Which overseas bowler is better in these countries?

[Johan]

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.

well I guess it's a matter of perspective, Murali until January of 1998 averaged 31 with the ball, he was a good bowler but not really great, and I can't see him massively doing better in England than he did at home considering for majority of the 1990s, even Warne averaged pretty much the same as his overall average in England. I'm willing to agree to disagree on that point though.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Warne gets ahead just by bigger sample IMO.

But the 98 game still had a reasonably decent batting lineup the only real loss was Thorpe.

 

[Johan]

Warne gets ahead just by bigger sample IMO.

But the 98 game still had a reasonably decent batting lineup the only real loss was Thorpe.

I disagree.

 

[smash84]

well I guess it's a matter of perspective, Murali until January of 1998 averaged 31 with the ball, he was a good bowler but not really great, and I can't see him massively doing better in England than he did at home considering for majority of the 1990s, even Warne averaged pretty much the same as his overall average in England. I'm willing to agree to disagree on that point though.

Yes, I guess we will have to disagree on that.

I am guessing Murali's average went up due to Aus and India?

Who were the other good spinners in the 90s besides Mushy (not speaking of Kumble because he was more mediumish)? I am trying to confirm my memories of watching cricket of those days and remembering England being awful against spin.

 

[Johan]

Yes, I guess we will have to disagree on that.

I am guessing Murali's average went up due to Aus and India?

Who were the other good spinners in the 90s besides Mushy (not speaking of Kumble because he was more mediumish)? I am trying to confirm my memories of watching cricket of those days and remembering England being awful against spin.

Yeah, he really struggled against India and Australia.

off the top of my head, Mushtaq and Saqlain for Pakistan, Kumble for India, Murali for Sri Lanka, Warne for Australia and that's about it from what I remember.

 

[DrWolverine]

Muttiah Muralitharan had unreal numbers

1998-2010
99 Tests. 665 wickets @ 21.01. 58 5-Fers. 22 10WPM

2000-2006
62 Tests. 447 wickets @ 19.04. 40 5-Fers. 17 10WPM.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Caddick in NZ?

Probably shouldn't count

 

[Johan]

His home numbers in the 2000s don't even read real to be honest, a little bit

Warne's numbers away from home in the 2000s don't read real either.

 

[Migara]

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.

England were spin bombed when they toured in 1993. The famed batting line up crumbled in tests and ODIs alike. They crumbled in India too. In 93 - 95 period, English batting against spin was at its worst ever.

 

[Johan]

England were spin bombed when they toured in 1993. The famed batting line up crumbled in tests and ODIs alike. They crumbled in India too. In 93 - 95 period, English batting against spin was at its worst ever.

that lineup didn't have Gooch/Thorpe. Smith, Hick and Stewart got 128, 68 and 63 respectively in first inning and so forth, also England weren't good against spin, that's known. England likely would've won the 1993 test if the English spinners weren't Phil Tufnell and John Emburey.

 

[Migara]

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.

I was waiting for this "injury" thing to surface. IK never mentioned that Murali played two tests in England recovering from a dislocated shoulder surgery. Even with an injured shoulder he managed to produce that Butcher ball. He was not injured, that average would fall sub 18.

 

[Johan]

I was waiting for this "injury" thing to surface. IK never mentioned that Murali played two tests in England recovering from a dislocated shoulder surgery. Even with an injured shoulder he managed to produce that Butcher ball. He was not injured, that average would fall sub 18.

Warne last toured England in 1997/98, at the time his average in England was the same as his overall average, his average against Pakistan, South Africa and New Zealand was better than his average against England, that was the point.

 

[Migara]

that lineup didn't have Gooch/Thorpe. Smith, Hick and Stewart got 128, 68 and 63 respectively in first inning and so forth, also England weren't good against spin, that's known. England likely would've won the 1993 test if the English spinners weren't Phil Tufnell and John Emburey.

Nah. That sub continent tour would have been a disaster what ever the side England would have selected. They lacked skill, and they were arrogant saying"I haven't seen him turning a single ball" and then getting cleaned up by Anil Kumble. Nah, no way.

 

[Johan]

Nah. That sub continent tour would have been a disaster what ever the side England would have selected. They lacked skill, and they were arrogant saying"I haven't seen him turning a single ball" and then getting cleaned up by Anil Kumble. Nah, no way.

