Murali Reported [Archive]

Russian

28 Mar 2004, 23:16

Originally posted by Cooldude
Why would an investigation take longer than a month, you ask the broadcasters to give you Video footage of his action, go through most balls and take out the suspected ones, then lodge a report, you can do that in 1-2 weeks, why would it take 6 weeks? That's just soft.

It's even worse when they're released BACK TO THEIR COUNTRY to fix the problem, do you think the Sri Lankan Cricket Board would do anything to try to fix Murali's action?

It's a really, really soft ruling There is a time limit they get to repair their action I think (from memory of Shabbir Ahmed's report)

Anyway, here's an updated article

Murali reported for suspect action

Charlie Austin in Colombo

March 28, 2004

Muralitharan: action under the spotlight again © AFP

Muttiah Muralitharan has again been reported to the ICC for having a suspect action. Chris Broad, the former England batsman who is the match referee for the Test series between Sri Lanka and Australia that finished today, has reported that in his opinion the action with which Muralitharan delivers the doosra - his "wrong'un" that turns from leg to off - is not legitimate.

Ajit Jayasekara, the Sri Lankan team's administrative manager, explained: "At the start of play I was called to the match referee's office, and Chris Broad told me that he had some bad news - he would be reporting Murali for the ball that goes the other way.

"We broke the news to the team and Murali only at the end of the day's play. He was disappointed, and very down, but Murali does not think that he has a problem with his delivery."

Muralitharan's action has been the subject of endless debate over the years. He sufferes from a congenital condition that means he cannot fully straighten his elbow - but the relevant laws permit this as long as the arm stays in the same position throughout the delivery and the elbow isn't flexed.

Murali was called for throwing in Australia in 1995-96, but later had his action cleared by biomechanical experts from the University of Western Australia. Significantly, however, one of those same experts recently cast doubt on the legitimacy of the doosra - a delivery Muralitharan has only mastered recently - saying that it needed investigation as it might constitute a throw.

© Wisden Cricinfo Ltd

dumesny1

29 Mar 2004, 01:04

He just should be chucked out.
Wiped from the record books.
He is a chucker.

The Candy Man

29 Mar 2004, 06:11

Originally posted by dumesny1
He just should be chucked out.
Wiped from the record books.
He is a chucker.

I don't think this will mean the end of Murali's career. They have already tested his stock deliveries a few years back, and although I still think he throws, those deliveries were deemed as legal.

Since then, he has added a few deliveries to his arsenal, the Doosra being one, which are highly suspect. It should be obvious to all that a couple of those deliveries are blatant chucks.

All he would need to do is take those deliveries out of his arsenal and he would be allowed to bowl. However, he wouldn't be as dangerous.

Zeke

29 Mar 2004, 07:24

Murali will, in the normal course of things, have to have his action examined and corrected by the Sri Lanka Cricket Board.

Who will naturaly find no fault and take no action.

Pedro

29 Mar 2004, 08:15

Originally posted by The Candy Man
They have already tested his stock deliveries a few years back, and although I still think he throws, those deliveries were deemed as legal.

I don't see why even his stock off-break isn't under constant scrutiny. I heard Bob Simpson interviewed not long ago. He stated that although he was cleared in the nets, it doesn't mean that each and every ball he subsequently bowls should automatically be considered legal. He should be under constant scrutiny. I think Simpson had something to do with the review panel, but has since left, disenchanted with the way the slack manner in which these matters are being treated.

JUBJUB

29 Mar 2004, 08:21

Any coincidence that this has been announced just before he's likely to break Walsh's record ?

IceTemple

29 Mar 2004, 08:32

Originally posted by JUBJUB
Any coincidence that this has been announced just before he's likely to break Walsh's record ?

No.

Zyban

29 Mar 2004, 08:46

Originally posted by JUBJUB
Any coincidence that this has been announced just before he's likely to break Walsh's record ?

And Walsh's record has what to do with the fact that the doosra is the most obvious chuck in the history of the game?

I don't have anything against Murali, he seems to be a very nice bloke...but he chucks plain and simple, FFS he chucks his stock offie, the doosra is twice as bad, it's not about race ...it's not about the fact that he may beat Warne to the record(proof in this series of who the better bowler is), it's about the fact that the Lankans don't seem able to see what is to most quite obvious....he's a pitcher not a bowler!

Barry Schneider

29 Mar 2004, 08:50

It looks like a chucker will break another chucker's record.Big deal.

Dippers Donuts

29 Mar 2004, 08:52

Murali - The first cricketer ever to achieve 500 runouts.

Cooldude

29 Mar 2004, 11:27

It's just ridiculous. Murali had that delivery in the England series last year, he took 24 wickets and wasn't reported then. Now it took another 3 test series for him to be reported. Where's the consistency? Why did it take this long?

Ironically, Murali will be allowed to tour Zimbabwe, due to the soft ruling of the ICC and the constant bullying of Sri Lankan Cricket Board. He'll break Courtney Walsh's record while being under investigation of chucking, what a joke the game of cricket would look then...

CatManDo

29 Mar 2004, 11:47

You're right. Potentially we will be faced with the farcical situation where Murali will be celebrated as the games leading wicket-taker, only then will be 'discovered' to be breaking the laws of the game. Really its just an unfortunate coincidence about the timing, but farcical nonetheless if they find his doosra to be illegal.

Ray Nolan

29 Mar 2004, 14:55

Originally posted by Cooldude
It's just ridiculous. Murali had that delivery in the England series last year, he took 24 wickets and wasn't reported then. Now it took another 3 test series for him to be reported. Where's the consistency? Why did it take this long?

Why did it take that long? One reason, they weren't playing Australia. No other country has an issue with Murali's action, only Australia does. The histrionics about this only started again when Robert Craddock et al in the Australian Press, I expect with the backing of Cricket Australia, beat it up for the millionth time. Cricket Australia have found their stooge in Chris Broad and they've p*ssed on Murali's parade now that he will beat Warne to the record. They've got what they wanted and it all comes across as a bit sad and pathetic really. At the end of the day his action will be cleared, will be ruled legal and he will go on to take more wickets. There is very little doubt about that, Australia can carry on all it likes but on this issue they will find beggar all support in the rest of the Cricket world. Frankly, I am more interested in awaiting the investigation into Brett Lee chucking his quicker ball, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that score given the double standards that seem to exist when it comes to Australian players and chucking ...

Mickey

29 Mar 2004, 15:16

Cooldude

29 Mar 2004, 15:30

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
Why did it take that long? One reason, they weren't playing Australia. No other country has an issue with Murali's action, only Australia does. The histrionics about this only started again when Robert Craddock et al in the Australian Press, I expect with the backing of Cricket Australia, beat it up for the millionth time. Cricket Australia have found their stooge in Chris Broad and they've p*ssed on Murali's parade now that he will beat Warne to the record. They've got what they wanted and it all comes across as a bit sad and pathetic really. At the end of the day his action will be cleared, will be ruled legal and he will go on to take more wickets. There is very little doubt about that, Australia can carry on all it likes but on this issue they will find beggar all support in the rest of the Cricket world. Frankly, I am more interested in awaiting the investigation into Brett Lee chucking his quicker ball, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that score given the double standards that seem to exist when it comes to Australian players and chucking ...

:rolleyes: There you go again, it's all Australia's fault. It's an Australian conspiracy, it's the Australian media, it's the Australian umpires, it's because we're black and they're white. Don't you know that the English media raved as much as the Australians did about the illegality of Murali's new delivery? Didn't you realise Chris Bond is an ENGLISH?

The amount of crap you Sri Lankans spit out about Murali's action is just laughable, you blokes think everyone's against you coz you're black and we're racist, in fact, Sri Lankans are the most racist of all of them. We don't refer to Sri Lankans or Indians or Pakistanis as BLACK people, we never care about the skin colour, but most of you Asians do.

