HUB ODI Team - Post 90's - *Warne vs Murali* a.k.a Spinner

[Plum]

These are quite sound options:
Warne
Murali
Dan the Man
KSCA President
Harby
Doosra Aadmi
Not quite convinced with Giles, MacGill(esp in ODIs), Hogg and Mushtaq Ahmed(too little stats to go by)

[Plum]

My nominations:

Shane Warne & Murali, to compare these two legends, I always prefer Warne ahead of Murali.

If we take the Aus team during Warne's prime period, it had a very good pace bowling attack in the name of McGra, Fleming, Gillespie.. Most of the time, they had their fair share of top order wickets in their initial spells.So warne had to tackle only the middle order or lower middle order. So out of say 6 wickets, he was stil able to pick up 3 wickets avg. He was very effective there in NOT only picking up wickets regularly but also containing the runs. Warne even dominated whenever their pacers failed and also his performance in crunch games like 99 SF was invaluable for Aus to win the world Cup.

In case of Murali, he had almost been given the whole 10 wickets since the only effective bowler was Vaas. This is one of the main reasons for Murali's better stats than Warne. Of course, NOT taking any credit away from Murali, he is still a legend but his match winning performance on crucial matches are still questionable compared to Warne.

apart from Murali & Warne, I would nominate Saqlain simply because the way he bowls in the slog overs. That was the time where spin bowlers were NOT at all given a bowl in the slog.

This needs a statistical analysis on performance in so-called crucial matches plus overall stats. I am not at all sure it is such an open and shut case that Warne had lesser wickets to play with in ODIs. Maybe in tests, yes. I dont think Australia frequently had crushing ODI victories that gave Warne less to play with. And whoever prevented Warne from bowling up front?

It is well known Murali didnt like bowling in the first 15 overs, and in ODIs always came on later so either he got crumbs - and when playing minnows, Vaas never llet anyone else have their share; he was prone to cleaning up the opposition for world record lows - or he had to shore up a opposition get away.

This is pretty superficial - saying that Warne never got as much chance as Murali to clean up the opposition.

[Movie Cop]

If we take the Aus team during Warne's prime period, it had a very good pace bowling attack in the name of McGra, Fleming, Gillespie.. Most of the time, they had their fair share of top order wickets in their initial spells.So warne had to tackle only the middle order or lower middle order. So out of say 6 wickets, he was stil able to pick up 3 wickets avg.

In case of Murali, he had almost been given the whole 10 wickets since the only effective bowler was Vaas. This is one of the main reasons for Murali's better stats than Warne.

For once, I strongly disagree with your above comparison. It paints a lop sided picture, as if, Warne is at severe disadvantage because of being backed by a strong attack at the other end and Murali is all at an advantage because he has no backing/support from the other end and the wickets are all for his grabs. This is so, untrue.

To give your theory some credit - yes, you are right on the statistics part. Sine Murali (like Hadlee) is a one man army in his team. So, he sweep a good 7-8 wickets of 10 at his own pace.

But take my word - it's extremely difficult for a bowler to apply pressure and create wicket taking opportunities with the likes of Kalpage’s, Dharamasena’s, Wickremasinghe’s, Zoysa’s, Fernando’s, Perera’s etc. bowling at the other end (who are, at the best, just domestic cricket worthy). Vaas is the lone exception for creating pressure at the other end and to share (or at least not spoil) Murali’s workload at the other end. and even Vaas has struggled many a times (surprisingly outside subcontinent). But still Murali has sustained the pressure and created wicket taking opportunities in spite of the other end being let loose for the batsmen to settle down nicely.

OTOH, in Warne’s case is very similar to the West Indies fast bowlers of the 80’s. For Warne, with a tight and strong bowling at the other end, it always made his task easier as a spinner. The batsmen were already subdued and batting with circumspection even before Warne get’s ready to roll over his arms.

Because of a weaker backup/attack, the only advantage is on the # of wickets per Test. This is where Murali has a very advantage over Warne. But bowling average wise or strike rate wise Warne should have significant advantage over Murali. But still you know who beats Warne in that area as well. Not a real statistics person myself but since you talked about the advantage I just wanted to highlight that – the only advantage Murali had was the # of wickets per Test (I think Murali averages 6 per Test). But having a weak bowling attack at the other end has more disadvantages than advantages. Having followed Test cricket for 3 ½ decades and seen/followed several spinners – I can safely say that Murali is the “Bradman” among spinners. And don’t get me wrong about my take on Warne. Warne is not too far behind Murali in terms of skill. If Qadir revived the already dying craft of leg spin during the 80’s, then Warne took it into a whole new level post-90’s.

