Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by Hugh Robert » Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:00:00


Some bowling averages from this World Cup - just for those who keep
telling us that the final proved that Warne is "all hype" and that Murali
is the best spinner in the world etc. etc. etc. (figures from Cric Info)

Quote:
>                     O      M     R     W    Ave  Best   5w   Econ  Cou
> AR Kumble          69.4    3   281    15  18.73  3-29    -   4.03  IND
> M Muralitharan     47.1    3   185     6  30.83  2-37    -   3.92  SL
> Mushtaq Ahmed      57      2   238    10  23.80  3-16    -   4.17  PAK
> PA Strang          42.1    4   192    12  16.00  5-21    1   4.55  ZIM
> WPUCJ Vaas         43      5   163     5  32.60  2-30    -   3.79  SL
> SK Warne           58.3    3   205    12  17.08  4-34    -   3.50  AUS

Well well, this makes some interesting reading, doesn't it? Out of
Kumble, Warne, and Murali - who has the best average? Why, Warne! Who has
the best economy rate? Why, Warne! How many Australian umpires officiated
in matches in which Warne was playing? Why, none! Gosh.
  Yes, reading those figures leaves us in no doubt that Murali is the
greatest spinner the world has ever seen, and that Warne is a pathetic
hyped-up ***y.

Cheers
Hugh Roberts
(P.S., I tossed in Paul Strang and Mushtaq Ahmed by way of comparison
with other leggies - and Vaas to show that Murali isn't even the best
bowler in the Sri Lankan team).

 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by Prince Koh » Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:00:00

|> Some bowling averages from this World Cup - just for those who keep
|> telling us that the final proved that Warne is "all hype" and that Murali
|> is the best spinner in the world etc. etc. etc. (figures from Cric Info)
|>
|> >                     O      M     R     W    Ave  Best   5w   Econ  Cou
|>
|> > AR Kumble          69.4    3   281    15  18.73  3-29    -   4.03  IND
|> > M Muralitharan     47.1    3   185     6  30.83  2-37    -   3.92  SL
|> > Mushtaq Ahmed      57      2   238    10  23.80  3-16    -   4.17  PAK
|> > PA Strang          42.1    4   192    12  16.00  5-21    1   4.55  ZIM
|> > WPUCJ Vaas         43      5   163     5  32.60  2-30    -   3.79  SL
|> > SK Warne           58.3    3   205    12  17.08  4-34    -   3.50  AUS
|>
|> Well well, this makes some interesting reading, doesn't it? Out of
|> Kumble, Warne, and Murali - who has the best average? Why, Warne! Who has
|> the best economy rate? Why, Warne! How many Australian umpires officiated

And who has the most wickets? Why, Kumble, of course! I wonder how you
missed that one :-) It is kind of important when trying to pick "best"
bowlers.

-Prince

 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by Pradeep Subramani » Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:00:00



Quote:
>Some bowling averages from this World Cup - just for those who keep
>telling us that the final proved that Warne is "all hype" and that Murali
>is the best spinner in the world etc. etc. etc. (figures from Cric Info)

>>                     O      M     R     W    Ave  Best   5w   Econ  Cou

>> AR Kumble          69.4    3   281    15  18.73  3-29    -   4.03  IND
>> M Muralitharan     47.1    3   185     6  30.83  2-37    -   3.92  SL
>> Mushtaq Ahmed      57      2   238    10  23.80  3-16    -   4.17  PAK
>> PA Strang          42.1    4   192    12  16.00  5-21    1   4.55  ZIM
>> WPUCJ Vaas         43      5   163     5  32.60  2-30    -   3.79  SL
>> SK Warne           58.3    3   205    12  17.08  4-34    -   3.50  AUS

>Well well, this makes some interesting reading, doesn't it? Out of
>Kumble, Warne, and Murali - who has the best average? Why, Warne! Who has
>the best economy rate? Why, Warne! How many Australian umpires officiated
>in matches in which Warne was playing? Why, none! Gosh.
>  Yes, reading those figures leaves us in no doubt that Murali is the
>greatest spinner the world has ever seen, and that Warne is a pathetic
>hyped-up ***y.