The only sad and pathetic thing to come out of it is that Murali will break the world record while having his action questioned. You are totally out of your mind if you think the Doosra is legal and will be cleared, he won't be. The Doosra is as blatant a throw as a slider thrown by a baseball pitcher.

Murali's been given enough leeway for 8 years with his action, he decided he's gonna cross the line by producing an illegal delivery, he brought it upon himself. As of you Sri Lankans, get a grip

Ray Nolan

29 Mar 2004, 15:32

Originally posted by Mickey
England had a serious issue with his action back in December 2003. You are an idiot, have probably never watched the game but I did notice that you have PAFC under your nick - explains everything you chocker and Murali is a Chucker!!

It may have escaped your attention but I'm a fan of the Sri Lankan team (& England's for that matter) I followed the 2003 series very closely yet I can't recall any issue being made about Murali's action except for a sledge about chucking that Nasser Hussein made at Murali, by his own admission, to merely try and put him off his game. I don't recall the same level of histrionics from the English press & the English fans during that series as well in relation to chucking. What I do recall was an excellent hard fought series between both sides where the action of Murali was a virtual non-issue. As for never watching the game, well mate, I've seen Murali play in the flesh since before he was a Test Cricketer. I've seen him bowl in a variety of conditions (nets, matches, etc) over a period of some 12 years, far more than anyone else on here I expect. My opinion is that he is not a chucker. I believe he bowls with an arm bent at 32 degrees that does not and cannot straighten from that angle. The advantage that Murali has is the amazing flexibility of his wrist (the true secret behind the doosra if you take the time to have a look) and this allows him to turn the ball like he does. I don't think players should try to copy his action because Murali can only bowl like he does that due to his medical circumstances. It is an action that cannot be replicated by 'normal' people. Until I see any clear & incontrovertable evidence to contrary I will stand by my contention that he is legal.

Port01

29 Mar 2004, 15:42

Funny, I only took a passing interest in the SriLanka-England series and there was quite a bit about chucking in what I read, from the Barmy army chants to the Hussain thing. Before that it was Bishen Bedi calling him a thief etc. Yet its only australians that have a problem apparently.

Ray Nolan

29 Mar 2004, 15:44

Originally posted by Cooldude
:rolleyes: There you go again, it's all Australia's fault. It's an Australian conspiracy, it's the Australian media, it's the Australian umpires, it's because we're black and they're white. Don't you know that the English media raved as much as the Australians did about the illegality of Murali's new delivery? Didn't you realise Chris Bond is an ENGLISH?

The amount of crap you Sri Lankans spit out about Murali's action is just laughable, you blokes think everyone's against you coz you're black and we're racist, in fact, Sri Lankans are the most racist of all of them. We don't refer to Sri Lankans or Indians or Pakistanis as BLACK people, we never care about the skin colour, but most of you Asians do.

The only sad and pathetic thing to come out of it is that Murali will break the world record while having his action questioned. You are totally out of your mind if you think the Doosra is legal and will be cleared, he won't be. The Doosra is as blatant a throw as a slider thrown by a baseball pitcher.

Murali's been given enough leeway for 8 years with his action, he decided he's gonna cross the line by producing an illegal delivery, he brought it upon himself. As of you Sri Lankans, get a grip

Buddy, we have discussed this at length and yet you're such a lard 'ead that basic facts escape you yet again. First of all of course I am aware Chris Broad is English, a very good opening bat in late 80's for England. Made a century in the Bicentenary Test if I recall correctly. I merely stated that he was a stooge not that he was Australian, or are you too mentally undeveloped to understand the meaning of that term? As for the English media, I read it every day and I can recall 1, maybe 2 articles about Murali's action & most of that centered around the Hussien incident. There was some chanting from the Barmy Army but Brett Lee got the same if not worse treatment.

Second, how many times must I tell you I AM NOT A SRI LANKAN? I am as white as can be mate (of English background BTW), I have red hair and freckles to boot! So all this crap about racism and whatever is just ridiculous, you have the attention span of a gnat because you keep trotting it out. I've been through this a million times before you numpty, for f*cks sake how can you be such a f*ckin' dim wit time and again? Others seem to pick it up but seeing as you're as thick as pig sh*t it still needs to be explained for you obviously. Race has nothing to do with it, I've never suggested it does. I have suggested that this issue is only beaten up by one country - Australia. I know it might be hard to remember something for more than a second but do have a go this time eh!

Cooldude

29 Mar 2004, 15:47

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
It may have escaped your attention but I'm a fan of the Sri Lankan team (& England's for that matter) I followed the 2003 series very closely yet I can't recall any issue being made about Murali's action except for a sledge about chucking that Nasser Hussein made at Murali, by his own admission, to merely try and put him off his game. I don't recall the same level of histrionics from the English press & the English fans during that series as well in relation to chucking. What I do recall was an excellent hard fought series between both sides where the action of Murali was a virtual non-issue. As for never watching the game, well mate, I've seen Murali play in the flesh since before he was a Test Cricketer. I've seen him bowl in a variety of conditions (nets, matches, etc) over a period of some 12 years, far more than anyone else on here I expect. My opinion is that he is not a chucker. I believe he bowls with an arm bent at 32 degrees that does not and cannot straighten from that angle. The advantage that Murali has is the amazing flexibility of his wrist (the true secret behind the doosra if you take the time to have a look) and this allows him to turn the ball like he does. I don't think players should try to copy his action because Murali can only bowl like he does that due to his medical circumstances. It is an action that cannot be replicated by 'normal' people. Until I see any clear & incontrovertable evidence to contrary I will stand by my contention that he is legal.

Same old crap again, I met Wayne Carey before too, pretty damn nice bloke, but he did his teammates wife?

Murali's deformity is no longer an excuse, it is clear that he bents his arm far more than that 32 degree deformity for some of his deliveries. The optical illusion theory is about as solid as the Berlin Wall. They didn't have sufficent evidence to prove whether he straightens his arm or not, that's why he was cleared.

You are defending Murali on blind faith alone, just because you know the bloke doesn't mean he doesn't chuck, no Sri Lankan supporters think he chucks, it's as simple as that. Your opinion is unreliable and your evidence laughable.

I'll put my head, my house, and my mum on the table that if a full invesitgation into Murali's action by match footage, you'll find that he chucks quite a few of his deliveries and that includes the off spinner.

Demonheart

29 Mar 2004, 15:49

Cooldude

29 Mar 2004, 15:56

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
Buddy, we have discussed this at length and yet you're such a lard 'ead that basic facts escape you yet again. First of all of course I am aware Chris Broad is English, a very good opening bat in late 80's for England. Made a century in the Bicentenary Test if I recall correctly. I merely stated that he was a stooge not that he was Australian, or are you too mentally undeveloped to understand the meaning of that term? As for the English media, I read it every day and I can recall 1, maybe 2 articles about Murali's action & most of that centered around the Hussien incident. There was some chanting from the Barmy Army but Brett Lee got the same if not worse treatment.

I didn't even bother to respond to your stooge theory, what you said was just as childish and as stupid a crap as anyone would ever say and it wasn't worth responding to. icket Australia have found their stooge in Chris Broad and they've p*ssed on Murali's parade now that he will beat Warne to the record. HAHAHA, you are priceless, mate, your stupid Australian conspiracy theory. Wake up to reality, buddy.

Second, as of Murali squealing to the match referee about Hussain allegedly calling him a ****ing chucker and a ****ing cheat, Hussain was not charged because there wasn't evidence, so there you go.

Third of all, it's only Langer who spilled his beans on the Barmy Army on calling Brett Lee a chucker, frankly I agree with the Barmy Army.

