except it's not a reason why it doesn't matter, it's a reason it might not matter if it could be proved that warne took an equal number of wickets per innings as murali, there for claiming a greater degree of consistency over him.
Yes, he consistently played Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and in Sri Lanka, thus stating 800 is more wickets than Warne took ignores the fact that they didn't play under the same conditions and the same opposition the same amount.
Crouch has a great international record, that a lot of his goals are in friendlies and against sh1te opposition doesn't matter to people who NEVER consider looking beyond the face value of a stat.
he didn't murali's stats show that he took 3.5 wickets per test to warnes 2.6. also, taking a 5 means you have almost definitely taken a percentage of top order batsmen out, (on rare occassions it's possible that you just dismissed the wicketkeeper and the 4 bowlers, but that's unlikely) it has been shown that murali took a higher percentage of wickets against top order batsmen.
Conjecture over what taking five means, it could be the top five, it could be the bottom five, it could be 1,4,9,10,11, it could be anything.
As for the last bit, put some supporting stats up because "took a higher percentage" could mean as much as 99% over say 20%, or as inconsequential as 48% over 47% . Quoting missing stats is very misleading indeed, and not at all helpful
1) you discount murali's greater wickets per game record. average does come into it but it is not the be all an end all of a bowlers performance. 5/100 is a greater contribution to a game of cricket than 3/60. you can dress that up as warne not getting the chances murali did or however, but you can only rank a cricketer by what he actually achieved, you can't make hypothesis about warne definitely being able to take a 5-fer in matches he only took 3 wickets.
Wickets per game is skewed because Murali took 493 wickets in helpful Sri Lankan conditions and 176 (he says without looking at his own stats!) wickets was it against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. If Warne had played more matches in Sri Lanka his stats would be improved, that is why I don't think your taking of the stats on a "like for like" comparison when they're clearly not is silly, hence why I am trying to compare as much "like for like" as is possible.
2) the placing of sri lanka and the windies in the weaker/stronger categories. warne and murali played the windies a lot over various points in their careers and for a good chunk of that the windies would have been considered the stronger team. add this to the fact that the reason you put sri lanka in the stronger team category is pretty much down to murali himself, even wisden states murali is the difference between sri lanka being a good team and a very good team then again murali is getting punished for success.
How does bowling against Sri Lankan BATSMEN reflect well on Murali?!?!?!? It would be very harsh indeed to put Sri Lanka in with the weakest sides, and there is more to them being above that bottom group than just Murali - Jayawardene, Sangakkara, Da Silva, Vaas etc. I put Sri Lanka in with the rest simply because they weren't weak like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, and West Indies/New Zealand have been ok, not great, but nowhere near as bad as the previous two. I could have split it further but that would be pointless, I think the grouping is reasonable, I doubt many would disagree that there is a gap between those four and the rest, although there is another gap or more within the group doesn't matter for much.
As for the windies decline, it doesn't really matter much but they became pretty ordinary around 2000 and so both Murali and Warne will have had plenty of years bowling at them - in fact Murali went on for three years longer so had three more years of weak windies.
Post 2000 Warne took only 16 wkts @ 22.88 against the West Indies, it amazes me he played them so little in seven years. Murali took 24 wkts @ 22.33 in one series alone post 2000, and 62 wkts @ 21.21 in total post 2000 against the West Indies (nearly 4x as many as Warne)
And that's only 1/4 of Warne's total wickets against West Indies so 3/4 came before they were naff, compared to Murali who only took 20 wickets pre 2000 against West Indies when they were good and sides weren't playing Sri Lanka so much. In fairness I will point out Murali's average was lower than his career vs West Indies pre 2000, but if Warne had played as many Tests and sustained his average post 2000 then he'd have more wickets, a higher wickets per innings rate that you hold in such high regard, and a lower career average.
That is of course (again) not even taking into account where the sides played, I think Murali in his 62% home Tests environment is bound to take more wickets, lower average etc than Warne playing sides in West Indies or Australia.
Didn't Sri Lanka make the King of Spain (Ashley Giles) look like a world beater in 00/01? Giles took more than 11 wickets in a series just THREE times, in Sri Lanka, vs West Indies and in Pakistan.
it works out well for warne this skew because his record against sri lanka is incredibly good, while taking their records against the west indies, even in the west indies, murali is on top. now you can't tell me the west indies is a spin bowling haven?
