Wisden Cricketers of the Year

[tooextracool]

Wasim, who averaged 22 in the series and 18 the series after is past his prime. Imran who averaged 18 is in his prime.
Go figure!

imran who had the following series before that....
1985-1986 PAK v SRL 15.94
1985-1986 SRL v PAK 18.00
1986-1987 PAK v WIN 11.06
1986-1987 IND v PAK 49.00
1987 ENG v PAK 21.67
1987-1988 WIN v PAK 18.09
1988-1989 NZL v PAK 28.2
i think its quite obvious that he only went past his prime after the NZ series.

wasim had these series:
1997-1998 SAF v PAK 35.67
1997-1998 ZIM v PAK 34.25
1998-1999 PAK v AUS 44.40
1998-1999 PAK v ZIM 20.50
1998-1999 IND v PAK 22.89
1998-1999 Asian Championship 18.40
1999-2000 AUS v PAK 55.00

I am comparing the OZ batting unit vs the SL batting unit ya fugging moron!

SO AM I YOU FOOL. the side that murali bowled against didnt have clarke. so why in the blue hell did you bring up clarke in the first place? yo really have this habit of making yourself look stupid.

Averaging better at home doesnt imply they are better players of spin or pace.

even though SL were infact playing at home

Arrrrrrrrrrgh.
Hayden/Lehmann = top 2
Martyn = 3rd guy

yes after i told you that martyn is equivalent to the 3rd guy.
and 4, 5 and 6-sangakkara/jayawadhene, tillekratne and samaraweera are all better than symonds,ponting, langer and gilchrist against spin in their sleep.

Fit to bowl at sustained normal levels in matchplay.

Guess what ?
Gillespie bowled 1st test 31 overs in the 1st innings at regular speeds/accuracy and 5 overs outta 20-odd or so in the 2nd innings.
Bowled 40 overs at regular speed and accuracy, flagging near the end.
Broke down in the 2nd innings after 10 overs.

Pretty matchfit to me before the 2nd innings.
Definately matchfit in the first test.
Gilly got injured because he was bowled to the ground in the 2nd test.

this post clearly emphasises the fact that you have no idea what 'match fit' is all about. match fit doesnt have anything to do with how many overs you bowl you fool, its about how effectively you bowl, and with how much rhythm you bowl. it always takes bowlers at least a couple of series to get match fit, because you need time out in the middle before you start bowling at your best.

 

[C_C]

are all better than symonds,ponting, langer and gilchrist against spin in their sleep.

i disagree.

so why in the blue hell did you bring up clarke in the first place? yo really have this habit of making yourself look stupid.

Scratch clarke and put in katich..who is a good player of spin as well.

even though SL were infact playing at home

Aye..like i said, a better home record in ENG doesnt necessarily imply better proficiency against pace and neither does a better home record in IND for spin.

match fit doesnt have anything to do with how many overs you bowl you fool, its about how effectively you bowl, and with how much rhythm you bowl.

riiiiiiiiight.
So a bowler who bowls at his normal speeds for 30 overs isnt matchfit.

Effective is totally irrelevant...you can bowl your heart out and the batsmen could be at even better form thereby nullifying your impact.
And you arnt gonna bowl at your regular speeds with your regular accuracy if you lacked rythm. I am a pace bowler myself so this is particularly my domain.

Anyways..its 1am here and i got an exam to write tomorrow...gnite and g'day for a week or so. will pick it up around the 21st but dont think it would do much good.

 

[tooextracool]

You know jack diddly squat about batting. I say so. Because you have NEVER debated anything substantial from either a statistical perspective(which you dont understand) or any playing style observations(which are pittance).
Like i said, keep the self propaganda up. Must do your ego a whole lotta good.

really ? so its all magic then that i made all those predictions by fluke is it?clearly because you say i dont know anything it means something, considering you couldnt tell if a player had potential even if it hit you in the face. the only way you cant diffrentiate between 2 batsmen is by statistical analsyis, which gives every idea about how much of batting and the game you know about.
i'll tell you one last time if you need statistics to decide that someone is a good player or not then god help you, because you obviously know nothing abt the game.