Originally posted by Ray Nolan

Second, how many times must I tell you I AM NOT A SRI LANKAN? I am as white as can be mate (of English background BTW), I have red hair and freckles to boot! So all this crap about racism and whatever is just ridiculous, you have the attention span of a gnat because you keep trotting it out. I've been through this a million times before you numpty, for f*cks sake how can you be such a f*ckin' dim wit time and again? Others seem to pick it up but seeing as you're as thick as pig sh*t it still needs to be explained for you obviously. Race has nothing to do with it, I've never suggested it does. I have suggested that this issue is only beaten up by one country - Australia. I know it might be hard to remember something for more than a second but do have a go this time eh!

Sri Lankan, Sri Lankan supporter, it's around the same thing.

Yes, Sri Lankans don't go out and say Whites persecute them, when that's exactly the same thing they're saying about Murali being reported.

Australia wants to fix up the chuckers, so what's wrong with that? We're the only one with enough guts to actually front up to the problem, how many chuckers have Australia produced for the last 10 years, 1, that's Brett Lee. How many did Sri Lanka produce? So many that I can't count with both hands.

Your intelligence is laughable when you think Australians are the troublemakers, when there wouldn't be any problem if there ain't no chuckers around. Murali brought it upon himself.

Minkus_Swan

29 Mar 2004, 16:03

I have a question for people.

What's the difference between clearing Murali and then not letting youngsters bowl with the same action? Apart from discouraging the action itself.

If Murali is cleared, does that means it's a legal action - therefore any bowler that has a similar benefits like Murali should technically be allowed to bowl with the same action?

Ray Nolan

29 Mar 2004, 16:17

Originally posted by Cooldude
Sri Lankan, Sri Lankan supporter, it's around the same thing.

Australia wants to fix up the chuckers, so what's wrong with that? We're the only one with enough guts to actually front up to the problem, how many chuckers have Australia produced for the last 10 years, 1, that's Brett Lee. How many did Sri Lanka produce? So many that I can't count with both hands.

Sri Lankan & Sri Lankan supporter is around the same thing? OK mate, just try and strain that brain cell of yours a bit and just try to think a little harder about what you said there. A bit nonsensical innit, even more so considering that I don't hold Sri Lankan citizenship, or a Sri Lankan passport, I have no Sinhala or Tamil blood in me, I don't speak either of those languages as well. Yeah mate, they're the same thing.:rolleyes:

I agree that guys who do chuck should be sorted out, I just don't believe that Murali chucks and I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise. That's not to say Sri Lanka hasn't produced a chucker. How Jayananda Warnaweera ever played Test Cricket is beyond me. His action was atrocious and was the most blatant chucker I have ever seen. I think he got lost on his way to the Pitchers Mound and found himself on the Cricket Pitch instead!

The Indian spinner Rajesh Chauhan was another whose action was a shocker as well and he was never dealt with properly. You keep thinking I'm defending Murali because he's a Sri Lankan, that's just not the case. It is my opinion based on the evidence I have seen that he does not throw the ball. If Murali played for Bangladesh I'd have the same view.

Thewlis Dish

29 Mar 2004, 16:26

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
My opinion is that he is not a chucker. I believe he bowls with an arm bent at 32 degrees that does not and cannot straighten from that angle. The advantage that Murali has is the amazing flexibility of his wrist (the true secret behind the doosra if you take the time to have a look) and this allows him to turn the ball like he does.

Finally, someone else who hasn't jumped the gun. Murali has a double jointed wrist, which allows him to impart freakish amounts of spin. He would be just as dangerous whether his arm was bent or straight, because it is not the arm that contributes to the doosa, big spinning off break or any other delivery he bowls.

Cooldude

29 Mar 2004, 16:27

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
Sri Lankan & Sri Lankan supporter is around the same thing? OK mate, just try and strain that brain cell of yours a bit and just try to think a little harder about what you said there. A bit nonsensical innit, even more so considering that I don't hold Sri Lankan citizenship, or a Sri Lankan passport, I have no Sinhala or Tamil blood in me, I don't speak either of those languages as well. Yeah mate, they're the same thing.:rolleyes:

You have completely missed my point, I was saying they have the same attitude towards Murali's action: They think it's either Australians or Whites perscuating them. Your brain cells don't seem that flash either :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Ray Nolan

I agree that guys who do chuck should be sorted out,

Okay, good...

Originally posted by Ray Nolan

I just don't believe that Murali chucks and I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise. That's not to say Sri Lanka hasn't produced a chucker. How Jayananda Warnaweera ever played Test Cricket is beyond me.

Richie Perera? The blatant chucker of a quickie? Dharmesea? I probably can produce a few more names if I remember them but I can't.

If you don't believe Murali chucks, you should take off whatever glasses you're wearing and watch more TV of him bowling, you can't tell me that everyone of his deliveries look normal.

Originally posted by Ray Nolan

The Indian spinner Rajesh Chauhan was another whose action was a shocker as well and he was never dealt with properly. You keep thinking I'm defending Murali because he's a Sri Lankan, that's just not the case. It is my opinion based on the evidence I have seen that he does not throw the ball. If Murali played for Bangladesh I'd have the same view.

Bangladesh already has a chucker, so they don't need Murali :D

Harbhajan's doosra is also the same as Murali's, he chucks it, no one takes notice coz Harbhajan wears long sleeve shirt and you can't see it.

You're defending Murali because you know him personally, if my brother's accused of murder, of course I'd stuck by him as well, even if he really did kill somebody.

All the evidence I myself have seen has shown that Murali throws the ball, and there's nothing that can suggest otherwise either.

The Spornstar

29 Mar 2004, 16:37

scmods

29 Mar 2004, 17:47

Originally posted by The Spornstar
So you really think Chris Broad has done all this and put his reputation on the line just to please Cricket Australia (even though he's English)?
Of course, that's why Langer knocked the bails off the other day - to provide a cover story for his secret meeting with Broad where he passed on CA's secret instructions.

Zyban

29 Mar 2004, 18:25

Ray you're a dip***** please shut up.

Truth be told most in the world think he chucks...it's you and a few Lankans that find hard to swollow, tell me something Ray, why does it have to be a conspiracy..? what do people like me have to gain from apparently in your opinion knowing he does not chuck yet declaring he does....why the **** would i say it if i did not beleive it Ray, why would a lot say it if they did not beleive it ray, and if the wrist does all the work then why does his arm bend more while bowling the Doosra Ray....watch the ****ing footage peanut it's as clear as the nose on your face.

luthor

29 Mar 2004, 19:20

Murali has more chucks than a bulimic at a banquet.

Dead set Ray Nolan, you are blind.

Congenital defect eh?

Can't straighten his arm eh?, poor chap.

Ray, have a GOOD look at a slo-mo of your hero chucking (sorry "bowling")

If his arm doesn't straighten at the moment of delivery, then I'm not here.

Get a STILL frame of his arm AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY ....RAY....and tell me it's not straight, or pretty close to it......having been straightened from this 32 degree angle, or whatever it is.

Quite an effort for a poor chappie with a congenital defect.

Wake up Ray....it's got nothing to do with conspiracies or racism or Aussie plots or Warnie-phobia or jealousy or surpressing Sri-Lankan cricket.

It's got everything to do with the fact that Murali is a chucker.

luthor

29 Mar 2004, 19:30

And now I have a question for you Ray.

Bishen Bedi, one of the most respected proponents of the art of off-spin bowling that has ever graced a cricket field, has described Murali as a "disgrace to the art" and a "thief",

So what's your take on Bedi?

Another Aussie stooge?....like Chris Broad.?

If so we now have an English and an Indain stooge running around doing the bidding of the evil Aussies.

Gee, that conspiracy just keeps growing , don't it?

Mead

29 Mar 2004, 21:02

Originally posted by luthor
And now I have a question for you Ray.

Bishen Bedi, one of the most respected proponents of the art of off-spin bowling that has ever graced a cricket field, has described Murali as a "disgrace to the art" and a "thief",

So what's your take on Bedi?

Another Aussie stooge?....like Chris Broad.?