See above, you're again oversimplifying and pinpointing single instances. Of course one bowler will be way better than another, that's why I grouped rather than compare each country played away individually. Where's the point? That's like comparing two batsmen for the records at say Lords, is it Tendulkar who has a poor record there?
it's purely at the discretion of the person looking at the stats but given murali missed the series in australia when he was in his prime and only played 5 matches there, 2 at the beginning in 1995, and 2 nearing the end of his career in 2007/08 (and funnily enough, he did manage 5 wickets at 30 a piece in one test in 2005, that would be when he was closer to his best and against a peak power australia) there is an issue whether magnifying these tests to 100 is really a fair reflection.
there's also a slightly unfair balance when people say, murali took so many wickets against weaker opposition whereas warne took so many against stronger opposition when you consider england. england struggled massively against them both. but warne had 20 more tests than murali (36 to his 16) and took 195 of his wickets against them, murali managed 112 at a better average.
The 100 wickets magnification was trying to highlight how you can't just look purely at the basic stats and suggest it's fair like much of what you're doing. You seem repeatedly to sit in Murali's corner regards "such and such is better", "such and such is unfair on Murali", etc, but won't concede the very basics that taking lots of wickets against weak sides, and 62% of your wickets in Sri Lanka is a MASSIVE advantage. I've compared like for like as much as is possible, the averages in Sri Lanka, their averages excluding the weaker countries, comparing raw numbers like 800 is pointless because you could say Gavaskar was better than Bradman because he scored more runs, or Tendulkar is better than Bradman because he scored more 100s.
I think you have to ask looking at this is, how credible was englands ability to play spin in their careers that warnes wickets in this time are given such presedence over murali's as to be declared as coming from strong opposition? that seems somewhat dodgey to me, murali ran through england with greater ease than warne did, and yet because when warne was playing england murali was packed off to play bangladesh, which he also ran through with ease, his wickets count for less?
I'm sorry, I speak English not whatever that first sentence is. Outside of England, both took wickets vs England in their own countries so clearly Murali will gain an advantage in Sri Lanka over Warne in Australia.
vs England
Warne (in England) : 129 wkts @ 21.95
Muralitharan (in England) : 48 wkts @ 19.21
Warne (in Australia) : 66 wkts @ 25.82
Muralitharan (in Sri Lanka) : 64 wkts @ 20.70
What a surprise, Murali took his wickets in Sri Lanka a lot cheaper than Warne did in Australia.
I don't know if you're deliberately not getting why taking a shedload of wickets vs Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, thus lowering your career average against whipping boys, and taking loads of wickets in Sri Lanka which is more helpful to spin, thus lowering your career average. THAT is why I've broken it down into comparable chunks, comparing where both played outside Sri Lanka, where both played non-whipping boys, can you not see or do you not want to accept that the evidence is there as to why Murali took more wickets per innings/more wickets total etc ?!?!?!?!?
You say I make interesting points, I wonder if you've read my post or understood it. I don't mean to be rude, but I've laid my post out so replies I'm making to you are already in the original post. If you can't see why I would split them out as I have then I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain because it's not rocket science, any science, more 1+1=2 maths.
I will take Warne's stats bowling in each country so it proportionately reflects his career as if he'd bowled the same number of balls as Murali in each country
Warne (theoretical Sri Lankan)*
in Sri Lanka : 632 wkts @ 20.46
in IND/SRI/BAN/PAK : 747 wkts @ 22.46
in ENG/SAF/AUS/ZIM/WIN/NZE : 198 wkts @ 25.17
Career : 944 wkts @ 23.02
*if he bowled the same number of balls in each country as Murali
More expensive, but 144 more wickets than Murali. I should probably whinge and cry that Warne had a torrid time in India when he began his career, one wicket costing 228 runs. And indeed in Sri Lanka, them nasty Lankans when Warne was only a moderately fat aussie ponce with silly hair. I should probably not make such a comparison, I mean Murali only took his wickets in Sri Lanka every 51 balls while Warne took his every 40, not that bowling in Sri Lanka is advantageous - much. So in fairness it would probably be fairer to say that it wouldn't have been so different if Warne had home advantage Sri Lanka. All that said of course his figures would still reflect who he played and he didn't play Zimbabwe or Bangladesh nearly as often/much and if he'd played them in Sri Lanka maybe he'd have been past 800.
Who truly knows, but my original stats stand as showing that Murali did have advantages and while you could analyse down to ridiculous levels, comparing how the two did outside of Sri Lanka and not including moderate-rubbish sides is justified and correct.
