A Tale of Two Spinners

By Charles Davis

Submitted for Wisden Australia 2005-06

When Wisden assembled exactly one hundred distinguished judges of the game for its 2000 edition and asked them to settle on five “Cricketers of the Century”, Shane Warne’s name was on that exalted list. In effect, the accolade named Warne as the greatest bowler of the century and probably of all time.

Five years on and Warne stands as the all-time leading wicket-taker in Test matches. He has taken more wickets than Lillee and Thomson combined. Wisden in 2005 called him the leading cricketer in the world. Yet there are doubts. Warne is hardly a bowling, or even a spinning, equivalent to Sir Donald Bradman. From Sri Lanka, Muttiah Muralitharan has been relentlessly gaining statistical ground on Warne to the extent that judging the greater bowler today is a matter for genuine debate.

Making their debuts within months of one another in 1992, Warne and Muralitharan have enjoyed long, eventful, contemporaneous careers. Those careers, both controversial, have sparked debate and analysis that is often passionate, sometimes vindictive. For many, positions were entrenched long ago. These pages, though, will attempt to be a little more dispassionate: what can we learn about these great cricketers simply through the statistics of their Test careers?

The taking of over 500 Test match wickets is a grand achievement in its own right, but if we are really to evaluate careers of modern players against one another, and especially against their predecessors, it is not a very fair measure. Traditionally, the primary measure of a bowler has been the bowling average. Since part-time bowlers occasionally maintain reasonable averages, a second average, the number of wickets per match, should always supplement this. Many other statistics are available to cricket statisticians; the resource grows vaster by the year. With ever-growing computer power, there is a temptation to slice and dice the stats over and over until you come up with the answer you want. This article will do some slicing and dicing, but the reader should try to keep the bigger picture in view. There is no single “killer stat” buried deep in the data to decide the issue, but each stat tells a bit of the story.

A problem with comparing careers in broad terms is that cricket is a team game played around the world. Murali and Warne have played against a different mix of opponents under a different mix of conditions. If judging a cricketer means judging their performance under a variety of conditions, then listing averages in each country should be instructive.

Table. Warne and Muralitharan: Performances in Each Country.

	Bowling Avge		Wkts/Match
	Warne	Muralitharan	Warne	Muralitharan
Australia	25.0	116.0	4.78	1.50
England	22.9	21.5	5.24	8.00
India	43.1	48.7	3.78	3.00
New Zealand	21.3	29.4	5.44	3.25
Pakistan	28.0	21.5	6.00	7.00
South Africa	23.0	26.0	5.11	5.83
Sri Lanka	21.5	20.6	4.63	6.45
West Indies	39.6	18.2	2.43	6.25
Zimbabwe	22.8	27.5	6.00	3.71

While Murali enjoys the advantage in terms of career bowling average (22.7 to Warne’s 25.0), he is not as adaptable as Warne. Looking at performance across all countries, Warne he has a better average in five countries out of nine: in wickets per match, he leads in four countries. Call this one a draw. Even when looking at a 90-Test career, such results can be a little tentative. In 13 years, Muralitharan has played only two Tests in Australia and three in England, while the most recent of his five Tests in India was in 1997. Warne has played 17 times in England, not including 2005. Muralitharan has played more Tests in Colombo (27) than he has outside the subcontinent (19), and seven of the latter were in Zimbabwe.

There is a paradox in the averages. For Tests in Sri Lanka, Murali’s average betters Warne’s by about one run. For Tests outside Sri Lanka, Warne leads, by a similar small amount. Yet if the figures are combined, Murali’s lead is substantial. The explanation lies in the fact that Muralitharan has played so many more Tests in Sri Lanka, where both bowlers have excelled, so weighting his average. It is important to recognise that this weighting is a critical factor. Ultimately, it would be unfair to discount Murali’s success at home too much – he can’t help the fact that he plays so much there – but one’s respect for the Sri Lankan’s figures may well come down to a value judgement as to the importance of matches in Sri Lanka. This is tied to the question of whether Muralitharan benefits from home ground help. Fortunately, this can also be studied statistically.

The issue of advantageous conditions prevailing in certain countries is a complex one. It might seem obvious from the home and away figures that Sri Lankan conditions must favour Murali’s bowling, yet if Murali’s figures are put to one side, finger-spinners as a group do not do especially well in Sri Lanka, averaging about 38 runs per wicket over the last 20 years, which is little different to their average elsewhere. Sri Lanka has been a graveyard for legspinners, with Warne an extraordinary exception: legspinners other than Warne have averaged 45 there. Then there is the unusual case of the “spinner’s paradise”, India. Neither bowler has enjoyed any real success there, even though their Indian counterparts, Kumble the wristspinner and Harbhajan Singh the finger-spinner, do far better at home than away. I would suggest that the quality of the Indian batsmen is a more important factor here than the characteristics of Indian wickets.