For the umpteenth time....POTENTIAL doesnt need to be justified by PERFORMANCE...else you wouldnt have the term 'he/she didnt fulfill their potential'.

FOR THE LAST TIME, potential to greatness is different from potential, so stop using them in the same sentence. you cant have potential to greatness unless you perform at the international level, even if you dont perform to greatness.

the essential item of statistical analysis is setting proper parameters and making corrections....something you got absolutely no clue on.

i have every clue about that, i can assure you, so does my maid.

EXACTLY. didnt think you'd get that and as usual,it flew totally past your head.

well done in ignoring the point though, makes you look extremely intelligent.

May ? he isnt...McGrath himself called it even and so do most people who understand the game.

okay then try atherton.

That is what i said !!
That IND wickets get more uneven towards the end of the match. DIsagreeing with me initially and then agreeing...sheesh.

do you understand english at all?
every f**king turner gets uneven towards the 5th day, you were suggesting that all indian wickets did that from day 1, when in fact they are slow and low on day 1. so pontings failures on day 1 cannot be explained, neither can they be explained on days 2 and 3.
and you got the analysis of SL completely and totally wrong with your consistent bounce throughout the test match- which is absolute garbage. no surprise there at all.

 

[tooextracool]

i disagree.

well done in coming up with such brilliant facts to back you up. i dont blame you though, i mean i can see a perfectly logical reason why you think that ponting who averages 2 or 3 in india is as good as samaraweera who averages 62 at home. i can also see a valid reason why gilchrist who averages in the low 30s is as good as tillekratene who averages 54 at home. and i can clearly see how langer is as good a player as sangakarra against spin.....

Scratch clarke and put in katich..who is a good player of spin as well.

who played one test in SL.....

Aye..like i said, a better home record in ENG doesnt necessarily imply better proficiency against pace and neither does a better home record in IND for spin.

if someone averages 50 in england over a consistent period of time, you can bet your life that bowlers are going to have problems getting that player out in england.

riiiiiiiiight.
So a bowler who bowls at his normal speeds for 30 overs isnt matchfit.

Effective is totally irrelevant...you can bowl your heart out and the batsmen could be at even better form thereby nullifying your impact.
And you arnt gonna bowl at your regular speeds with your regular accuracy if you lacked rythm. I am a pace bowler myself so this is particularly my domain.

are you an absolute idiot? ask akram what match fitness is. its not about bowling fast, rather its about how much rhythm you bowl with and how much more bite you get out of a wicket.

 

[tooextracool]

You are the one being a fool here and it DOES work that way.. 3 runs better ave over 100 matches is totally different than 3 matches better ave. over 3 matches...the former has enough sample points to draw a conclusive verdict. the latter doesnt. Your margin of error for the first is rather small compared to the sample points...in the latter case it is rather huge...which makes it largely redundant.
Like i said, do not presume to instruct me on statistical analysis...very very few here can.

please, get over it,
a) as FAP said, if you;d watched the series you would have realised almost immediately that warne bowled better and got the more important wickets at more important times than murali did during that series.
b) 3 runs and 6 balls make plenty of difference over a whole series, especially when each bowler bowls about 40 overs per innings. otherwise the same can be done for their records against every other opposition.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Faaip, mate...that is really pushing it.... wickets at unimportant times and all that...sheesh..thats really reaching mate...so i suppose McGrath/Warne never had wickets at unimportant times or what not...

Err, no, of couse they do, but Murali got a fair percentage of his wickets in that series at a time when it had little to no impact on the outcome of the match or the series, and overall aside from the first innings of the first test he was far from lethal. Murali got pounded at times in the series, Warne constantly looked like taking wickets. I am not saying Murali is naturally inclined to take unimportant wickets or anything, I'm saying in THAT series, Murali regularly improved his figures with unimportant second innings wickets when Australia was already in control of the match, and he failed to take them when it was more important, which along with Warne's superior record in the series is why he was a far superior player in those matches. I don't see how anybody who actually watched the tests through could disagree that Warne's impact was more than Murali's to a large degree that went beyond the three runs or whatever difference in average.

