Which overseas bowler is better in these countries?

[Migara]

it's clear what filter I applied, 1998 and forward considering Murali never even toured before and it's impossible to say how he would've done.

It is very convenient because

1. It get's rid of chunk of worst performance by Warne
2. English batting didn't change much from 1993 to 1998
3. English batting was much inferior in mid to late 90s

I don't see any reason to remove Warne's 93 tour. if these were 15 years apart with entirely different set of batsmen, and entire diofferent set of pitches, it would have been acceptable.

Warne having 10 matches even before Murali ever went to England is a positive for Warne and not a negative for him.

Yet you remove those "positive" factor from his stats. very strange . .

also, as Luffy rightfully said, Warne has a higher body of work, as far as England goes, it goes like this.

1993 Ashes – Very Good, MOM performances
1997 Ashes – Very Good, MOM performances
2001 Ashes – ATG series
2005 Ashes – ATG series, most wickets anyone has taken in a 5 match Ashes in England I think.

1998 Oval Test – ATG game
2002 England tour – Underwhelming series
2006 England tour – ATG series.

"ATG game" is specifically used to belittle Murali's performance. Test tours can be any number of tests. England gave one in 1998, and that is that.

You're basically ignoring the bodies of work and insiting it's not close on their raw number, as if it's reasonable to claim Murali would maintain those if he played 21 games instead of 6 when we've direct evidence that it could fluctuate as it did with Warne. Warne still never had a bad outing in England though.

Murali was very much capable of it, as shown by is higher workload in tests and ODIs as staying relatively injury free compared to Warne. There is no indication to say that he will slow down with workload. It is very reasonable to assume Murali would do the same, if not better, by familiarizing the conditions. The difference can be observed even in county matches. Warne averages 25.6 for Hampshire, compared to 15.6 of Murali for Kent. Even in ODIs the difference is stark, where Warne averages 64.3 against England away, and Murali averaging 25.9. Even the indirect evidence supports that Murali did a better job in England than Warne.

 

[smash84]

it's clear what filter I applied, 1998 and forward considering Murali never even toured before and it's impossible to say how he would've done.

Lol, what kind of logic is this?

We don't know how Murali would have done before 98. Facts.

But we DO know how Warne did before 98. And it wasn't as good as anything that Murali did or even Warne did later. We don't disregard Warne's performances just because Murali didn't have any in that time period.

That is not how it works.

 

[Johan]

It is very convenient because

1. It get's rid of chunk of worst performance by Warne
2. English batting didn't change much from 1993 to 1998
3. English batting was much inferior in mid to late 90s

I don't see any reason to remove Warne's 93 tour. if these were 15 years apart with entirely different set of batsmen, and entire diofferent set of pitches, it would have been acceptable.

It is, because it's 6 games from Murali vs 21 from Warne, once again.

1. Two ATG tours compared to one.
2. No underwhelming tours like Murali in 2002 (I'm sure you have an excuse)

You're basically belittling match-winning performances in the 90s tour on the basis of it not hitting a certain average threshold that you wanted it to hit. Warne having 4/4 successful tours to Murali's 2/3 is a strike in Warne's favour, not a negative for him. He already more or less replicated Murali's entire performance in England with 2001 and 2005, which amounts to 10 tests compared to the 6 Murali played.

Yet you remove those "positive" factor from his stats. very strange . .

Because you present them as a negative? My point was that Warne has a similar stretch with a higher number of games where he took wickets at an absurd WPM in England with a sub 20 average, just like Murali.

the 11 prior tests of positive performances is the body of work argument I used, Murali has better game peaks, their series peaks are relative at best and then Warne just has a larger body of work in England, 21 vs 6.

"ATG game" is specifically used to belittle Murali's performance. Test tours can be any number of tests. England gave one in 1998, and that is that.

Series = "a number of events, objects, or people of a similar or related kind coming one after another." So Yes, you need more than one game for something to be called a series. It's your problem that if in your perception having a 16 wicket match winning performance is somehow IE an ATG game is inferior to an ATG series.

also, quite a few notable bats missing in that game, Atherton/Nasser/Thorpe are not there, most notable bats being John Crawley (avg 34), Mark Butcher (who was terrible until 2000) and Stewart. What happened with those three?

.
Murali was very much capable of it, as shown by is higher workload in tests and ODIs as staying relatively injury free compared to Warne. There is no indication to say that he will slow down with workload. It is very reasonable to assume Murali would do the same, if not better, by familiarizing the conditions. The difference can be observed even in county matches. Warne averages 25.6 for Hampshire, compared to 15.6 of Murali for Kent. Even in ODIs the difference is stark, where Warne averages 64.3 against England away, and Murali averaging 25.9. Even the indirect evidence supports that Murali did a better job in England than Warne.

