Warne/McGrath/Gilchrist

[Carl Hooper]

He didn't rely on it because he couldn't bowl it effectively.

Doesn't make him shit, I'm just pointing out that it's hard to say 'so and so was 40 per cent better than his contemporaries because he could bowl this ball that they couldnt' when he had trouble bowling a delivery that most of them could.

Nah, I think your memory is shithouse. I remember seeing videos of him bowling plenty of em.

I think he stopped bowling them when his shoulder was shot.

 

[PhatBoy]

Nah, I think your memory is shithouse. I remember seeing videos of him bowling plenty of em.

I think he stopped bowling them when his shoulder was shot.

His injury DID hamper it - he went seven or eight years without bowling one at all more or less, and then started to unleash it occasionally. But fit or not, it was never much of a weapon for him.

 

[JG22]

One of my favourites from the king, wasn't that amazing but often makes me laugh how he bamboozled him.

 

[Carl Hooper]

"Oooo yes... That's the slider to end all sliders"

Fk I miss Richie.

I think that ball was just natural variation off the pitch tho lmao kinda does me how they never acknowledge that. Sortve like how when they say fast bowlers have bowled a leg/off cutter when its obvious its just hit the seam and moved off the pitch.

 

[Gough]

A leg break that doesn't turn, I called it my stock ball, Warnie calls it a slider, and everyone think's him a genius.

 

[Therimgreaper]

"Oooo yes... That's the slider to end all sliders"

Fk I miss Richie.

I think that ball was just natural variation off the pitch tho lmao kinda does me how they never acknowledge that. Sortve like how when they say fast bowlers have bowled a leg/off cutter when its obvious its just hit the seam and moved off the pitch.

How can the commentators know what seam movement the bowler was trying to achieve? How would they know if it's natural variation or deliberate? They don't so they give the bowler the benefit of the doubt and call it off/leg cutter.

 

[Carl Hooper]

How can the commentators know what seam movement the bowler was trying to achieve? How would they know if it's natural variation or deliberate? They don't so they give the bowler the benefit of the doubt and call it off/leg cutter.

Because they show replays of the delivery and you can see it clear as day. The ball is delivered seam up, hits the pitch seam up and moves.
If you have your 2 fingers running straight up the seam and dont run your fingers down either side of the ball, then thats not a cutter.


A cutter will have a scrambled seam most the time.

The commentators are ******ed

 

[STFU Donnie]

if you take out the number of tests murali played vs the minnows + the fact he played at home on prepared pitches and Warne is comfortably ahead from a statistical stand point too.

If Warne played as many tests as Murali did in Sri Lanka he'd have taken 1000 wickets. Lets not forget Murali got slogged in Australia too

Debatable point as Warne's record in the sub continent was very poor.

 

[Therimgreaper]

Because they show replays of the delivery and you can see it clear as day. The ball is delivered seam up, hits the pitch seam up and moves.
If you have your 2 fingers running straight up the seam and dont run your fingers down either side of the ball, then thats not a cutter.


A cutter will have a scrambled seam most the time.

The commentators are ******ed

It's called subtle variations and the best bowlers hide it. You may not see a scrambled seam or the bowlers fingers run down one side of the ball but it doesn't mean it ain't happening.

 

[Carl Hooper]

It's called subtle variations and the best bowlers hide it. You may not see a scrambled seam or the bowlers fingers run down one side of the ball but it doesn't mean it ain't happening.

Lmao... that you Tubby? Or is that Slats?

You'll get it one day.

 

[PhatBoy]

if you take out the number of tests murali played vs the minnows + the fact he played at home on prepared pitches and Warne is comfortably ahead from a statistical stand point too.

If Warne played as many tests as Murali did in Sri Lanka he'd have taken 1000 wickets. Lets not forget Murali got slogged in Australia too

Yeah, see this would mean a lot more if it were actually a true reflection

What this post doesn't explain, is this:

Why did Murali have a better record in England? (19.2 average compared to 21.6).
Why did he have a better record in NZ? (19.9 to 21.3)
Why did he have a better record in Pakistan? (24.9 to 28)
Why did he have a significantly better record in the West Indies? (23 compared to 39).

Warne gets him in India - 43.12 to 45.5, and SA, 24.3 to 26.03, but I'd say the supposed reliant home town hero Murali comes out of that looking quite good wouldn't you?

Yes he failed in Australia - though he only played 5 tests here and one of them infamously saw him being no balled.

When you take out minnow wickets, Murali still has 631 at 24.6
Warne has 691 at 25.5. And that includes the farcical World XI match where he took 6-60 for the match.
Their strike rates minus minnows are almost identical - Warne took a wicket about .33 of a ball better than his rival.

Even when you look at opponents in isolation, irrespective of where they played, Warne only comes out ahead against Pakistan. And Sri Lanka in comparison to Murali against Australia.

His overall average against the best players of spin, India, is 15 runs better than Warne's.

And let's not forget that Warne played a third of his games against England and SA, who's inability against quality spin over that period was bested only by that of Pakistan.

Essentially whatever you think about the two bowlers, aside from aggregate there is no single statistical argument anyone can make that gives Warne much of an edge.

If you're going to start claiming that the fact that he played in Australia should somehow entitle him to a massive adjustment to his figures, you may as well dismiss the claims to greatness of any fast bowler from Australia, England or South Africa and install the quintet of Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Kapil Dev and Chaminda Vaas as the greatest group of quicks who ever lived.

 

[PhatBoy]

It's called subtle variations and the best bowlers hide it. You may not see a scrambled seam or the bowlers fingers run down one side of the ball but it doesn't mean it ain't happening.