If so we now have an English and an Indain stooge running around doing the bidding of the evil Aussies.

Gee, that conspiracy just keeps growing , don't it?

Thats about the crux of it. Is there any possible reason for Chris Broad to be a stooge for Australia as you seem to think Ray?! Any reason for Bedi??

Put simply, some of Murali deliveries are not legal. 5 minutes with a rulebook and a VCR will convince any unbiased individual of that fact.

He's a cheat, plain and simple, and no matter how many wickets he takes, he will remain so in the eyes of anyone who knows anything about cricket.

pav_is_god

29 Mar 2004, 21:12

So what? He's been reported for an obviously dodgey action, doesn't mean anything is gonna change. I can't really see the ICC risking a Sri Lankan revolt and being called racists because they banned his 'doorsa'. Ain't gonna happen, he'll be cleared.:mad:

Cooldude

29 Mar 2004, 21:20

Murali's been bowling the doosra for 5 years (http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/MAR/110394_SL_29MAR2004.html)

That's even more of a worry, he's been bowling an illegal delivery for 5 years and it took it THAT LONG for him to be reported and investigated.

EssJayW

29 Mar 2004, 23:53

Originally posted by scottywiper
Although on further investigation it seems the doing of something will actually not lead to anything being done any time soon:mad:

....and when that is finished, nothing will be done.:(

Ray Nolan

30 Mar 2004, 00:16

I think a lot of good points are raised in this article, most of which I'd agree with. Perhaps it is indeed time for a total rethink to try and sort this issue out once & for all.

From the Crincinfo website:

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/FEB/076229_COL-WORLD_24FEB2004.html

Wanted: a radical rethink on suspect bowling actions

Kamran Abbasi

February 24, 2004

Whisper it softly, but cricket is on the verge of destruction. Fifth-columnists are bringing the game to its knees, distorting records, and cheating the public. We — the faithful — must react by any means necessary to rid our sport of this cancer. Indeed, we must over-react —because that is what the sages and the administrators want us to do. We must, we are being told, reclaim our game from the filthy ravage of chuckers and throwers, cheats and necromancers, who are as bent as their elbows.

Bobby Simpson — neatly before Australia's trial by Murali — demands action, as does the ICC with statements and a reconnaissance unit at the Under-19 World Cup. With Bishan Bedi singing his favourite tune as well, you might think that cricket's edifice is about to be destroyed. Excuse me for dissenting, but this criminalisation of bowlers is starting to grate. This is a witch-hunt that Joe McCarthy, the zealous American anti-Communist senator of the 1950s, would have been proud of. It is one that I would suggest is just as abominable.

ICC's stance on throwing is flawed for four central reasons. The first is familiar to epidemiologists and statisticians: increase monitoring, screening, and awareness of any particular condition, and the rate of detection will inevitably rise. More people have a diagnosis of cancer now because we have more comprehensive and sophisticated methods of detection. More children are diagnosed with autism because doctors are more aware of the diagnosis. Throwing is no different. Our apparent modern-day epidemic is more to do with what can be detected by super slo-mo and square-on cameras than with a genuine increase in bowlers with bent arms. Why should today's cricketers be penalised for playing the game exactly as it has always been played?

Next there is the issue of defining normality. Shoaib Akhtar and Muttiah Muralitharan are perhaps the two most exciting and destructive bowlers on the planet. Yet both are abnormal by some definitions — Shoaib with hyper-extensible joints and wide carry angle (elbow) that place him outside the letter of the law but within the spirit of it, and Murali with a fixed-flexion elbow deformity that means he is not an outlaw technically speaking, but just an unusual human being. Yet both are easy targets for cricketers past and present who are blissfully ignorant of the rules of the game they claim to have mastered. Nonetheless the trauma of the bowlers' experiences reveals that the rules are ill-designed to cope with natural human variation. It's also abnormal to have the wrist power of VVS Laxman or the height of Joel Garner, but no-one suggested banning them.

ICC's process is also too complex: too many stages, too many mechanisms for review, too many doubts as to who is supposed to be doing what. Also there are issues of conflicts of interest. A cricket board pays an academic institution — like the University of Western Australia — to provide a report on its tarnished bowler and advise on how to legitimise his action. In effect, the board is paying for a judgment. I have no reason to doubt the University of WA: indeed, it is a highly esteemed institution. But you can see how the system could be distorted, certainly if you believe that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

The fourth flaw is one of perception, but it is the most damaging. The single most powerful reason why ICC's current process is devoid of credibility is because it is perceived to be an issue of race. In recent years, too many Asian cricketers have had the legitimacy of their actions questioned by white players and officials. The point of this is not to say that their judgment is flawed — although I believe at times it might have been — but the point is that there is a strong perception that race is a factor. Unfortunately, the current process is tainted because it is seen as an issue of race. This impression is unlikely to change.

What to do? How do we take colour out of the equation? Certainly, this can never be achieved with the current laws and the current process. A tweak here or there will not work either. Cricket's players and lawmakers need to get together and rethink the whole throwing issue. Is it cost-effective — or even desirable — to be poring over people's actions in minute detail? Look hard enough and all of us are flawed, all of us are criminals. A more reasonable question might be what degree of straightening at the elbow is acceptable, or even inevitable? An academic institution could be commissioned to help answer this question and inform the debate with evidence.

Secondly, do the laws properly consider that there are as many definitions of normality as there are human beings? Cricket should be inclusive not discriminate on the basis of anatomy or physiology. Ironically, the current law is simple, but too ill-defined. It allows too much scope for arguing over minutiae. A new law with greater definition would remove many of the subjective analyses that spawn accusations of racial bias.

A final requirement would be a streamlined review process, independently administered by ICC. Answering these questions will address the real crisis, which is not one of a modern game devalued by cheats but of a law that has failed to keep up with our understanding of the human body and a process that overcomplicates decision-making.

George Orwell wrote: "Sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of the rules." For most of the last century, in contrast, cricket was deemed to be the finest example of fair play and complete regard for rules. Bodyline and Apartheid were mere aberrations in a grand history of a game run by chaps with stiff upper lips and played by men who wouldn't dare rub their balls the wrong way.

But a hidden history unravelled in the 1990s — a murky world of match-fixing and ball-tampering, and a game divided by politics and issues of race. Cricket in this new century is a naked game, its sins laid bare, its prejudices seeping from every controversy, but there is somehow more honesty about a game that is prepared to face up to its Orwellian weaknesses instead of attempting to suppress its followers with doublethink. The throwing issue remains fuelled by unspoken prejudices and inexcusable ignorance. It is time for a radical rethink.

Kamran Abbasi is a cricket writer and deputy editor of the British Medical Journal.

© Wisden Cricinfo Ltd

dr nick

30 Mar 2004, 16:51

You just don't seem to get the fact, and neither does that so called journo (that article has more holes in it than a CIA weapons of mass destruction intelligence report) that his body abnormality has nothing to do with the issue of whether he straightens his arm or not.

And i think the only racist ones are the people who are pointing out that white people are accusing murali, whilst they themselves remain blinded (intentionally so) to the evidence.

http://foxsports.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,5001,327593,00.jpg

http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/images/hands2.jpg

this might help answer the claim by some that he bowls with his arm at full extension.

CatManDo

30 Mar 2004, 16:57

The difference in angle there nicko is clear to the eye, however the issue is whether he straightens it or not during the delivery, which that pic doesnt show. Someone posted some sequences a while back though which were pretty damning.

dr nick

30 Mar 2004, 17:29

Originally posted by CatManDo
The difference in angle there nicko is clear to the eye, however the issue is whether he straightens it or not during the delivery, which that pic doesnt show. Someone posted some sequences a while back though which were pretty damning. that was me, but another thing Ray seems to think is that Murali is bowling with his arm at full extension. I could go on and on about the flaws in that article but i havent the time.

for those photos, look up the 6th page of this thread.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103136&perpage=15&highlight=chucker&pagenumber=6

More damning is the front on view in the super slow-mo that they have on the foxtel broadcasts.