>Cheers
>Hugh Roberts
>(P.S., I tossed in Paul Strang and Mushtaq Ahmed by way of comparison
>with other leggies - and Vaas to show that Murali isn't even the best
>bowler in the Sri Lankan team).

Please do take into account that the aussies and the Windies did not play
their game in SL. Had they played, Warne might have been hammered out of
the grounds, like he was in the only game against the Lankans, and then who
is to say about his averages....

As it is, he was the most expensive bowler of the finals. Care to comment?

Pradeep.

--
Pradeep Subramaniam, WebMaster          | Statistics are like bikinis
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada.|   What they reveal is suggestive,

phone: (416) 239 4801                   | - Yet another brilliant philosopher

 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by Badrinarayanan Seshad » Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:00:00

* Some bowling averages from this World Cup - just for those who keep
* telling us that the final proved that Warne is "all hype" and that Murali
* is the best spinner in the world etc. etc. etc. (figures from Cric Info)

* >                     O      M     R     W    Ave  Best   5w   Econ  Cou

* > AR Kumble          69.4    3   281    15  18.73  3-29    -   4.03  IND
* > M Muralitharan     47.1    3   185     6  30.83  2-37    -   3.92  SL
* > Mushtaq Ahmed      57      2   238    10  23.80  3-16    -   4.17  PAK
* > PA Strang          42.1    4   192    12  16.00  5-21    1   4.55  ZIM
* > WPUCJ Vaas         43      5   163     5  32.60  2-30    -   3.79  SL
* > SK Warne           58.3    3   205    12  17.08  4-34    -   3.50  AUS

* Well well, this makes some interesting reading, doesn't it? Out of
* Kumble, Warne, and Murali - who has the best average? Why, Warne! Who has
* the best economy rate? Why, Warne! How many Australian umpires officiated
* in matches in which Warne was playing? Why, none! Gosh.

ouch! easy! Just add the figures for the finals to the above. (the
above are after the semi-finals)

Hmm... what does that tell us? nothing much. A few changes that will
result in:

                    O      M     R     W    Ave  Best   5w   Econ  Cou

AR Kumble          69.4    3   281    15  18.73  3-29    -   4.03  IND
SK Warne           68.3    3   263    12  21.91  4-34    -   3.83  AUS
M Muralitharan     57.1    3   216     7  30.85  2-37    -   3.77  SL

Mushtaq Ahmed      57      2   238    10  23.80  3-16    -   4.17  PAK
PA Strang          42.1    4   192    12  16.00  5-21    1   4.55  ZIM
WPUCJ Vaas         49      6   193     6  32.16  2-30    -   3.93  SL

So Hugh Roberts should say:

Out of Kumble, Warne, and Murali - who has the best average? Why,
Kumble! Who has the best economy rate? Why, Murali! How many
Australian umpires officiated in matches in which Warne was playing?
Why, none! Gosh.

*   Yes, reading those figures leaves us in no doubt that Murali is the
* greatest spinner the world has ever seen, and that Warne is a pathetic
* hyped-up ***y.

Nope. I am not going to make any claims here! I still think Warne is
the best of the three (whether he got smashed in the final or not). In
fact, I am of the opinion that anyone who calls Kumble a legspinner is
wrong and any comparison between Kumble and Warne presented as
comparisons involving couple of leg-spinners is also wrong. As to
Murali, poor guy, didn't get a chance to bowl to the West Indies. He
should have taken at least 4 wickets there!

--badri

* Cheers
* Hugh Roberts
* (P.S., I tossed in Paul Strang and Mushtaq Ahmed by way of comparison
* with other leggies - and Vaas to show that Murali isn't even the best
* bowler in the Sri Lankan team).