Anyway, the relative importance of wickets and runs is vital to analysis of performance statistics. Why else is Lara's unbeaten 150 odd in 1999 better than your average 150 against Australia? Same bowling attack, but the runs were MUCH more important, in that they resulted in a win. Murali's 6 wickets in the first innings of the first test were vital, his 5 wickets in the second innings of the second test were basically harmless since Australia was simply batting for time and to set a target, and his wickets were two batsmen on 150 odd, and then Symonds and two tail enders after the target was already basically match-winning.

Warne's 5/90 in the second innings of that test was much more important than his 5/43 in the second innings in the first test, because in the second test he took vital wickets when the other bowlers were getting shelled and Sri Lanka was on top to squeeze out a 27 run win, and in the first test Australia were always in control on a raging 5th day turner and Sri Lanka simply fell apart to lose by 200 odd.

 

[Zinzan]

Reasons to argue Murali is better than Warne....

1) Better average
2) More bags of 5 wks and 10

Reasons to argue Warne is superior than Murali

1) Out bowled Murali on Murali's home turf recently
2) Has performed better in England
3) Has performed better in NZ
4) Has more variation
5) Has performed better in Australia
6) Bowls on less turning wickets than Murali
7) Does better against good opposition
8) Bowls better in adverse conditions for spin bowling
9) has more competition for wickets with other worldclass bowlers..Mcgrath, gillispie etc
10) Recognised as the greatest spinner of all time
11) One of wisden's five cricketers of the century

 

[tooextracool]

Reasons to argue Murali is better than Warne....

1) Better average
2) More bags of 5 wks and 10

Reasons to argue Warne is superior than Murali

1) Out bowled Murali on Murali's home turf recently
2) Has performed better in England
3) Has performed better in NZ
4) Has more variation
5) Has performed better in Australia
6) Bowls on less turning wickets than Murali
7) Does better against good opposition
8) Bowls better in adverse conditions for spin bowling
9) has more competition for wickets with other worldclass bowlers..Mcgrath, gillispie etc
10) Recognised as the greatest spinner of all time
11) One of wisden's five cricketers of the century

thats just bias, there are certainly other reasons why murali is better than warne.

 

[Zinzan]

thats just bias, there are certainly other reasons why murali is better than warne.

Correct I do have a bias towards Warne over Murali simply because I always rated him better as a test bowler. My weak arguments for Murali probably just emphasize where I see him in comparison with Warne

 

[marc71178]

3 runs less and 6 balls less is rather close and miniscule over a 3 match period.
But then again, you dnt know shyte-all about statistical analysis.

If you knew much about statistical anakysis you'd look at the percentage difference, but then again that wouldn't help you either.

 

[a massive zebra]

Reasons to argue Murali is better than Warne....

1) Better average
2) More bags of 5 wks and 10

Reasons to argue Warne is superior than Murali

1) Out bowled Murali on Murali's home turf recently
2) Has performed better in England
3) Has performed better in NZ
4) Has more variation
5) Has performed better in Australia
6) Bowls on less turning wickets than Murali
7) Does better against good opposition
8) Bowls better in adverse conditions for spin bowling
9) has more competition for wickets with other worldclass bowlers..Mcgrath, gillispie etc
10) Recognised as the greatest spinner of all time
11) One of wisden's five cricketers of the century

Or from the opposite but slightly less biased perspective (and actually using evidence to support the points )

Points in Favour of Murali

1) Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (43 wickets at 47.18). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94).

2) Murali has a better average, strike rate, economy rate, and takes more wickets per match than Warne; despite the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team.

3) Murali has a better record against all countries, except South Africa and Pakistan.

4) Murali is far more consistent. Warne has been known to be hammered occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he is very rarely hit around the park.

