his type of bowling ( England and Australia) - much like Kumble's bowling is tailormade for the subcontinent and like Kumble, he failed massively out of his 'tailormade pitches' , though he played overseas far less than Kumble has and thus had the chance to protect his overall figures ??
:)
I was actually talking about Kumble's reputation, and not his quality as a bowler, but yes I do think that Kumble is a lesser bowler because of his inability to adapt to unfamiliar conditions. Lillee rarely played in the subcontinent, and therefore cannot be judged on it any more than Murali can be judged on his performances in Australia.
 

C_C

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
I was actually talking about Kumble's reputation, and not his quality as a bowler, but yes I do think that Kumble is a lesser bowler because of his inability to adapt to unfamiliar conditions. Lillee rarely played in the subcontinent, and therefore cannot be judged on it any more than Murali can be judged on his performances in Australia.
But the fact remains - Kumble is good only in the subcontinent and Lillee is good only on bouncy wickets. Lack of experience doesnt necessarily negate the requirement of performing overseas. You can fail two ways - either with an 'F' or 'Did not write the exam' :p

Kumble is ordinary outside the subcontinent,Lillee is questionable bowler when not bowling on conditions that suit him. Murali example is a bit off because Murali has bad record in only one country that is non-subcontinental in its nature as opposed to Lillee who has zilch on his resume on any subcontinental pitch.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
You act as if there are only two kids of pitches in the world - subcontinental pitches and non-subcontinental pitches. Generally speaking, swing bowlers prosper more in Pakistan than Australia, as Australia has conditions conducive to swing bowling less often, and also less often than England, South Africa, New Zealand etc. Australia has much faster and bouncier wickets than in England, while English conditions offer more for medium pacers and bowlers who rely on significant movement off the pitch or in the air.

Indian wickets are different from Pakistani ones, and Australian wickets are different from English ones. This is obvious not only through actual observation of the games there, but in the types of bowlers that come out of those countries, the types of bowlers which dominate in domestic cricket and so on. The point is that Kumble has never had significant success outside of India. While he does a bit better in the spin-friendly conditions of Sri Lanka and Pakistan than in say England or Australia, he simply doesn't succeed away from home very often at all. Lillee, of course, did.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Ravi Shastri says– "Kumble may have a higher average, but think of the bowlers he's had for support. If he had McGrath or Gillespie for support, he would have performed a lot better."
 

C_C

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
You act as if there are only two kids of pitches in the world - subcontinental pitches and non-subcontinental pitches. Generally speaking, swing bowlers prosper more in Pakistan than Australia, as Australia has conditions conducive to swing bowling less often, and also less often than England, South Africa, New Zealand etc. Australia has much faster and bouncier wickets than in England, while English conditions offer more for medium pacers and bowlers who rely on significant movement off the pitch or in the air.

Indian wickets are different from Pakistani ones, and Australian wickets are different from English ones. This is obvious not only through actual observation of the games there, but in the types of bowlers that come out of those countries, the types of bowlers which dominate in domestic cricket and so on. The point is that Kumble has never had significant success outside of India. While he does a bit better in the spin-friendly conditions of Sri Lanka and Pakistan than in say England or Australia, he simply doesn't succeed away from home very often at all. Lillee, of course, did.
No, swing bowling doesnt prosper more in Pakistan than Australia. Pakistan has just produced a few exponents of swing bowling, but the overall median averages and figures show that Australia is far more conductive to swing bowling than Pakistan.

Pitches can be categorised broadly into two kinds : Subcontinental pitches and non subcontinental pitches.
And this division is largely in nature of pitches - pitches in WI/RSA/AUS/NZ/ENG are far closer to each other than any on the subcontinent and vice versa.

Lillee succeeds away from home simply because he gets far more 'home-like' conditions away from home, such as England - English wickets are far more 'aussie-esque' than any subcontinental wickets in relation to non-subcontinental wickets.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Kumble is a superb bowler. The reason he said after his tour of Australia that he had a poor average for a lot of his career is because of batting collapses of India and him having to defend very small totals.
 