P.S. Your P.S. is wrong too. And we will blame it all on Travis Basevi
for not updating the stats in CricInfo :-)

--
--------------------------------------------------
S.Badrinarayanan
Graduate Student
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Cornell University
--------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by mallela jaganna » Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:00:00

I wish to begin my discussion by stating that Shane Warne is perhaps
the most intelligent leg spinner contemporary cricket has ever seen.
Stats or no stats, wickets or no wickets I think he is undoubtedly
the master spin bowling.  I wouldnt be exaggerating if I
say that he can bowl 10 overs on a trot without repeating the type
of delivery even once.  He can vary flight, line, length, spin, and
pace of the ball like no one else.  Since he is an "experimenter" he
tends to get whacked around once in a while.  But who doesn't and that
too in oneday cricket!  Coming to the argument of comparing him to
the Indian great Kumble, I would say that both of them have completely
contrasting styles of bowling.  I will support my argument by stating
that batsmen get out to Kumble when they tend to be on the attack,
whereas, they get out to Warne when they are on the defensive.  Kumble
is a very accurate bowler, and perhaps does not have the variety of    
Warne but he is definitely a treat to watch especially when someone at
the other end is trying to get after him.  Now, this is what I felt after
watching these great bowlers bowl in the recent World Cup and is an
unbiased opinion.  If I throw my personal bias in I would rather be
saying that Kumble is better than Warne ;)  According to me Murali
does'nt fit into their bracket.  There have been a lot of bowlers of his
type in modern cricket (eg:  Greg Mathews who could turn the ball a mile
and Tauseef).

Cheers
-jag mallela

 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by Hugh Robert » Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>As it is, he was the most expensive bowler of the finals. Care to comment?

Well, as you yourself say when I pointed out that Murali had very little
reward for his bowling in Australia before he was called for chucking:
good bowlers can have bad days. Murali's total lack of penetration in an
entire five day Test doesn't shake your confidence in his abilities (and
neither it should) - and yet Warne taking a bit of stick for 10 measly
overs is supposed to be full of deep significance. As the Aussies say:
wake up to yourself, mate!

Cheers
Hugh Roberts

 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by Pradeep Subramani » Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:00:00



Quote:

>>As it is, he was the most expensive bowler of the finals. Care to comment?

>Well, as you yourself say when I pointed out that Murali had very little
>reward for his bowling in Australia before he was called for chucking:
>good bowlers can have bad days. Murali's total lack of penetration in an
>entire five day Test doesn't shake your confidence in his abilities (and
>neither it should) - and yet Warne taking a bit of stick for 10 measly
>overs is supposed to be full of deep significance. As the Aussies say:
>wake up to yourself, mate!

>Cheers
>Hugh Roberts

Now your defense is that these were the 10 odd overs from Shane!!
I am surprised at you Aussies, how you guys consistently come up with
the greatest of excuses.

A highly rated bowler like Shane does not need 10 overs to prove himself
and should not allow himself to be belted around for 10 overs of the
game. Windies were not great this world cup, but was Ambrose ever belted
around? Granted, he was under some fire for the last over against India,
but that was only one over. Can you say the same about Shane, I definitely
don't think so.

I agree that Shane is a very good bowler, but not as good as you guys
rate him to be, nor can you start running down other bowlers on his merit.

Pradeep.

--
Pradeep Subramaniam, WebMaster          | Statistics are like bikinis
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada.|   What they reveal is suggestive,

phone: (416) 239 4801                   | - Yet another brilliant philosopher

 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by Department of State Librar » Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>the best of the three (whether he got smashed in the final or not). In
>fact, I am of the opinion that anyone who calls Kumble a legspinner is
>wrong and any comparison between Kumble and Warne presented as
>comparisons involving couple of leg-spinners is also wrong. As to

Badri:  Just for my info -- would you consider Bill O'Reilly a legspinner?

Cheers,
Ted Seay

 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by Rohan Chandr » Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:00:00


Quote:
>Some bowling averages from this World Cup - just for those who keep
>telling us that the final proved that Warne is "all hype" and that Murali
>is the best spinner in the world etc. etc. etc. (figures from Cric Info)

....