Murali averaged 35+ in 2002, what's the guarantee that he would average sub 26 every series and perform every single series? his workload can stay high but 8 is not sustainable, I don't think Murali's WPM would go under Warne considering who Warne had to share wickets with but it certainly won't remain 8. Warne has a bad domestic record accross the board. ODIs don't even matter, we have Warne and Murali's actual test record to go by on their ability in England, there's no need to add in the whiteball game or domestic, in the same years timeframe where he was averaging 26 in english domestic, he was averaging 19 against full blown english sides in England. FC lost relevance by that point.

 

[Johan]

But we DO know how Warne did before 98. And it wasn't as good as anything that Murali did or even Warne did later. We don't disregard Warne's performances just because Murali didn't have any in that time period.

1993 – 34 @ 25 (6 games)
1997 – 24 @ 24 (6 games)

that's still excellent for a spinner in England Isn't it? So you're welcome to tell me, are you taking 4 tours with 2 being ATG and 2 having excellent performances or 1 ATG game, 1 ATG series and 1 underwhelming series. Especially since the prior went on a 10 game streak similar to the latter's 6 game overall numbers.

give a straight answer, don't wobble around.

 

[smash84]

1993 – 34 @ 25
1997 – 24 @ 24

that's still excellent isn't it? So you're welcome to tell me, are you taking 4 tours with 2 being ATG and 2 having excellent performances or 1 ATG game, 1 ATG series and 1 underwhelming series.

Yes, that is still pretty good from Warne but not as good as his later efforts. The point was that you were picking and choosing Warne's best efforts and trying to justify it with not such a great argument.

 

[Johan]

Yes, that is still pretty good from Warne but not as good as his later efforts. The point was that you were picking and choosing Warne's best efforts and trying to justify it with not such a great argument.

My argument is entirely

1. Warne should not be punished for his earlier performances in England when Murali did not even play in England in the 90s bar one game.

2. Warne went on a 10 game streak accross two serieses in the 2000s that were already on par with Murali's overall numbers in England, he should not just be rated lower because his earlier two serieses where he won games and bowled well (as you admitted), did not hit a certain average threshold.

Also, don't think they bowled to the same level of lineup in England in the 1990s, English batting in the 90s was...not fairly decent but there were Thorpe/Nasser/Atherton/Stewart as the important bats in the late 1990s. For Murali's game at the Oval, Thorpe/Nasser/Atherton were absent, Hick might be the worst player ever after 1995, Butcher was one of the main bats and would be terrible until 2001 Ashes. Only Stewart being a decent bat, compared to Warne's standout effort in 1997, Atherton/Nasser/Thorpe/Stewart were all there, or in 1993 where his efforts came against Gooch/Atherton/Smith/Stewart/an actually capable Hick. Thorpe also got in for his fifer. As I said, it's not 1:1 at all.

 

[subshakerz]

I think Murali in 98 and 2006 are better than Warnes best efforts in a England, but I give it to Warne for having a larger body of work and no poor series. But it's close.

 

[smash84]

My argument is entirely

1. Warne should not be punished for his earlier performances in England when Murali did not even play in England in the 90s bar one game.

2. Warne went on a 10 game streak accross two serieses in the 2000s that were already on par with Murali's overall numbers in England, he should not just be rated lower because his earlier two serieses where he won games and bowled well (as you admitted), did not hit a certain average threshold.

Also, don't think they bowled to the same level of lineup in England in the 1990s, English batting in the 90s was...not fairly decent but there were Thorpe/Nasser/Atherton/Stewart as the important bats in the late 1990s. For Murali's game at the Oval, Thorpe/Nasser/Atherton were absent, Hick might be the worst player ever after 1995

1) Nobody is "punishing" Warne. It's just admitting that he didn't do AS well as he did in his earlier tours there.

2) Sure, Warne went on a great streak and folks will admit that he has the advantage of having more wickets in England because of so many tours. Murali doesn't have that body of work but whatever little he did get, his overall numbers do look slightly better than Warne.

 

[Johan]

1) Nobody is "punishing" Warne. It's just admitting that he didn't do AS well as he did in his earlier tours there.

2) Sure, Warne went on a great streak and folks will admit that he has the advantage of having more wickets in England because of so many tours. Murali doesn't have that body of work but whatever little he did get, his overall numbers do look slightly better than Warne.

1. Migara kind of is by making it all about raw averages and disincluding body of work.

2. Body of work does matter though, and Murali's percieved statistical superiority is also largely because of the 1998 Oval Game which I have my doubts over for reasons I put in the same post that you are quoting.