R_D

International Debutant
Pratyush said:
Kumble is a superb bowler. The reason he said after his tour of Australia that he had a poor average for a lot of his career is because of batting collapses of India and him having to defend very small totals.
yes exactly what i was goin to say. For the first time in the Aus the batsman put runs on the board and he bowled quite well in Aus compared to previous times and nearly won us the series.
 

Deja moo

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Kumble's poorer reputation is based almost entirely on his abysmal record outside of India. It is extremely difficult for a bowler to gain a massive reputation similar to Warne or Murali when they do not perform often in front of the eyes of the rest of the cricketing world.

For those who don't know them:

Kumble in India
52 tests, 302 wickets @ 23.38, 22 5-fors, 7 10-fors, strike rate: 56.24, economy rate: 2.49.

Kumble outside of India
47 tests, 176 wickets @ 36.00, 8 5-fors, 1 10-for, strike rate: 80.40, economy rate: 2.69.


And also...

Kumble in Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies (excluding Zimbabwe and the sub-continent)
32 tests, 115 wickets @ 38.75, 6 5-fors, 1 10-for, strike rate: 87.90, economy rate: 2.64.

It's not too hard to see why he isn't considered by the worldwide cricket public to be in the same bracket as the others mentioned. There's also the point that Warne's stats look the worst of his career as a whole after around 100 tests, because that was at the height of his 1998-2001 form slump.

No doubt Kumble is a great bowler, of course, and I am not attempting to discredit him, simply to explain his inferior reputation.
Think of him as a combination of Murali (when at home) and Vettori or Giles (when abroad), although he has nowhere near the kind of support the latter two have.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Nowhere near the support of Vettori? What? What support does Vettori have?

At least Kumble has a quality spinner down the other end, and India's seamers aren't much good but they are no worse than New Zealand's, given how little test cricket Bond has played. Srinath was better than any bowler New Zealand has produced (excluding Bond, perhaps) since Hadlee, and Kumble bowled with him for years. Harbhajan is twice as good as anyone Vettori has ever bowled with.

Giles has good support now, but England have had plenty of mediocre attacks in recent times.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Kumble, IMO, has improved quite a lot over the past two years. I honestly think that he is more of a threat today (both home and away) than he was earlier. People who don't see that are making a HUGE mistake.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
Kumble, IMO, has improved quite a lot over the past two years. I honestly think that he is more of a threat today (both home and away) than he was earlier. People who don't see that are making a HUGE mistake.
I agree. He is a much better bowler today than he was a few years ago. I also feel that Warne is better today than he has been in almost a decade.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
FaaipDeOiad said:
I agree. He is a much better bowler today than he was a few years ago. I also feel that Warne is better today than he has been in almost a decade.
yes and actually, so is Murali, I think. Batsmen beware! :D
 

Deja moo

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Nowhere near the support of Vettori? What? What support does Vettori have?

At least Kumble has a quality spinner down the other end, and India's seamers aren't much good but they are no worse than New Zealand's, given how little test cricket Bond has played. Srinath was better than any bowler New Zealand has produced (excluding Bond, perhaps) since Hadlee, and Kumble bowled with him for years. Harbhajan is twice as good as anyone Vettori has ever bowled with.

Giles has good support now, but England have had plenty of mediocre attacks in recent times.
NZ have had Nash, Styris, Oram, Tuffey, Bond. India have had just Srinath, who was good, and a bunch of others who invariably average 35+ with the ball.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Well yeah, that's pretty much my point. Oram and Styris wouldn't make any test team in the world as bowlers, Tuffey is decent but no better than someone like Zaheer or Pathan, and certainly not as good as Srinath, and Bond has played what, a dozen tests?
 

Deja moo

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Well yeah, that's pretty much my point. Oram and Styris wouldn't make any test team in the world as bowlers, Tuffey is decent but no better than someone like Zaheer or Pathan, and certainly not as good as Srinath, and Bond has played what, a dozen tests?
Okay Okay :p . oddly I seem to be rating the NZ bowlers a lot more than Indias support cast..
 

Top