And your point and my counter argument is all applicable (or in the context) of Test cricket only.

Since we are picking ODI, the above points are no even valid since ODI cricket is a batsman’s game. So there is no cardboard template for a strong or weak bowling attack etc.

[Movie Cop]

My nominations:

1. Murali
2. Warne
3. Saqlain

More later....

[raajarasigan]

Because of a weaker backup/attack, the only advantage is on the # of wickets per Test. This is where Murali has a very advantage over Warne. But bowling average wise or strike rate wise Warne should have significant advantage over Murali. But still you know who beats Warne in that area as well. Not a real statistics person myself but since you talked about the advantage I just wanted to highlight that – the only advantage Murali had was the # of wickets per Test (I think Murali averages 6 per Test). But having a weak bowling attack at the other end has more disadvantages than advantages. Having followed Test cricket for 3 ½ decades and seen/followed several spinners – I can safely say that Murali is the “Bradman” among spinners. And don’t get me wrong about my take on Warne. Warne is not too far behind Murali in terms of skill. If Qadir revived the already dying craft of leg spin during the 80’s, then Warne took it into a whole new level post-90’s.

And your point and my counter argument is all applicable (or in the context) of Test cricket only.

Since we are picking ODI, the above points are no even valid since ODI cricket is a batsman’s game. So there is no cardboard template for a strong or weak bowling attack etc.

If you just take the overall statistics, obviously Murali is better than Warne. But for me, the only parameter which puts Warne ahread of Murali is the wicket taking ability out of their respective bowling attack. Agree that this is more applicable to Tests than ODIs but the bowling attach is more or less same for both the teams. I think we should check this with a detailed statistics with

1. How Warne faired when their famed attack failed
2. How Murali faired when their toothless pace attack dominated to some extent

[raajarasigan]

Let me post some stats and the comparison article by S Rajesh. I am just posting this though this is ONLY for TEST matches

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine...ry/466589.html

Murali v Warne

Murali's wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are often held against him, so here's how his stats stack up against Warne's after excluding those performances

S Rajesh

July 9, 2010

Muttiah Muralitharan or Shane Warne? That's perhaps one of the most fascinating debates going around in cricket (even if one of the protagonists has retired), and it's only likely to gather further steam with the other's decision to quit Test cricket in a couple of weeks. Both bowlers will undoubtedly go down as legends, and yet each camp has its staunch set of supporters, who not only lift their own hero, but also, unfortunately, enjoy tearing the achievements of the other. This column attempts to do away with all the other aspects, and compares them only on the basis of their stats, looking at their numbers along certain meaningful parameters.

One of the pet peeves of the Murali baiters is his record against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. It's not his fault that he has played so many matches against them, but it's also a fact that those games have significantly improved his overall stats: in 25 Tests against those two teams, Murali has taken 176 wickets at an average of 15.09 and a strike rate of 42 - both those stats are much better than his overall career numbers. By contrast, Warne has only played three Tests against those two sides. Taking this disparity into account, all Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have been excluded for the purpose of this analytical exercise.

What's immediately obvious is that Murali's tally of 792 wickets shrinks to 616 when his haul against those two teams is excluded; Warne's aggregate, meanwhile, drops only by 17, to 691. However, while Murali's average rises by about two runs, it's still marginally better than Warne's 25.40. The difference, though, becomes miniscule.

Both bowlers have found Indian batsmen difficult to bowl to, and that's indicated in their numbers, though Warne's average is much poorer, and he only has one five-for against India in 14 Tests. Murali has also been far more influential in wins, taking, on average, more than eight wickets in these 32 Tests. (That, though, is also a telling commentary on Sri Lanka's dependence on him; Australia, on the other hand, had several bowling match-winners.)