Anyway, the article makes mention that it is only the increase in technology that is revealing his suspect action (i argue that it is the doubts and illusion theories which the cameras create that keep him in, 50 years ago the Hair incident would have been the end of it), but even if the technology allows us to better adjudicate the game, is that a bad thing? more people are getting run out these days too, and people are getting pinged by the video review panel in the footy which didnt happen 10 years ago.

Ray Nolan

30 Mar 2004, 19:59

Another interesting piece from a gentleman with vast experience in the fields of Cricket & Biomechanics.

No simple answers to chucking

Frank Tyson

March 28, 2004

The piece below appeared in the August 2003 issue of Wisden Asia Cricket.

Does Muralitharan throw, or not? That is the question that, in recent years, has thrown what promises to be the greatest Test bowling career ever into a spin. The throwing issue has repeatedly raised its head through the history of the game. In the early 1800s, John Willes was condemned for raising his bowling arm to shoulder level – the legacy of imitating his sister who was compelled to do so because she couldn't bowl underarm due to her voluminous crinoline skirt! Since that time, men such as Andrew Crossland, Arthur Mold, Gilbert Jessop, Ian Meckiff, Gordon Rorke, Geoff Griffin, Harold Rhodes, Tony Lock, Shoaib Akhtar and Murali have bowled – and been no-balled.

With today's game having assumed multinational proportions, the Murali issue has become an emotive controversy, coloured by Sri Lankan nationalistic support on one hand and purely subjective analysis on the other. This is to be expected. The Aussies were behind Meckiff in his day, almost to a man; nowadays one would have to go far to find a Pakistani who is not a Shoaib supporter. But woolly support must give way to the biomechanical logic: "The best use of flexibility is to start from bent positions in preliminary movements and move to straight positions at release."

This surprising scientific fact seems to suggest that many bowlers who have performed effectively in the past must have delivered with arms which, to some degree, moved from the bent to the straight - and their actions were never questioned. Films taken in the 1930s of my hero, England fast bowler Harold Larwood, clearly show some straightening of the bowling arm. A fellow Australian coach and tertiary lecturer in Human Movement, Brian Nettleton, backed up this theory by opining that spin bowlers could be differentiated by the way in which they bent their arms before delivery: offspinners pointing their elbows of their bowling arms down and leggies bending their elbows upwards.

Having postulated that perhaps most bowlers bend their bowling arm to some degree, and that perhaps Murali is not out of the ordinary in this respect, the question remains: where does he get his phenomenal turn from? The other day, at a Level 2 seminar for coaches in Bangalore, the participants were seeking to discover how Saqlain Mushtaq bowled his legspinner with an offspinner action. One of the participants claimed that he could demonstrate that it was due to exceptional wrist flexibility, which he, too, possessed. He was then able to demonstrate this remarkable malleability of the joint, spinning the ball towards second slip with an offspinner's action. It is this same suppleness which allows Aussie medium-pacer Ian Harvey to deliver a slower ball by imparting back-spin with the back of the hand pointing down the pitch towards the batsman. Murali appears to be even more flexible and able to spin the ball from 270 different degrees.

Some, seeking to emphasise the suspicion surrounding Murali's action, attribute his exceptional and unusual spinning powers to his very open action. But such an action is shared by many others, who haven't raised any eyebrows among the ranks of the doubters. Bishan Bedi suggests that Murali's lack of follow-through makes him comparable to a javelin thrower, who simply stands there and lets fly. But a javelin thrower has quite a long, fast run-up and would follow through if the laws of his sport permitted him out of the throwing circle. No. Murali's lack of follow-through is merely because he is moving very slowly at the point of delivery. Were the follow-through totally absent, his length would vary immensely, since he would have to gauge the exact amount of force he would need to impart to each ball – a difficult enough task even with a short follow-through. This would be reflected in his economy-rate.

Many bowlers on being accused of having suspect actions respond that it is due to a physical handicap that prevents the straightening of the bowling arm. This has been cited in the case of Rhodes, who bowled with his arm in a sling to silence critics; also Meckiff, and now Shoaib and Murali. I can personally vouch that Brian Statham was double-jointed in the elbow of his bowling arm, which hyper-extended beyond the 180-degree mark and technically caused him to straighten his arm while delivering the ball, albeit very early in his action.

The Human Movement Departments of the universities of Hong Kong and Western Australia have produced hard scientific evidence that Murali suffers from a disability that prevents him from straightening his bowling arm, and have cleared him of deliberate contravention of the no-ball law. This evaluation is in direct conflict with the subjective opinions of at least two Australian umpires, and a host of ostensibly good judges of the game. But when one has to decide between scientific fact and emotive assessment in resolving a problem, who does one believe?

We now have to decide whether the 'chucking' law is enforceable. Biomechanics suggest that it is not and that most bowlers contravene it, albeit minimally. The law is in need of revision since there is no doubt that the 'bent-elbow brigade' enjoys the advantages of more spin and cut, greater impact off the pitch, and indeterminate release points (given that not every ball is "thrown"). Perhaps, therefore, we should be reframing the law to condemn those bowlers who bend the elbow more than a certain amount – say, 10, 20 or 30 degrees.

As for Murali, he is still a young man, and with the opportunities which must come his way in a Test field of increasing numbers and diminishing standards, it seems likely that, barring injury, he will surpass Courtney Walsh's tally of 519 wickets. I don't think he will be carried away by the achievement. After all, how many wickets would Lance Gibbs and Fred Trueman have taken, given the same opportunities?

Frank Tyson, a former England fast bowler, is a leading authority on biomechanics.

© Wisden Cricinfo Ltd

Cooldude

30 Mar 2004, 20:28

Frank Tyson is a tool to think that the game should give 10-20-30 degrees of tolerance.

Then it wouldn't be bowling

We are talking about the principles and integrity of the game here, just because one or two blokes have deformity that don't allow them to follow within the rules of the game, does not mean the laws have to be changed to accommadate them which in turn gives millions other bowlers that does not have deformity an undisputed advantage by allowing to straighten their arms.

There are bowlers that DO have a straightening of the arm regardless, but does that mean we have to put it in the rule book and say just coz a few does it, we'll allow everyone else to do it?

What about those who bowls legally and does not straighten their arm at all, Shane Bond has a totally legal action, his arm is totally straight, he bowls at 150 kph LEGITIMATELY, while Brett Lee and Shoaib Ahktar forms excuses of their hyperextended joints or deformity in their arms, so they're allowed to chuck to their heart's content in matches? How is that fair?

No one should be allowed to bowl with bent arms, straighten it up or else, that should be the new law. If everyone's arm is straight then they can't possibly chuck.

JUBJUB

31 Mar 2004, 09:23

Didn't Murali say he'd never come to Australia again ?
Well he's coming

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/040330/3/2wg0.html

Didn't Professor Bruce Elliott raise majors concerns over Chuckie's new ball in the Sunday Herald-Sun about 4 or 5 weeks ago ?

Uhumagoo

31 Mar 2004, 09:29

God I hope nobody looks like breaking Bradmans batting average.. The sooking about an illegal batting stance would be deafening..

Anyway I think he does chuck the doorsa. It just makes it really hard to call the Poms a pack of whingers at the next ashes when we carry on like this everyday.

Cooldude

31 Mar 2004, 21:39

Are they gonna take out video footage of Murali's bowling action in the 3rd Test match and use it as a guide? Or are they gonna ignore them and just shove him to University of WA like they did now?

Frankly I don't care if Murali doesn't chuck in a science test, it's when he chucks in a match that matters, he's gonna keep his arm as straight as possible during the testings and they'd find him legal, then he can do all the party tricks with his elbow again in the next test match.