I mean Yeah I won't back current England or 90s England to do every well against Kumble at home in the 90s, he used to average 20 at home back then FFS, it's not like he didn't clean up Australians and South Africans the same way

 

[Johan]

Kumble's home numbers against batting lineups before 2002/flattening of pitches

vs Australia: 17.06
vs England: 21.40
vs Pakistan: 20.50
vs New Zealand: 17.20

Guess nobody except a couple teams can play spin.

 

[Migara]

Yeah, he really struggled against India and Australia.

off the top of my head, Mushtaq and Saqlain for Pakistan, Kumble for India, Murali for Sri Lanka, Warne for Australia and that's about it from what I remember.

Wrong. Once again subtlety posting wrong information.

1. Murali was awful in Australia and India
2. He was exceptional against both of them at home
(So it is wrong to say he was awful against Austalia and India)
3. Warne was awful in India and West indies.
4. In addition he was uber awful against India in Australia too. So he was awful against India.

 

[Johan]

Wrong. Once again subtlety posting wrong information.

1. Murali was awful in Australia and India
2. He was exceptional against both of them at home
(So it is wrong to say he was awful against Austalia and India)
3. Warne was awful in India and West indies.
4. In addition he was uber awful against India in Australia too. So he was awful against India.

You're clearly controlled by your emotions

1. This is true
2. The context of the conversation is before 1998, and therefore before all his great serieses at home. Until 1998. You got that buddy, until 1998, IE BEFORE HIS PRIME. until that time, he had played 6 games against India/Australia at home and averaged 43.
3. Nobody said Warne was successful against India.

Keep up with the conversation, I'm not gonna hold your finger through everything.

 

[MasterBlaster24]

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.

Other spinners' bowling average in Murali's games in England-43.65

Other spinners' bowling average in Warne's games in England – 41.08

The 1993 Ashes series you're talking about (Warne faced better batters, blah, blah, blah). Even average spinner like Tim May took 21 wickets in that series, by the way. You're nitpicking here and there, but England were generally poor against spin in that time anyway. You're completely ignoring the fact that all the other Lankan bowlers performed poorly during Murali's games in England. He literally had no bowling support at all. Murali's bowling efforts in England were so tremendous that he won a series for the Lankans and drew another series without having any bowling support at all. He literally ran through batting line-ups in England.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition=1;player_involve=2041;team=8;template=results;type=bowling

 

[Johan]

Other spinners' bowling average in Murali's games in England-43.65

Other spinners' bowling average in Warne's games in England – 41.08

The 1993 Ashes series you're talking about (Warne faced better batters, blah, blah, blah). Even average spinner like Tim May took 21 wickets in that series, by the way. You're nitpicking here and there, but England were generally poor against spin in that time anyway. You're completely ignoring the fact that all the other Lankan bowlers performed poorly during Murali's games in England. He literally had no bowling support at all. Murali's bowling efforts in England were so tremendous that he won a series for the Lankans and drew another series without having any bowling support at all. He literally ran through batting line-ups in England.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition=1;player_involve=2041;team=8;template=results;type=bowling

Oh Dear, How dare I mention 3 of the 4 main english bats were missing in the 1998 game?! It's not Murali's fault that England put on a second string side but it's what happened. Again, in the late 1990s England had 4 test class Batsmen and 3 of them were missing, you went on an emotional rant but did not bother writing a proper explanation on why I should take this as equivalent to performance against front line English lineups? there's no "nitpicking", You're simply refusing context of English batting during the oval game and want to pretend it's the same lineup Warne bowled to in 1990s. If England were not good anyway, then I can't even imagine how bad a second string english batting would be, They did not bowl to the same lineup, Period.

Lack of support, sure, but your argument is all about WPM which would go down with better support, so if you're willing to say that Murali's WPM will go down with good support then I'm ready to entertain an argument about his average going down with good support too.

Yeah, Tim May got 21 wickets, he averaged 28...going into the series he averaged 29, he also averaged 28 in Pakistan in his series and a series after 1993 Ashes he was still averaging...28. So No, he didn't put some exceptional numbers to what his normal output was at the time, he declined and his stats look worse therefore.

Monty Panesar was playing his second series in 2006 and was averaging 63 at start of the series, and he got 10 wickets @ 21 in the Sri Lanka series, do you see me using that to claim Murali's performance in invalid? ofcourse not, that's stupid.

If he at his peak played against what Murali played in 1998, he'd probably get a tenfer.

 

[MasterBlaster24]

If he at his peak played against what Warne played in 1993, he'd probably get a tenfer.

Yep.