Comparing Murali and Warne Murali - Tests Wkts Average 5WI/ 10WM Warne - Tests Wkts Average 5WI/ 10WM
v all teams 132 792 22.71 66/ 22 145 708 25.41 37/ 10
v all excl Zim and B'desh 107 616 24.88 49/ 16 142 691 25.40 36/ 10
v India 21 97 33.34 6/ 2 14 43 47.18 1/ 0
in wins (excl Zim and B'desh) 32 261 17.70 23/ 12 89 493 22.36 26/ 7
outside subcontinent (excl Zim) 29 162 25.85 14/ 5 119 575 25.13 26/ 7
4th innings (excl Zim and B'desh) 34 98 20.74 7/ 7 60 138 23.14 7/ 4



If Murali's advantage was the number of matches he played in spin-friendly conditions, then Warne's plus was the support he got from the rest of the Australian bowlers. Murali's stats at home are much better than Warne's, but overseas his average goes up to almost 29. Both bowlers struggled in India, with their averages sailing well into the 40s. Murali supporters often claim Warne had the advantage of playing against England repeatedly, and the stats below suggest that's an opportunity Murali would have relished as well: in the six Tests Murali played in England, he averaged eight wickets per match, and nailed his victims at less than 20 apiece. A few more Tests there during his peak years surely wouldn't have hurt his career stats.


Murali and Warne in different regions (excl Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) Murali - Tests Wkts Average 5WI/ 10WM Warne - Tests Wkts Average 5WI/ 10WM
Home 58 364 22.19 31/ 10 69 319 26.39 15/ 4
Away 49 252 28.78 18/ 6 70 345 25.49 19/ 5
In India 11 40 45.45 2/ 0 9 34 43.11 1/ 0
in Asia 78 454 24.54 35/ 11 23 116 26.77 10/ 3
in England 6 48 19.20 5/ 3 22 129 21.94 8/ 3


Arguably the biggest difference for the two spinners has been the kind of support they've received throughout their careers. Whereas Warne had the likes of Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie to soften the batsmen (and also eat into his share of wickets), Murali only had Chaminda Vaas as a regular high-class bowler in the line-up. The table below compares the performances of the support acts to Warne and Murali. In the 106 Tests he played against the top teams, the other bowlers in the Sri Lankan team took only 889 wickets to Murali's 611, and conceded almost 40 runs per wicket. There were only three ten-wicket hauls by other bowlers to Murali's 16, with Vaas getting two and Ajantha Mendis one. That meant Murali had to do most of the work himself, and he did, bowling 33% of the team's overs and taking 41% of the wickets.

Warne, on the other hand, had all the support he needed (and perhaps some he didn't). The Australian bowlers took almost twice as many wickets as the Sri Lankans did, and three times as many five-fors (69 to 23). All that meant Warne only took 28% of all wickets taken by Australia in the matches he played.


Support for Murali and Warne (excl Zim and B'desh) Tests Wickets Average Strike rate 5WI/ 10WM
Muttiah Muralitharan 106 611 24.83 58.7 49/ 16
Other Sri Lankan bowlers 106 889 39.88 80.48 23/ 3
Shane Warne 142 691 25.40 57.6 36/ 10
Other Australian bowlers 142 1754 27.97 58.38 69/ 5


With McGrath and Gillespie often accounting for the top-order wickets, Warne usually didn't have the opportunity to have a go at them, which is reflected in his percentage of top-order victims - lower compared to Murali, who often came on to bowl when the opposition hadn't lost too many wickets. Warne winkled out the tail more often, with the last three batsmen accounting for almost 27% of his victims, compared with less than 23% for Murali.


Break-up of wickets for Murali and Warne (excl Zim and B'desh) Murali - wkts Percentage Warne - wkts Percentage
Right-handers 471 76.46 521 75.40
Left-handers 145 23.54 170 24.60
Batsmen in top 6 351 56.98 373 53.98
Batsmen in bottom 3 139 22.56 184 26.63
Bowled 127 20.62 114 16.50
Lbw 114 18.51 134 19.39
Caught 337 54.71 407 58.90
Stumped 37 6.01 36 5.21


It's hardly surprising that Murali's list of batsmen dismissed most often is dominated by players from the subcontinent (and a Zimbabwean; though Mark Boucher heads the list), while Warne's list is dominated by Englishmen. But to check the averages of individual batsmen against them, we need ball-by-ball data, which Cricinfo has for all international games from May 2001. The next two tables look at the performances of some of the top batsmen against Murali and Warne over these years. Interestingly, both played almost exactly the same number of matches during this period, and had very similar averages: Murali averaged 23.86 in 54 Tests (against the top teams only), while Warne averaged 23.94 from 56 matches.