Ray Nolan

31 Mar 2004, 22:53

Good to see that Murali is coming to Australia to have the tests done by the people who raised the doubts in the first place. Sounds like the bleating of an impending cover up by the BCCSL by those who know little of Sri Lankan Cricket were indeed premature.:rolleyes: The thing that should be very interesting to see in the tests is just how much work the wrist does in producing the doosra. Watching it on a slow-mo replay doesn't do the incredible range of motion & rotation justice so it will be interesting to see just how much Murali is contorting his wrist to bowl it. Not surprising to again see certain contributors saying they will not accept the result determined by the ICC approved adjudicator if it is not in their favour, I guess it flows from the team (Mr. Gilchrist generally excepted) to their supporters.

IceTemple

31 Mar 2004, 22:59

Personally I couldn't give a flying fig whether people think Murali chucks or not BUT...

Ray Nolan you are a complete "tosser" of the highest order!

Booze Hound

31 Mar 2004, 23:17

The Test will be irrelevant because it will be done under test conditions so Murali will be aware and, therefore 'careful' not to transgress.

You've really just got to watch him during matches. Most (almost all) of his deleveries are fairly dubious, some are just blatant - even before the 'doosra' from the man who can't straighten his arm completely.

Ray Nolan

31 Mar 2004, 23:39

Originally posted by IceTemple
Personally I couldn't give a flying fig whether people think Murali chucks or not BUT...

Ray Nolan you are a complete "tosser" of the highest order!

Sorry I'm not one of the sheep buddy, we can't all play follow the leader. Some of us hold our own opinions based on the evidence put before us and are willing to look further than just the surface. I make no apology for that. If you don't like it - :p

Ray Nolan

1 Apr 2004, 00:19

Judging by this article those of you who have got your hopes up to see Murali rubbed out altogether will be disappointed as only the doosra is under examination. His off-spinner & top-spinner have been ruled legal and that's that. I welcome the fact that the most sophisticated scientific testing equipment is being used, I have advocated that from the start. Scientific and medical evidence is all that matters here (not distractions like race or other such tripe) If he's cleared it will put the matter to rest once & for all. It will be the ICC adjudicators decision and like the other decisions it will be final. If he is not cleared then it will give Murali the choice/opportunity to do remedial work to iron out the problem with the delivery or to stop using it altogether. We're going to get the answer one way or the other, let the scientific testing begin.

From the Fox Sports website:
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,9145362-23210,00.html

Video test for Lord of the Spin
By Jim Morton
April 1, 2004

EXPERTS testing Muttiah Muralitharan's controversial "doosra" will use state-of-the-art, Academy Award-winning technology to get to the bottom of cricket's most vexing question.

Murali, on the verge of becoming Test cricket's leading wicket-taker, will arrive in Perth this week to have his new delivery assessed by an advanced camera system responsible for the animation in The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Match referee Chris Broad reported the doosra, the off-spinner's wrong-un, as suspect after Murali took 28 wickets in Sri Lanka's 3-0 series loss to Australia.

The report to the International Cricket Council led to the Sri Lankan cricket board referring him on to biomechanics experts to have the delivery tested and reignited a political battle fought out along racial lines.

The doubts raised by Englishman Broad incensed Sri Lankan officials, with former captain Arjuna Ranatunga hinting at a "white conspiracy" to stop Murali (513) passing Courtney Walsh's mark of 519 Test wickets.

But Perth-based Professor Bruce Elliott, an ICC-approved human-movement specialist who tested Murali in 1996, said the advanced technology to be used would deliver a correct and clear-cut analysis of his doosra.

Elliott will use a 12-camera Vicon system which is an updated version of the system used eight years ago, shooting 250 frames per second compared to the six-camera system which captured 50 frames per second.

It allows smaller reflective markers to be attached to the bowler around the elbow, which impede the action less.

"It's the ultimate analysis tool, it's the same sort of tool that they use for all the animations in Lord of the Rings," Elliott said.

Elliott assured the process, which measures whether the bent arm extends more than 10 per cent, was accurate.

"This is all automatic so the numbers are spat out and you don't even see the number until it comes out in a graph," he said.

"It's absolutely ridgy didge from that viewpoint. What the number is is what actually happens."

Elliott, fellow tester Daryl Foster and a third expert will conduct a number of trials while Murali stays in Perth for five days to get an accurate representation of how he bowls.

They expect to finish their report late next week.

They will not test Murali's stock ball - the off-spinner - or his top-spinner, as both were given the green light in 1996 after it was concluded Murali's unique action created an optical illusion that he chucked.

If the rubber-wristed bowler, born with a bent elbow, is found to extend his arm by 10 per cent or more, he would have to decide whether to undertake remediation with the ICC or stop bowling the doosra.

"If it is found he extends then the decision is really with him," Elliott said.

"He could remove the ball from his repertoire and it's only been in his repertoire for the last year and bit anyway.

"It may be that the ICC would force him to remove that delivery from his repertoire but that is conjecture."

That would undoubtedly open a new can of worms with any delivery that turned away from the right-hander seen as suspect, putting umpires under further pressure.

Politically for cricket, Broad's reporting of Murali was particularly poor timing as all his countrymen await his ascension to the top of Test cricket's wicket-taker's list.

He needs only seven more scalps to pass Walsh's mark and will almost certainly do that during the two-Test tour of Zimbabwe, starting in April.

Ranatunga criticised Broad and questioned the former Test batsman's appointment as he was inexperienced and only possessed a "favourable background".

ICC president Ehsan Mani hit back overnight, denying any bias against Murali and defending Broad's actions by saying he was well within his rights to raise concerns about any delivery or bowler.

"The rules say it, the playing conditions demand it and every Test playing country has agreed to it," he said in London.

"Given this reality it is deeply disappointing to read claims from some quarters about bias."

AAP

Ray Nolan

1 Apr 2004, 00:24

More on the testing procedure from the Fox Sports website:

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,9149624-23212,00.html

Murali verdict in days
By Jon Pierik
April 1, 2004

ACCUSED chucker Muthiah Muralidaran will know by the end of the week whether he will have to banish his weapon of mass destruction, the controversial doosra delivery.

And the man who will help assess him, former West Australian cricket coach Daryl Foster, yesterday dismissed concerns Sri Lanka's spin wizard would be able to clear his name by cheating on his test.

Muralidaran was still trying to get a visa early yesterday but may land in Perth as early as today in preparation for the hour-long assessment to be conducted at the University of Western Australia by Foster and biomechanics expert, professor Bruce Elliott.

He was reported by match referee Chris Broad for illegally straightening his arm delivering the doosra during the third Test against Australia which finished on Sunday.

The doosra is bowled with an off-spinner's action but the ball spins away from right-hander.

His off-spinner, leg-spinner and top-spinner, which have previously been cleared by the ICC, will not be assessed as part of stage one of the new bowling review process.

While Elliott has suggested the doosra may be flirting with the boundaries of legality, Foster yesterday would not predict the results of the review.

"I couldn't begin to say whether it was legal or not legal," he said.

"We just have to wait until science takes over and do the three-dimensional analysis."

Foster said Muralidaran's genetic flexion deformity in his right elbow and wrist, which his brothers also have, made him capable of producing a delivery - such as the doosra - that no one else could.

But whether that was illegal or not, Foster would not say.

"You couldn't do it. You don't have an arm that is flexed at 38 degrees and has a carry angle (at the wrist) of another 20 degrees," he said.

"You put that above your head, it's going to look awfully different.

"Then if you factor in this guy has the most mobile wrist I have ever seen, then he is able to do things we can't even think about.

"It's a family genetic problem. His brothers are exactly the same."

Muralidaran will have his action tested by a 12-camera system which films at 250 frames a second.

But there are fears that because the test conditions are different to a match situation, he won't bowl the doosra in his normal way.

"It's not the same as a match, is it?" said former Test paceman Jeff Thomson, who said the doosra was "suss" while working as a television commentator during Australia's recent series in Sri Lanka.