 

[smash84]

1. Migara kind of is by making it all about raw averages and disincluding body of work.

2. Body of work does matter though, and Murali's percieved statistical superiority is also largely because of the 1998 Oval Game which I have my doubts over for reasons I put in the same post that you are quoting.

I can't recall too much about Murali's games off the top of my head but I wouldn't be too surprised if Warne also played some really shite England batting lineups in some of the games.

 

[Johan]

True, but he definitely bowled to first string batting lineups, in 93 Gooch/Atherton were present every game and Gooch was in insane form at the time, Robin Smith (43) and Stewart (40) were present almost every game (5/6), Thorpe and Hick around for half the games too and Hick was actually a capable batsman until 1995. 1997, Stewart/Nasser/Thorpe/Atherton played every single game, while of those 4 only Stewart was present for Murali's game in 1998. That is why I don't think the comparison is as simple as it looks on paper.

 

[smash84]

True, but he definitely bowled to first string batting lineups, in 93 Gooch/Atherton were present every game and Gooch was in insane form at the time, Robin Smith (43) and Stewart (40) were present almost every game (5/6), Thorpe and Hick around for half the games too and Hick was actually a capable batsman until 1995. 1997, Stewart/Nasser/Thorpe/Atherton played every single game, while of those 4 only Stewart was present for Murali's game in 1998. That is why I don't think the comparison is as simple as it looks on paper.

Atherton was quite a mediocre bat. Much better commentator.

Hick was shite.

Thorpe was good but IIRC Thorpe stuck around for a while and should also be around when Murali was there next time. I cbf looking it up.

Truth is those England batters weren't really that good in the early 90s either. At the very least I don't recall them being superlative against spin. Gooch did pretty well against the WI so I reckon he would be good against pace.

 

[Johan]

Atherton was quite a mediocre bat. Much better commentator.

Hick was shite.

Thorpe was good but IIRC Thorpe stuck around for a while and should also be around when Murali was there next time. I cbf looking it up.

Truth is those England batters weren't really that good in the early 90s either. At the very least I don't recall them being superlative against spin. Gooch did pretty well against the WI so I reckon he would be good against pace.

I mean, critiquing Atherton doesn't work when he was one of the 4 best batters in England in the late 90s, and when you take 3 of the 4 even merely good bats a country has then you are left with a horror show. Though I do think he was a good player overall, had the toughest job in Cricket to be an English opener in the 1990s when we played the vast majority of our games against Australia (McWarne), West Indies (Ambrose/Walsh) and South Africa (Donald/Pollock), many good/great serieses against Donald or Ambrose in spicy conditions. Averaged 39 (as an opener) with that in context which is decent imo, an easier era or a lighter schedule and I think he goes above 40.

Hick was a weird case, averaged 39 (decent) until 1995 and then 18 onwards.

I think they played same level of batting in the 2000s, My criticism of the batting lineup is for the 1998 Oval test only, where three of the good bats are missing, which is bad when you have 4 good batters in the whole country.

Ok Yeah I agree with that, in the 1990s I think only Graham Gooch and Graham Thorpe were good players of spin, prior making like 700 runs against an Australian with Warne in 1993 (I think?) and being listed as the best English batter by Warne. The Latter having a stellar record in games Warne and Murali played. I don't think England was particularly good in batting in late 90s but what Warne bowled to was relatively stronger to what was presented at the Oval in 1998.

 

[smash84]

I mean, critiquing Atherton doesn't work when he was one of the 4 best batters in England in the late 90s, and when you take 3 of the 4 even merely good bats a country has then you are left with a horror show. Though I do think he was a good player overall, had the toughest job in Cricket to be an English opener in the 1990s when we played the vast majority of our games against Australia (McWarne), West Indies (Ambrose/Walsh) and South Africa (Donald/Pollock), many good/great serieses against Donald or Ambrose in spicy conditions. Averaged 39 (as an opener) with that in context which is decent imo, an easier era or a lighter schedule and I think he goes above 40.

Hick was a weird case, averaged 39 (decent) until 1995 and then 18 onwards.

I think they played same level of batting in the 2000s, My criticism of the batting lineup is for the 1998 Oval test only, where three of the good bats are missing, which is bad when you have 4 good batters in the whole country.

Ok Yeah I agree with that, in the 1990s I think only Graham Gooch and Graham Thorpe were good players of spin, prior making like 700 runs against an Australian with Warne in 1993 (I think?) and being listed as the best English batter by Warne. The Latter having a stellar record in games Warne and Murali played. I don't think England was particularly good in batting in late 90s but what Warne bowled to was relatively stronger to what was presented at the Oval in 1998.