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
42 7 140 2 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Chennai
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
38 7 129 3 3.39 2nd Test v SL in Aus 2004 at Cairns
32 4 115 2 3.59 1st Test v Ind in Ind 2004/2005 at Nagpur

Murali
36 6 123 1 3.42 1 L 1st Test v Pak in SL 1994 at Colombo
54 3 224 2 4.15 2 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Perth
33 6 136 0 4.12 1 L 1st Test v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin

5) Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). For an example of this take two great fast bowlers, Marshall and Hadlee - Marshall having a better average because the high class West Indian bowlers put greater pressure on the batsmen, but Hadlee took more wickets per match because there was less competition for them. Same with Lindwall vs Bedser, Ambrose vs Akram, Laker vs Tayfield, and many, many others. Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.

6) A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. When they were both on 527 wickets, Warne had taken the wickets of batsmen 8-11 190 times, Murali had done it 162 times - a significant difference of 17%. And we all know it is far more valuable to be able to defeat players of high ability, because they can really make you suffer. Tailenders will usually get out sooner rather than later anyway, and very rarely turn a match on its head (with the bat anyway). What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar or Lara?

7) Although Warne has been less effective since his shoulder injury, even at his peak (1993-97) he was not as good as Murali has been this century.

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 2000-2003 37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97 57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24

8) Murali on top form is more devastating than Warne on top form.

Best innings:

9/51 M Muralitharan v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02 [1583]
9/65 M Muralitharan v England at The Oval, Only Test, 1998 [1423]
8/71 SK Warne v England at Brisbane, 1st Test, 1994/95
8/87 M Muralitharan v India at Colombo (SSC), 3rd Test, 2001 [1559]

Best Series:

Murali
Sri Lanka in Pakistan, 1999/00 [Series]
3 213.1 516 26 6/71 19.84 2.42 49.1 1 1
South Africa in Sri Lanka, 2000 [Series]
3 227.4 480 26 7/84 18.46 2.10 52.5 3 1
Zimbabwe in Sri Lanka, 2001/02 [Series]
3 203.1 294 30 9/51 9.80 1.44 40.6 2 1
England in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 231.4 320 26 7/46 12.30 1.38 53.4 1 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 209.1 649 28 6/59 23.17 3.10 44.8 4 1

Warne
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1993 [Series]
6 439.5 877 34 5/82 25.79 1.99 77.6 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1994/95 [Series]
5 256.1 549 27 8/71 20.33 2.14 56.9 2 1
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1997 [Series]
6 237.1 577 24 6/48 24.04 2.43 59.2 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2001 [Series]
5 195.2 580 31 7/165 18.70 2.96 37.8 3 1
Australia v Pakistan Test Series in Sri Lanka/U.A.E., 2002/03 [Series]
3 124 342 27 7/94 12.66 2.75 27.5 2 1
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
3 168 521 26 5/43 20.03 3.10 38.7 4 2

9) You could take a look at their respective records in the English county championship (note Murali has played in the first division and Warne the second, and Murali was by far the star bowler in every season he played, while several Hampshire bowlers took wickets more cheaply than Warne in both his seasons):

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 19 1049.1 322 2195 149 14.73 7-39 17 6 42.2 2.09
Warne 24 962.5 259 2682 113 23.73 6-34 8 0 52.7 2.69

10) One reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.

Warne constantly gets so many accolades/awards that he doesn't deserve, purely through a God like reputation galvanised by ill educated media hype. In truth, his career has been highly inconsistent, he has constantly failed against the best, benefited from the opportunity to nail tails after McGrath and co have dismissed the better batsmen, and his overall career figures fall short of the truely great category.

Points in Favour of Warne

1) Has more Test wickets than Murali, despite having much greater competition for wickets.

2) Has not had the opportunity to destroy Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Murali has taken over 100 wickets against these teams while Warne has played a combined total of 2 matches against them.

3) Has a better average and strike rate in Sri Lanka than Murali.

4) Recognised by the (biased) Anglo-Australian media as the best spinner of all times.

5) He has more variation than Murali.

6) He has a (marginally) better record away from home than Murali.



I cannot be bothered to get into an argument about it with you but am keen to point out the error of your ways.