Actually, a closer look will reveal the following to be the actual
figures for all major spinners in the World Cup:

AR Kumble          69.4    3   281    15  18.73  3-29    -   4.03  IND
M Muralitharan     57.1    3   216     7  30.86  2-37    -   3.78  SL
Mushtaq Ahmed      57      2   238    10  23.80  3-16    -   4.17  PAK
SLV Raju           40      4   158     8  19.75  3-30    -   3.95  IND
PA Strang          42.1    4   192    12  16.00  5-21    1   4.55  ZIM
SK Warne           68.3    3   263    12  21.92  4-34    -   3.84  AUS

Hugh went on to say, using the figures he had:

Quote:
>Well well, this makes some interesting reading, doesn't it? Out of
>Kumble, Warne, and Murali - who has the best average? Why, Warne! Who has
>the best economy rate? Why, Warne! How many Australian umpires officiated
>in matches in which Warne was playing? Why, none! Gosh.
>  Yes, reading those figures leaves us in no doubt that Murali is the
>greatest spinner the world has ever seen, and that Warne is a pathetic
>hyped-up ***y.

[The following is meant in good humour:]

Well well, this makes some interesting reading, doesn't it? Out of
Kumble, Warne and Murali - who has the best average? Why, Kumble! Who
has the best economy rate? Why, Murali! How many Australian umpires
officiated in matches in which Murali was playing? Why, none! Gosh.

:-)

Rohan [ who frankly doesn't think Murali comes close to Warne *or*
Kumble ]
--
+1 (415) 497-5992

http://SportToday.org/~rohanc

 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by Neeran M. Karn » Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>>                     O      M     R     W    Ave  Best   5w   Econ  Cou
>> AR Kumble          69.4    3   281    15  18.73  3-29    -   4.03  IND
>> M Muralitharan     47.1    3   185     6  30.83  2-37    -   3.92  SL
>> Mushtaq Ahmed      57      2   238    10  23.80  3-16    -   4.17  PAK
>> PA Strang          42.1    4   192    12  16.00  5-21    1   4.55  ZIM
>> WPUCJ Vaas         43      5   163     5  32.60  2-30    -   3.79  SL
>> SK Warne           58.3    3   205    12  17.08  4-34    -   3.50  AUS
>Well well, this makes some interesting reading, doesn't it? Out of
>Kumble, Warne, and Murali - who has the best average? Why, Warne! Who has
>the best economy rate? Why, Warne! How many Australian umpires officiated
>in matches in which Warne was playing? Why, none! Gosh.

   I don't have any point to make :) But these figures are from before
   the final. So, Warne and Murali's updated figures are:

M Muralitharan     57.1    3   216     7  30.86  2-37    -   3.78  SL
SK Warne           68.3    3   263    12  21.92  4-34    -   3.84 AUS

  As I said, I don't really have a point :-) But these updated numbers
  do affect what you said above :-)

Quote:
>Hugh Roberts

     +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
     | Neeran M. Karnik | #1 fan of Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar on r.s.c.  :-> |
     | Dept. of CompSci.| "Pele in football, Becker in tennis, Ali in      |
     | U of Minnesota   | boxing. Sachin is in that league." - Tony Cozier |
     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by A S M ASHRAF AHM » Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:



>>Some bowling averages from this World Cup - just for those who keep
>>telling us that the final proved that Warne is "all hype" and that Murali
>>is the best spinner in the world etc. etc. etc. (figures from Cric Info)

>>>                     O      M     R     W    Ave  Best   5w   Econ  Cou

>>> AR Kumble          69.4    3   281    15  18.73  3-29    -   4.03  IND
>>> M Muralitharan     47.1    3   185     6  30.83  2-37    -   3.92  SL
>>> Mushtaq Ahmed      57      2   238    10  23.80  3-16    -   4.17  PAK
>>> PA Strang          42.1    4   192    12  16.00  5-21    1   4.55  ZIM
>>> WPUCJ Vaas         43      5   163     5  32.60  2-30    -   3.79  SL
>>> SK Warne           58.3    3   205    12  17.08  4-34    -   3.50  AUS

>>Well well, this makes some interesting reading, doesn't it? Out of
>>Kumble, Warne, and Murali - who has the best average? Why, Warne! Who has
>>the best economy rate? Why, Warne! How many Australian umpires officiated
>>in matches in which Warne was playing? Why, none! Gosh.
>>  Yes, reading those figures leaves us in no doubt that Murali is the
>>greatest spinner the world has ever seen, and that Warne is a pathetic
>>hyped-up ***y.