"If you are definitely under the pump, you would obviously try make a big effort to try and keep your arm straight, wouldn't you?"

But Foster vehemently denied Muralidaran would be able to cheat.

"We have got procedures in place to make sure that doesn't happen," he said.

"I am not going to tell you what they are at the moment.

"If you knew Murali you would know he is not a cheat and you would know he is as anxious as anyone else to know what the situation is."

Foster worked with Muralidaran during the initial complaints against the spinner in 1995 and '98.

Once Foster and Elliott complete their report, it will be sent to the Sri Lankan Cricket Board, which will add its thoughts and pass it on to the ICC.

Muralidaran will also be told of the verdict and, if the doosra is found to be illegal, he will have two options.

"He can either undergo a remedial process as other bowlers have done or he can say, 'Well, my livelihood doesn't depend on the doosra and I'll concentrate on the offie and top-spinner'," Foster said.

with AP

Herald Sun

Zyban

1 Apr 2004, 09:16

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
I welcome the fact that the most sophisticated scientific testing equipment is being used,

AAP

I have 2 of that equipment Ray infinatly more technical than any scientest can come up with.

They're called eyes:D you av'em too, here's a tip.....OPEN THEM:eek:

Mickey

1 Apr 2004, 09:43

Originally posted by Ray Nolan

The doubts raised by Englishman Broad incensed Sri Lankan officials, with former captain Arjuna Ranatunga hinting at a "white conspiracy" to stop Murali (513) passing Courtney Walsh's mark of 519 Test wickets. I know this is old ground but that is such a funny comment coming from a pie eating fat ****. Last time I checked Courtney was black, unless he went to the same plastic surgeon as Michael Jackson. I know he is referring to us wanting Shane Warne as the record holder but still, what a ****er!

Oh yeah, Ray Nolan = ****er!

scmods

1 Apr 2004, 10:44

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
Scientific and medical evidence is all that matters here (not distractions like race or other such tripe)
The only people who keep bringing up race are you and Arjuna Ranatunga.

If he's cleared it will put the matter to rest once & for all.
I doubt it.

While the technology to be used is impressive and will leave no doubt on what he bowls during the test, I hope they are also going to compare it to match footage.

Whether consciously or not, he will bowl differently in the nets before the cameras. In a match situation the pressure to take wickets makes any bowler strain that bit more and put that extra effort into a ball, and that is where technique is likely to be pushed over the edge.

dugrene

1 Apr 2004, 11:53

First and foremost under the laws he is a chucker and always has been.

The ICC are a mob of gutless wimps he should have been banned or had his action changed years ago.

On ABC radio during the recent Indian tour the commentators had a hypothetical set of questions relating to what laws or rules would they change in cricket given the chance.

Kerry O'keefe hit the nail on the head. He said he would get rid of the chucking rule. Allow a bowler to get the ball down the other end anyway he wants.

I've given it some thought and agree with his idea. As long as the ball is not bowled underarm.
Imagine the types of deliverys that would become available ?
It could add a whole new dimension to spin bowling, mabey increase marginally a fast bowler speed.

IMHO it should be considered.

Ray Nolan

1 Apr 2004, 13:20

It's unsurprising to see people continually misrepresent what I say. I have said on this thread and others that race should have nothing to do with it. I do have my concerns with regards to role Australia has played because this issue only surfaces when Australia is involved but I don't believe for a second race is behind their actions. I am more than happy to debate the issue, it is healthy & enjoyable but it is disappointing to see the anti-Murali brigade again resort to name calling simply because I have put my view forward that I do not believe Murali chucks the ball. That is my view and it is my right to hold it, by all means disagree, debate is healthy. However, I don't see the need to resort to personal attacks simply because I hold that belief. Yes, I have also been angered on this thread and levelled a few angry words as well, this is because I'm sick of people deliberately misquoting me and deliberately misrepresenting what I have to say. It gets annoying having to go over the same ground again because people can't be bothered to properly read the threads before they have a go. I have no qualms with people who believe Murali is a chucker, if you believe that, that's up to you. I'm not going to call you names for doing so. I think the same courtesy should be extended. Cheers lads.

Ryan8024

1 Apr 2004, 13:26

Originally posted by dugrene
Kerry O'keefe hit the nail on the head. He said he would get rid of the chucking rule. Allow a bowler to get the ball down the other end anyway he wants.

I've given it some thought and agree with his idea. As long as the ball is not bowled underarm.
Imagine the types of deliverys that would become available ?
It could add a whole new dimension to spin bowling, mabey increase marginally a fast bowler speed.

IMHO it should be considered.

American cricket has had this rule for years. They call it "pitching":rolleyes:

Cooldude

1 Apr 2004, 17:35

Originally posted by dugrene
First and foremost under the laws he is a chucker and always has been.

The ICC are a mob of gutless wimps he should have been banned or had his action changed years ago.

On ABC radio during the recent Indian tour the commentators had a hypothetical set of questions relating to what laws or rules would they change in cricket given the chance.

Kerry O'keefe hit the nail on the head. He said he would get rid of the chucking rule. Allow a bowler to get the ball down the other end anyway he wants.

I've given it some thought and agree with his idea. As long as the ball is not bowled underarm.
Imagine the types of deliverys that would become available ?
It could add a whole new dimension to spin bowling, mabey increase marginally a fast bowler speed.

IMHO it should be considered.

Biggest load of horse sh1t ever.

What I read somewhere, is that Murali has a 11 degree deformity in his arm, not the 32 degree you mentioned, Ray. Clear to show some evidence?

CatManDo

1 Apr 2004, 18:12

So Bruce Elliot from UWA is going to examine his action.

I assume this is the same UWA specialist who recently expressed doubt over his doosra? Does anyone know this?

If it is, I would be amazed that Sri Lankan officials have allowed a man to examine him now, who (despite clearing him a while back) has openly admitted that he thinks the doosra is dodgy.

scmods

1 Apr 2004, 21:10

Well, he did his test today so no doubt we'll hear about it before long.

Apparently he bowled a total of twelve balls which were filmed. They showed a bit of it on the news tonight, and unfortunately what he was bowling looked nothing like what he bowls in a match - his action looked far more relaxed than normal. Even the so-called "optical illusion" of chucking wasn't there, so no doubt he'll be cleared and life will go on.

feher

1 Apr 2004, 21:17

Originally posted by Ryan8024
American cricket has had this rule for years. They call it "pitching":rolleyes:

my post more aimed at dugrene

yeah but image a fast baller pitching 100 balls a game? starting pitchers in baseball only last about 100 odd pitches and then require between 3-5 days (for 3 we are talking about important games they come back for) rest between starts. Then we have closers/relievers who would last lucky to be half of that, but they pitch most days. Bowlers that only pitch i can see this having a real bad effect with lots of shoulder injuries; for this to work it would require a bowler to ball likely 80% in say a test match setting. I doubt they would have the stamina to pitch fast for an entire day or even a spell; especially if they run in ... ok i have gone well of topic. Personally i can't see pitching being acceptable in cricket.

Cooldude

1 Apr 2004, 22:35

Originally posted by scmods
Well, he did his test today so no doubt we'll hear about it before long.

Apparently he bowled a total of twelve balls which were filmed. They showed a bit of it on the news tonight, and unfortunately what he was bowling looked nothing like what he bowls in a match - his action looked far more relaxed than normal. Even the so-called "optical illusion" of chucking wasn't there, so no doubt he'll be cleared and life will go on.

**** this, don't care what he bowls in a science test, what we actually care is what he bowl in an actual TEST MATCH. Get some bloody match footage and compare it.

CatManDo

2 Apr 2004, 09:50

Apparently Bruce Yardley was on hand to make sure he was bowling in the way he did in the Tests, so its not just a scientist with his pocket protector and clipboard doing all the viewing.