During this period, Brian Lara clearly had the better of Murali, but Sachin Tendulkar's record is pretty ordinary, as is Kevin Pietersen's. Most of the other Indian batsmen have done well against him, though.


Murali v top batsmen since May 17, 2001 Batsman Balls Runs Dismissals Average
Sachin Tendulkar 295 148 5 29.60
Brian Lara 710 373 3 124.33
Ricky Ponting 243 172 2 86.00
Rahul Dravid 660 316 5 63.20
VVS Laxman 431 207 2 103.50
Virender Sehwag 238 217 3 72.33
Jacques Kallis 205 88 1 88.00
Kevin Pietersen 236 168 6 28.00
Inzamam-ul-Haq 148 80 1 80.00
Matthew Hayden 218 142 5 28.40


Warne's stats are a mixed bag too: he has superb numbers against Andrew Strauss and Marcus Trescothick, but Pietersen and Jacques Kallis have handled him much better. He didn't bowl much against the Indians during this period, and not at all to Tendulkar.


Warne v top batsmen since May 17, 2001 Batsman Balls Runs Dismissals Average
Kevin Pietersen 522 308 5 61.60
Jacques Kallis 550 280 5 56.00
Kumar Sangakkara 207 127 4 31.75
Brian Lara 168 105 3 35.00
Virender Sehwag 95 78 3 26.00
Mahela Jayawardene 196 92 2 46.00
Michael Vaughan 285 131 3 43.67
Marcus Trescothick 219 147 8 18.37
Andrew Strauss 245 140 8 17.50


Most of the numbers above suggest there's little to choose between the two bowlers, which is exactly as it should be when comparing two legends of the game.

[Puliyan_Biryani]

S Rajesh mattumdhaan Numbers game aaduvaara, nammalum aadi paappom. Since Flum seems to be of the opinion that Warne is one-trick(Semi-Final) pony and Murali is the ultimate consistent performer, let me take Plum's bait.

Overall:
Murali vs Warne
Wickets/match = Murali (519/341 = 1.52) = Warne (293/194 = 1.51)
Economy = Murali (3.92) > Warne (4.25)
Average = Murali (23.18) > Warne (25.73)
Strike Rate = Murali (35.4) = Warne (36.3)

Conclusion: Murali very effective than Warne-nu solvadhu thavaru. They take pretty much the same number of wickets per match and the only difference is that Warne gives 3 runs extra in a match (assuming they bowl 10 overs).

Tournament Semis & Finals:
Murali vs Warne
Wickets/match = Murali (59/40 = 1.48) << Warne (51/29 = 1.76)
Economy = Murali (4.08) = Warne (4.12)
Average = Murali (23.72) < Warne (21.84)
Strike Rate = Murali (34.8) < Warne (31.7)

Conclusion: Comparing these numbers with their corresponding overall numbers, there is no doubt that Warne raises his game for these games.

Minnow Bashing:
Excluding the games against Ban/Zim/Other Associates.
Murali vs Warne
Wickets/match = Murali (399/280 = 1.43) < Warne (262/175 = 1.50)
Economy = Murali (4.04) > Warne (4.29)
Average = Murali (25.89) = Warne (26.35)
Strike Rate = Murali (38.3) < Warne (36.8)

Conclusion: Excluding the numbers against minnows, Murali's figures take the greater hit. While Murali's Economy is still slightly better, Warne edges him in wickets/match and Strike Rate.

Bowling First Conundrum:
Numbers when they are bowling first.
Murali vs Warne
Wickets/match = Murali (239/170 = 1.40) << Warne (145/95 = 1.52)
Economy = Murali (4.06) > Warne (4.22)
Average = Murali (26.52) < Warne (25.82)
Strike Rate = Murali (39.1) < Warne (36.7)

Conclusion: Warne seems to have no specific preference on Bowling First or Second. But Murali very clearly prefers Bowling second as his average jumps by almost 6 runs while Bowling first.

Apart from all these Warne also brings to the table his pinch-hitting abilities (now an extinct concept but quite popular in Mid-90s).

Overall Conclusion: Warnie all the way .

[littlemaster1982]

P_B

[Plum]

Puli, post warne without england south africa stats
MinnowsnA spin facing minnowsaiyum kaNakkula eduththukkaNum

[P_R]

P_B, enakku ferfarmans pathi periya kavalai illai enRalum, unga uzhaippukku oru