>>Cheers
>>Hugh Roberts
>>(P.S., I tossed in Paul Strang and Mushtaq Ahmed by way of comparison
>>with other leggies - and Vaas to show that Murali isn't even the best
>>bowler in the Sri Lankan team).

> Please do take into account that the aussies and the Windies did not play
> their game in SL. Had they played, Warne might have been hammered out of
> the grounds, like he was in the only game against the Lankans, and then who
> is to say about his averages....

> As it is, he was the most expensive bowler of the finals. Care to comment?

> Pradeep.

Well said Pradeep,

This guy "Hugh Roberts" has a anti-Lankan fever; if you notice his artcles,
he always picks Lankan cricketers and try to make a stupid point out of that.
regards.

- Tilak.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> --
> Pradeep Subramaniam, WebMaster          | Statistics are like bikinis
> SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada.|   What they reveal is suggestive,

> phone: (416) 239 4801                   | - Yet another brilliant philosopher

 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by deb... » Fri, 22 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


>  >As it is, he was the most expensive bowler of the finals. Care to comment?

>  Well, as you yourself say when I pointed out that Murali had very little
>  reward for his bowling in Australia before he was called for chucking:
>  good bowlers can have bad days. Murali's total lack of penetration in an
>  entire five day Test doesn't shake your confidence in his abilities (and
>  neither it should) - and yet Warne taking a bit of stick for 10 measly
>  overs is supposed to be full of deep significance. As the Aussies say:
>  wake up to yourself, mate!

>  Cheers
>  Hugh Roberts

Okay, let's settle this one (i.e. Warne's performance in the WC Finals). Shane Warne bowled three expensive overs. In his
tentative first over, an exuberant Desilva greeted him with a 4 and a 6,  probably making Warne bowl the only wide of his spell
(note carefully that Desilva did not try this stunt again). Then in  Warne's fifth over, Gurusinha decided to take liberties, belted
him for 13 but was promptly out after that (to another bowler). In Warne's tenth and last over, Ranatunga (within two overs of
victory) decided to get his***s in for a 6 and a 4.
Except for these outbursts, Warne bowled at an economy rate of under 3.0. And this was when all the other Australian
bowlers were being rather unceremoniusly treated by the Sri Lankans; their cumulative economy rate was nearly twice as
great as Warne's if those spells are excluded.
One of the misfortunes that spin bowlers face in limited-over matches is that if they cannot take a wicket in their first three or
four overs, they have to switch to "economy" or risk losing their shirts.  Medium and fast bowlers can go on attacking the
wickets. because they don't operate under the same constraint.
Murali was more economical than Warne over his 10-over spell in the WC final. But ball-by-ball analysis shows that
following the wicket Murali took, the Australians weren't prepared to take the same risks with him as the Sri Lankans, however
sporadically, took with Warne; and Murali's overall economy rate was about the same as Warne's minus those "expensive"
spells.
Those are the breaks, I suppose (sorry for the pun). Warne was unlucky this time.
 
 
 

Warne, Kumble, Murali, etc.

Post by Hugh Robert » Fri, 22 Mar 1996 04:00:00


Quote:
>   I don't have any point to make :) But these figures are from before
>   the final. So, Warne and Murali's updated figures are:
>M Muralitharan     57.1    3   216     7  30.86  2-37    -   3.78  SL
>SK Warne           68.3    3   263    12  21.92  4-34    -   3.84 AUS
>  As I said, I don't really have a point :-) But these updated numbers
>  do affect what you said above :-)

Thanks for posting those. I don't actually think they affect things as
much as you might think. The economy rates are virtually identical (.06
the difference), but Warne's average is dramatically better than
Murali's. Even with that one bad match factored in, Warne had the better
world cup (and one must remember that Murali was saved two matches
against top-class teams in the preliminary rounds).
  The point is, still, that to judge Warne as "all hype" on the basis of
one bad performance is foolish and betrays a slender grasp of the
realities of cricket.

Cheers
Hugh Roberts