In Australia, some of Warne’s figures go against conventional wisdom. Although the SCG has long been regarded as the best spinners’ wicket, and the only place where Australian selectors are inclined to let loose two legspinners, Warne’s bowling average there (27.5) is inferior to his record at Melbourne (24.7) and Brisbane (20.1). He has taken just 20% of his home wickets at the SCG, whereas Stuart MacGill has taken 37% of his home wickets there.

On that subject, it is curious that when MacGill and Warne play together (nine Tests in all), it is MacGill who emerges with the better record, average 24 to Warne’s 32. But before jumping to any conclusions, remember that MacGill tends to be selected more often when conditions suit legspinners, whereas Warne does the better of the two under less benign conditions. It is Warne’s ability to keep matters under control, or even to excel, when conditions do not suit him, that sets these two bowlers apart.

It can be argued that Murali’s lead in wickets per match is aided by the fact that he has fewer elite bowling colleagues competing for wickets. This is true up to a point, but beyond that, we should remember that Murali does not enjoy as much synergy from his team, and he must often act as main strike bowler even when he is off form or conditions do not suit him. This can adversely affect bowling average.

On the negative side of Warne’s ledger is the unavoidable fact that he has never bowled to the dominant team of his time, simply because he plays for it. Murali has had to bowl to the Australians in ten Tests, but this component is rather cancelled out by his fourteen Tests against Zimbabwe - more than any other player except his team mate Chaminda Vaas - returning figures that have boosted his statistical coffers.

Warne does rely on fieldsmen and umpires a little more than Muralitharan. Catches form 59% of Warne’s haul, vs 55% for the Sri Lankan. Warne takes 20% of his wickets lbw, to Murali’s 16%. Murali gets more a few more catches through close-in fieldsmen – predominantly offside whereas Warne’s victims fall to the legside trap – but Warne gets a lot more caught behind, about one-tenth of his wickets.

Away from the bowling crease, Warne is the more valuable player. His batting average is four runs higher, and he produces about twice as many runs per match as the Sri Lankan. Warne also takes 8.5 catches per 10 Tests to Murali’s 5.1. A survey of dropped catches since 2001 found nine dropped catches for Warne out of 42 chances, a 21% drop rate. This is better than it sounds; Warne is normally found in the slips, where a normal drop rate is 29%. Murali does better, with only three recorded dropped catches since early 2001, out of 20 chances, but he fields in less demanding positions.

Researcher Ross Smith has reported that Warne and Muralitharan have conceded more six-hits than any other bowlers in Test matches. Warne, in fact, has conceded over three times as many sixes as the nearest Australian (MacGill), but it is not surprising that the two spinners who have done more bowling than anyone in Test matches should have conceded the most sixes. While Warne “leads” in the sixes list, Smith notes that the data for the 1990s are sometimes incomplete. It is likely that the complete totals for sixes off the two bowlers are similar, at around 140-150 each.

One statistic that most spin bowlers share, including Warne and Murali, is that a relatively high proportion of their wickets are tailenders. About 37% of Warne’s victims bat at numbers 8-11, an exceptionally high proportion (it is 25% for McGrath, 31% for Muralitharan) but there are exacerbating factors at work here. Playing in a team of exceptional pace bowlers, Warne sometimes does not get much of a look in when early wickets fall quickly. There is also the fact that Australia bowls its opponents out more often than other teams, so there are more tailend wickets to be had. Adjusting for this latter factor, Warne takes about 3% more of his wickets as available tailenders than Murali, not a huge difference.

Which batsmen do best against Warne and Muralitharan? The question can be answered in detail for Tests since 1999, since ball-by-ball data are near complete for the period. It produces a few surprises, reminding us that while Test matches are more frequent than ever, opponents do not necessarily come head-to-head all that often. Warne, for example, has not played against the West Indies since 1999, and he has not dismissed Brian Lara in a Test since 1997. Lara instead has taken 393 runs off Stuart MacGill in the last six years, at a head-to-head average of 98. The Indian foursome of Laxman, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid have scored almost 700 runs off Warne’s bowling since 1999, at an overall average over 56. Jacques Kallis and Stephen Fleming also have strong records against Warne.

Muralitharan, for his part, has not bowled to Sachin Tendulkar in a Test since 1997. He has, on the other hand, had his fill of Brian Lara, who has 372 runs against him for only three dismissals since 1999. Inzamam-up-Haq (253 runs at 84) and Andy Flower (165 runs at 82.5) have also played Murali especially well.

Note that, because the head-to-head data is only 97% complete, these stats are approximate.

Overall, the records of our two bowlers against elite batsmen, those who average over 45, are similar. These batsmen average about 50 against Warne and Murali, a fairly typical result for today’s leading bowlers. It is interesting to note that Glenn McGrath is a major exception; he averages only 25 against the elite opponents, far better than any other present-day bowler.