It's not a subtle variation. It is seam bowling. It still takes skill, you have to stand the seam up, but it is not a leg or off cutter

 

[Therimgreaper]

It's not a subtle variation. It is seam bowling. It still takes skill, you have to stand the seam up, but it is not a leg or off cutter

Roll both fingers down the seam. The last finger to touch the ball is the direction it'll seam. Subtle but a cutter non the less.

 

[PhatBoy]

Roll both fingers down the seam. The last finger to touch the ball is the direction it'll seam. Subtle but a cutter non the less.

For those who can't comprehend.

If the replay shows no finger movement down either side, and an upright seam, followed by the ball moving off the pitch, it has moved via the seam, not via cutting.

 

[Carl Hooper]

For those who can't comprehend.

If the replay shows no finger movement down either side, and an upright seam, followed by the ball moving off the pitch, it has moved via the seam, not via cutting.

I think these people have never played cricket or they've been conditioned by the channel 9 commentary team.

 

[JackOutback]

Yeah, see this would mean a lot more if it were actually a true reflection

What this post doesn't explain, is this:

Why did Murali have a better record in England? (19.2 average compared to 21.6).
Why did he have a better record in NZ? (19.9 to 21.3)
Why did he have a better record in Pakistan? (24.9 to 28)
Why did he have a significantly better record in the West Indies? (23 compared to 39).

Warne gets him in India - 43.12 to 45.5, and SA, 24.3 to 26.03, but I'd say the supposed reliant home town hero Murali comes out of that looking quite good wouldn't you?

Yes he failed in Australia - though he only played 5 tests here and one of them infamously saw him being no balled.

When you take out minnow wickets, Murali still has 631 at 24.6
Warne has 691 at 25.5. And that includes the farcical World XI match where he took 6-60 for the match.
Their strike rates minus minnows are almost identical - Warne took a wicket about .33 of a ball better than his rival.

Even when you look at opponents in isolation, irrespective of where they played, Warne only comes out ahead against Pakistan. And Sri Lanka in comparison to Murali against Australia.

His overall average against the best players of spin, India, is 15 runs better than Warne's.

And let's not forget that Warne played a third of his games against England and SA, who's inability against quality spin over that period was bested only by that of Pakistan.

Essentially whatever you think about the two bowlers, aside from aggregate there is no single statistical argument anyone can make that gives Warne much of an edge.

If you're going to start claiming that the fact that he played in Australia should somehow entitle him to a massive adjustment to his figures, you may as well dismiss the claims to greatness of any fast bowler from Australia, England or South Africa and install the quintet of Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Kapil Dev and Chaminda Vaas as the greatest group of quicks who ever lived.

Stats aren't everything; for a long time, Murali was playing for a minnow, making him their primary wicket taker, whereas Warne had McGrath, Gillespie and Lee taking wickets off him. This is an example where the eye test is enough for me; Warne was better and not by a little.

 

[Therimgreaper]

For those who can't comprehend.

If the replay shows no finger movement down either side, and an upright seam, followed by the ball moving off the pitch, it has moved via the seam, not via cutting.

Not true. Maybe you can't understand because it is a skill beyond your capabilities or you still use Bradman's The Art of Cricket as a coaching manual.

 

[Therimgreaper]

Lmao... that you Tubby? Or is that Slats?

You'll get it one day.

I'm betting you're not a seam bowler lmao

 

[PhatBoy]

Stats aren't everything; for a long time, Murali was playing for a minnow, making him their primary wicket taker, whereas Warne had McGrath, Gillespie and Lee taking wickets off him. This is an example where the eye test is enough for me; Warne was better and not by a little.

Him being the primary wicket taker explains aggregate. Not average.

For a long time Murali had no one but chaminda vaas helping him to build pressure.

Warne had McGrath, Gillespie and Lee tying down batsmen and forcing them to go after him.

It works both ways mate.

For what it's worth I don't really think of either of them as being better than the other.

 

[PhatBoy]

Not true. Maybe you can't understand because it is a skill beyond your capabilities or you still use Bradman's The Art of Cricket as a coaching manual.

So you are saying that if I keep my fingers bolt upright and the seam stays bolt upright, perpendicular to the ground, and it seams one direction or another, it is essentially a fast off or leg spinner.

FMD, to paraphrase Chris Finch, 'no wonder this country is going down the pan, you're a waste of bloody space.'

 

[PhatBoy]

I'm betting you're not a seam bowler lmao

I'm betting you're not a dictionary.

 

[Therimgreaper]

Stats aren't everything; for a long time, Murali was playing for a minnow, making him their primary wicket taker, whereas Warne had McGrath, Gillespie and Lee taking wickets off him. This is an example where the eye test is enough for me; Warne was better and not by a little.

Geez it's been a while since I've heard that old chestnut. Teams talk about bowling in partnerships all the time. Murali didn't have the luxury of having McGrath bowl maiden after maiden at the other end.
I suggest your view is hugely biased.

 

[PhatBoy]

Geez it's been a while since I've heard that old chestnut. Teams talk about bowling in partnerships all the time. Murali didn't have the luxury of having McGrath bowl maiden after maiden at the other end.
I suggest your view is hugely biased.

On this we can certainly agree.

 

[Damon_3388]

Geez it's been a while since I've heard that old chestnut. Teams talk about bowling in partnerships all the time. Murali didn't have the luxury of having McGrath bowl maiden after maiden at the other end.
I suggest your view is hugely biased.

On this we can certainly agree.

Murali just had Chaminda Vaas (111 Tests, 355 wickets, 2.68 economy rate) bowling maiden after maiden at the other end instead

 

[Therimgreaper]

I'm betting you're not a dictionary.

I'll take that as a no you aren't a seam bowler.