Warne or Muralitharan; greatest bowlers ever?

Once again my humble submission was rejected by the Beeb. They started a blog question devoted to the above. The lead-in was the usual pastiche of anecdotes and random stats and considerations. I submitted a short piece indicating how such an analysis could be done systematically. This is apparently unacceptable. (By the way someone has set up a blog devoted to Beeb “censorship”.)

The current “debate” is another example of the hype of recency. There is no doubt that Warme and Murali have taken more wickets. The question is: if Bill O’Reilly or Hedley Verity or Wilfred Rhodes or Jim Laker (focussing on spinners) had played as many matches over a similar span of time against batsmen of comparable skill on comparable pitches would they have claimed about the same? At what cost? On the face of it Murali has a strong claim: 674 wickets at 21.7 runs per wicket in 110 matches. However, a more detailed look reveals that against the best batsmen of his era – Australia and India – he averages 32.5 and 31.4 in 26 matches. Given that many matches these would certainly be statistically different from his overall average at a high level (99%) of confidence. I conclude that Murali is as good against mediocre batting as, e.g. Laker (196 wickets in 46 matches at 21.2) was against all batting and merely average against good batting. Warne has taken more wickets (708) in many more matches (145) for an average of 25.4. However, Warne’s numbers are pretty consistent against all opposition, except for India who shellacked him but in a very small number of matches.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m admirer of both Murali and Warne. They just don’t warrant the hype. As for the comparison; it’s a bit of a toss-up.