 

[twctopcat]

Not again........thought this one had died.

 

[a massive zebra]

Not again........thought this one had died.

Yeah I concur...but if provoked I cannot resist.

 

[Neil Pickup]

FOR FUX SAKE YOU FRIGGING TOOOL...CANT YOU MAKE YOUR MESSAGES SHORTER AND BETTER COMPOSED ?
jesus...

Any chance of a) not shouting, b) not swearing or c) not being abusive?

 

[Tapioca]

Any chance of a) not shouting, b) not swearing or c) not being abusive?

I thought C_C was cricticising himself

 

[C_C]

If you knew much about statistical anakysis you'd look at the percentage difference, but then again that wouldn't help you either.

Like i said, do not presume to lecture me on statistical analysis.
Your continous insinuations that you and your maid can do it underlines nothing but your condescending superiorist and classist attitude which has no place in human society.

ANY statistical analysis is based on sample space size. 3 matches murali has played with Warne...its IRRELEVANT what the gap is and even then the gap is miniscule ( 15% margin of difference).
15% gap over a span of 100 matches is credible...because it presents enough sample space...15% gap over a span of 3 matches is absolutely inconclusive.
FYI, Ganguly averages 77 in Pakistan...thats more than what inzamam averages and in the matches inzy and ganguly played together inzy averages 12.00. That is over six times the gap. Tendy averages 47.69 in WI in matches where tendy and lara played together...while lara averages 39.53....with the same 'murali-warne' logic, Tendy is eons ahead of Lara.....
BUT...like Warne and Murali in Sri Lanka last series, Tendy has played miniscule amount with Lara ( 10 matches) in WI as opposed to Lara in WI ( 57 matches) and Warne has played miniscule amount with Murali ( 3 matches) in SL as opposed to Murali in SL ( 53 matches). The distribution for Murali-Warne in SL or Lara-Tendy in WI or Ganguly-Inzy in Pakistan is huge and the error rate is just as high, if not higher than the mean descrepancy between their distributions.
Therefore that criteria is totally irrelevant in asserting that Warne is better than Murali in SL pitches and Tendy is better than Lara in WI pitches.

If you knew ELEMENTARY statistical analysis, you would know a thing or two about the size of the sample space dictating the validity of the analysis.
But then again...even your 'maid' knows more, right ? well you should ask her to educate you in statistical analysis then.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 2000-2003 37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97 57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24

I think this one is my favourite of all.

Lets look at the venues Murali played in between 2000 and 2003.
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, England, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Sri Lanka.

11 of the 16 series in Sri Lanka, one of the two places in the world which consistently produces turners, and where pitches are designed for Murali anyway, particularly in this era. None in India or Australia and on top of that, three of these series involved Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.


Now where did Warne play in 1993-1997?
New Zealand, England, Australia, Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, Australia, West Indies, Australia, Australia, Australia, South Africa, England, New Zealand, Australia.

Wow, none of the 15 series in an area that produces dustbowls! Amazing! Who would have thought that Murali would have a better average playing on raging turners built for his bowling as the only good bowler in his team?

You can add to your "reasons for Warne" that he is a far better bowler on flat, non-turning pitches, which is the greatest test of a spin bowler, that he has a better overall away average than Murali, when Murali doesn't have the advantage of pitches being designed for his bowling any more, and that he has a better statistical record than him in 5 of the 8 major cricketing venue nations.

 

[C_C]

I think this one is my favourite of all.

selective usage of stats can make gillespie look greater than McGrath.

Like i said...murali dominates warne in practically every category.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Like i said...murali dominates warne in practically every category.

Funny then that Warne's record away from home is better than Murali's, and his record in Sri Lanka is better than Murali's. This would suggest that the main difference in overall record between the two is that Murali has played so many games in Sri Lanka, and against substandard opposition in Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. In terms of other locations, they are roughly even with Warne having a better record in South Africa, New Zealand, India and of course Australia, and Murali better in England, West Indies and Pakistan.

 

[neutralguy]

Actually the title of this topic should be "Wisden English cricketers of the year".