So where do our two bowling heroes stand among the ranks of the great bowlers? Is the question answerable? Many have said that comparing the cricketers of different eras is a fool’s game. Many others cannot resist – this was the whole point of the Wisden Cricketer of the Century exercise – and there are ways of treating the stats that iron out the anomalies between the eras. The use of standard statistical tools and the calculation of appropriate adjustment factors according to the strength of the game at different periods, can produce adjusted averages that are statistically rigorous. The author has produced a book on this theme, The Best of the Best (ABC Books), which goes into some detail on the mechanics of doing this. Space prohibits a full explanation here, but suffice it to say that due consideration can be given to the following factors:

- Standard of opposition faced by players, on a Test-by-Test basis.

- Differences between countries in which performances were recorded.

- Changes in run-scoring standards over cricket history.

- Changes in the number of elite-level players over time.

- Length (number of years) of players’ careers.

I would add that the adjustment factors are the results of calculations. They are not arbitrary estimates.

The ranked statistical list that follows has been updated to include results over the last five years. It gives equal weight to bowling average and wickets per match, with the various adjustment factors applied. Rankings of current players are tentative in that their performances could change in the future; however, if these players perform at the same level in the future, the Ratings will not change much.

Leading Bowlers: All-Time Rankings

	Tests	Bowling Average	Multi-factor Adj Bowling	Adj Wkt/Match	Bowling Rating
1. SF Barnes (Eng) 1901–1913	27	16.4	21.4	6.30	5.66
2. M Muralitharan (SL) 1992–	92	22.7	22.0	5.86	5.47
3. WJ O'Reilly (Aus) 1931–1945	27	22.6	21.5	5.23	4.87
4. RJ Hadlee (NZ) 1972–1990	86	22.3	21.2	5.01	4.79
5. CV Grimmett (Aus) 1924–1935	37	24.2	24.7	5.72	4.56
6. DK Lillee (Aus) 1970–1983	70	23.9	23.1	5.07	4.42
7. MD Marshall (WI) 1978–1991	81	20.9	20.3	4.64	4.39
8. GD McGrath (Aus) 1993–	109	21.3	21.5	4.60	4.35
9. GA Lohmann (Eng) 1886–1896	18	10.8	23.2	5.29	4.31
10. SK Warne (Aus) 1992–	123	25.4	24.6	4.78	4.13
11. A Kumble (Ind) 1990–	92	28.2	26.5	5.01	4.06
12. FS Trueman (Eng) 1952–1965	67	21.6	22.9	4.49	3.93
13. J Garner (WI) 1976–1986	58	20.98	21.06	4.47	3.87
14. CEL Ambrose (WI) 1988–2000	98	20.99	20.11	4.13	3.85
15. AA Donald (SAf) 1992–2002	72	22.25	22.45	4.58	3.82
16. H Ironmonger (Aus) 1928–1932	14	17.97	19.55	5.18	3.80
17. Imran Khan (Pak) 1971–1991	88	22.81	22.38	4.11	3.79
18. Waqar Younis (Pak) 1989–2003	86	23.56	24.71	4.34	3.66
19. CTB Turner (Aus) 1886–1894	17	16.53	25.23	5.05	3.65
20. SM Pollock (SAf) 1995–	93	22.09	22.21	4.05	3.63

The process produces quite a diverse list, with a range of historical periods, bowling types, and countries represented. Sydney F. Barnes, that great, enigmatic medium pacer of the Golden Age, holds on to the Number One ranking he earned in the 2000 analysis, in spite of the fact that his real-life bowling average of 16.4 has been bumped up to 21.4 by the adjustment factors.

The ranked list puts Muralitharan very near the top of the pantheon, confirming his statistical rarity. Warne, too, is in elite company, and like Muralitharan, has soared up the charts since the original list was published in 2000, moving from Number 24 to Number 10, while Murali has risen from Number 13 to Number 2 all-time. If one substitutes the stats that are most favourable to Warne, based on the country-by-country analysis, he rises to fifth, with Muralitharan fourth. However, this alternative analysis does not work well for bowlers of pre-War times, who played in a very limited range of countries, so it must be taken advisedly, and the figures used in the table are more robust.

So, in the end, although we can find stats that capture the rare range and adaptability of Shane Warne’s bowling, the weight of the figures must remain in Muttiah Muralitharan’s favour. His ability to sustain an extraordinary strike rate combined with a world-class bowling average is unmatched in living memory. Shane Warne may be the “Bowler of the Century” when his overall impact on the game is considered, but that is a two-edged sword (is there a stat for most scandals?). Great bowler that he is, Warne’s stats come close, but do not quite justify, such a judgement. If the figures are to be trusted, Muttiah Muralitharan is the greatest bowler of our times.