Yeah but to Murali's credit with a weak line up he went REALLY big against them too.

And it isn't his fault that he didn't get to play England that much in the 90s. Tbh, most good spin bowlers in the 90s were feasting against England so Murali was probably unlucky to miss out. Heck Mushy was winning us games against England in the mid 90s (96?) when he wasn't anywhere close to the calibre of Murali. If anything, England are probably lucky they didn't face Murali much in the 90s.

 

[Johan]

Yeah but to Murali's credit with a weak line up he went REALLY big against them too.

And it isn't his fault that he didn't get to play England that much in the 90s. Tbh, most good spin bowlers in the 90s were feasting against England so Murali was probably unlucky to miss out. Heck Mushy was winning us games against England in the mid 90s (96?) when he wasn't anywhere close to the calibre of Murali. If anything, England are probably lucky they didn't face Murali much in the 90s.

He did, that deserves credit but imo it's not 1:1 with Warne's efforts.

Eh...To be fair, It's not like 90s Murali was exceptional entirely, before the Zimbabwe series in 1998 his bowling average was north of 30. Generally speaking, Mushy did well averaging 29, someone like Kumble ended up averaging 63, It's not very linear. All in all, Imo one game against an England missing 3 of the 4 capable bats is not dnough to overtake Warne having two very successful serieses against frontline english battings.

 

[smash84]

He did, that deserves credit but imo it's not 1:1 with Warne's efforts.

Eh...To be fair, It's not like 90s Murali was exceptional entirely, before the Zimbabwe series in 1998 his bowling average was north of 30. Generally speaking, Mushy did well averaging 29, someone like Kumble ended up averaging 63, It's not very linear. All in all, Imo one game against an England missing 3 of the 4 capable bats is not dnough to overtake Warne having two very successful serieses against frontline english battings.

The part in bold is fair, but honestly, looking at Mushy as well as Warne (and the one match Murali played), it is hard not to get the feeling that Murali was hard done by not playing more often against England. They were not very good against spin.

Kumble I can understand not being good because he was more like a medium pacer than a proper spinner.

 

[Johan]

The part in bold is fair, but honestly, looking at Mushy as well as Warne (and the one match Murali played), it is hard not to get the feeling that Murali was hard done by not playing more often against England. They were not very good against spin.

Kumble I can understand not being good because he was more like a medium pacer than a proper spinner.

I think if Murali replaced Warne in the two English Ashes, he'd do very well in the 1997 one but I think he'd fail in the 1993 one against Gooch and Thorpe as Murali was not good at all in 1993-1996, if toured in 1999 against a full English lineup he'd have a very good series. Warne, before his shoulder problems in 99, actually has a higher average in England than his career average. Fair point on Kumble, maybe his bowling wasn't very suited with his reliance on deceptive bounce (I do think England combatted Pace pretty well).

Overall, I think You and me seem in agreement that the 1998 Oval match has its context regarding the already weak English batting being weakened further, and greatly so.

 

[smash84]

Overall, I think You and me seem in agreement that the 1998 Oval match has its context regarding the already weak English batting being weakened further, and greatly so.

Yes, but where we disagree is that you seem to suggest that Murali would have done worse against them than Warne in the early 90s whereas it seems like he probably would have gained, given how bad England were against spin. I don't agree on disregarding Warne's earlier performance there. It seems to me that Murali would have done extremely well had he played there early 90s.

 

[subshakerz]

I think if Murali replaced Warne in the two English Ashes, he'd do very well in the 1997 one but I think he'd fail in the 1993 one against Gooch and Thorpe as Murali was not good at all in 1993-1996, if toured in 1999 against a full English lineup he'd have a very good series. Warne, before his shoulder problems in 99, actually has a higher average in England than his career average. Fair point on Kumble, maybe his bowling wasn't very suited with his reliance on deceptive bounce (I do think England combatted Pace pretty well).

Overall, I think You and me seem in agreement that the 1998 Oval match has its context regarding the already weak English batting being weakened further, and greatly so.

Context and all is fine but taking 16 wickets in a game is just out of this world, and it was SLs first ever win in England too and Muralis first game there. I think it compensates for the poor 2002 series.

 

[Johan]

Context and all is fine but taking 16 wickets in a game is just out of this world, and it was SLs first ever win in England too and Muralis first game there. I think it compensates for the poor 2002 series.

Sure, but I just don't think it's 1:1 with Warne's performances considering the batting availability, like I said that it'd a great performance and deserves credit but shouldn't be rated above Warne's work in 90s England imo, just way too big a batting gap, especially 1993.