Why they chose Bruce I have no idea. Its good that they do this but its no secret that Bruce is a mega Murali fan, so I wonder how strict he would be.

St-KriS

2 Apr 2004, 10:53

Originally posted by CatManDo

Why they chose Bruce I have no idea. Its good that they do this but its no secret that Bruce is a mega Murali fan, so I wonder how strict he would be.

"Who cares about Murali's arm?! Look at his eyes! Look at his big beautiful eyes! Gosh I love the little champ."

goaldrush

2 Apr 2004, 11:29

Originally posted by Cooldude
Biggest load of horse sh1t ever.

What I read somewhere, is that Murali has a 11 degree deformity in his arm, not the 32 degree you mentioned, Ray. Clear to show some evidence? That is correct. But it still won't prevent him from bowling his "new and suspicious" delivery.

Cooldude

2 Apr 2004, 12:10

Originally posted by CatManDo
Apparently Bruce Yardley was on hand to make sure he was bowling in the way he did in the Tests, so its not just a scientist with his pocket protector and clipboard doing all the viewing.

Why they chose Bruce I have no idea. Its good that they do this but its no secret that Bruce is a mega Murali fan, so I wonder how strict he would be.

Yes, it was pretty soft that Bruce was the one chosen, Bishen Bedi would've done the job, that's if he doesn't stab Murali with a dagger first. :)

I just cannot know how Bruce is able to tell that Murali is "bowling" exactly the same as he was in the match, it is impossible to tell, and they called in a scientific test, how unscientific was that?

CatManDo

2 Apr 2004, 12:18

Originally posted by Cooldude
Yes, it was pretty soft that Bruce was the one chosen, Bishen Bedi would've done the job, that's if he doesn't stab Murali with a dagger first. :)

I just cannot know how Bruce is able to tell that Murali is "bowling" exactly the same as he was in the match, it is impossible to tell, and they called in a scientific test, how unscientific was that?

Well they needed a control in place of some sort.

Its all so wishy washy though. Why can they not get some close up footage of him in a game, then take footage from the same angle in the testing. Put them alongside each other and then have Bruce or whoever compare. Overlay the footage to see if theres any difference. Otherwise, how are you going to know?

Doesnt matter though, because the Murali case has been dragged out so long now, its just become a bit of a shame. If he is cleared, it wont change the opinions of many people. And if he's not cleared, it throws doubt over his whole career, or at least that of the past 5 years since he has been bowling the doosra.

Ray Nolan

2 Apr 2004, 13:35

Originally posted by Cooldude
What I read somewhere, is that Murali has a 11 degree deformity in his arm, not the 32 degree you mentioned, Ray. Clear to show some evidence?

Did you read the article I posted on page 4 by Jon Pierik?

Daryl Foster when describing Murali's right arm stated it was "an arm that is flexed at 38 degrees and has a carry angle (at the wrist) of another 20 degrees" Given that Foster is involved in conducting the tests I would think he has the correct figures as given to him by Murali's doctors. The 20 degree figure people here are so fond of quoting is the carry angle of Murali's wrist - not the angle of the elbow.

I have to say the 38 degree figure is a new one on me. The only figure I've seen before in the press is 32 degrees, and that was the figure Murali himself said in 1996 when I asked him about it. I can only assume more detailed examinations have been conducted since then that have culminated in this new figure.

As for Bruce Yardley being present at the test, it is not surprising he was chosen. He would know better than anyone if Murali was not bowling the doosra as he does normally because he has seen Murali play more Cricket than any other Australian observer they could've picked, except maybe Dav Whatmore. If something was amiss he would know. To say that Yardley or Murali would be dishonest is a mere presumption by those who don't know either of them from a bar of soap and as such shouldn't make such assumptions unless they can actually prove any sort of conspiracy between the 2 of them.

Zyban

2 Apr 2004, 17:03

So the Number 1 fan will tell us if or not Murali is throwing down the same stuff:rolleyes: unbiased indeed....."my god" :eek:

He was full of **** all through the series....it's not about to change, the fix is in!!!!

CatManDo

2 Apr 2004, 17:19

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
To say that Yardley or Murali would be dishonest is a mere presumption by those who don't know either of them from a bar of soap and as such shouldn't make such assumptions unless they can actually prove any sort of conspiracy between the 2 of them.

What are you talking about?

Until the last post by Zyban, no one had suggested any 'conspiracy', or that they would be dishonest.
I dont for a second think Murali or Bruce would do anything untoward.

However, I lost count of the number of times Bruce said there isnt anything wrong with his action during the Test series. He fervently defended him and openly admitted to absolutely loving watching him bowl.

It simply makes me wonder if he is the most partial judge.

frankrizzo

2 Apr 2004, 18:44

After watching the tests on the news I have no doubts these tests are a waste of time, murali was barely bowling a warm up ball.

All these tests will prove is that he didn’t chuck in the test itself, the question of whether he chucks in a game will remain unanswered as long as a process as idiotic as this is allowed to be the only gauge.

Gopies 2002

5 Apr 2004, 14:51

Originally posted by frankrizzo
After watching the tests on the news I have no doubts these tests are a waste of time, murali was barely bowling a warm up ball.

All these tests will prove is that he didn’t chuck in the test itself, the question of whether he chucks in a game will remain unanswered as long as a process as idiotic as this is allowed to be the only gauge.

Totally agree. Its a joke to suggest this tells us whether he throws or not.

And having Yardley there is also pointless. It would be like having the coach of a football team determine whether one of his players should be suspended or not.

naughty monkey

6 Apr 2004, 14:12

very surprised to read they only used six deliveries for the testing. I would have thought they would use 5 or 6 overs worth to also measure the variation from one delivery to the next.

report lodged (http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/APR/116801_SL_05APR2004.html)

That, along with the fact that the Sri Lankan Cricket Board are aware of the result and haven't said anything has set off a little alarm in my head that's telling me Murali's not getting the all clear he was hoping for.

And yes I am aware it was only the preliminary results that the Board have been notified of.

Am i reading too much into this?

naughty monkey

6 Apr 2004, 15:07

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
More on the testing procedure from the Fox Sports website:

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,9149624-23212,00.html

...<snip>...
But Foster vehemently denied Muralidaran would be able to cheat.

"We have got procedures in place to make sure that doesn't happen," he said.

"I am not going to tell you what they are at the moment.
...<snip>...

And that goes to the very heart of the matter.
I would love to know what the procedures were.
Without it, all this would show is that Murali didn't chuck during the test. It won't say anything about what he does in test matches.

naughty monkey

6 Apr 2004, 15:26

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
As for Bruce Yardley being present at the test, it is not surprising he was chosen. He would know better than anyone if Murali was not bowling the doosra as he does normally because he has seen Murali play more Cricket than any other Australian observer they could've picked, except maybe Dav Whatmore. If something was amiss he would know. To say that Yardley or Murali would be dishonest is a mere presumption by those who don't know either of them from a bar of soap and as such shouldn't make such assumptions unless they can actually prove any sort of conspiracy between the 2 of them.

I agree with your assessment of Yardley, but...
what is it that Bruce will use to compare Murali's testing Doosra to Murali's Test match Doosra?

One assumes it will be his "eye" and from memory?
If so, that is purely subjective and not scientific at all.

It doesn't prove anything.

As has already been stated surely a far more objective and "scientific" method would be through the use of video, comparing that of the test match to footage of a judiciously placed camera(s) during the testing.

If ICC was really dinkum about this I cannot see why this can't be done.

Booze Hound

6 Apr 2004, 20:06

Was there a batsman, preferably one who'd faced him before, meeting these deleveries to confirm they were of his normal match quality?

DKA

7 Apr 2004, 22:55

Originally posted by Booze Hound
Was there a batsman, preferably one who'd faced him before, meeting these deleveries to confirm they were of his normal match quality?

Ah, yeah. They'd fly him a few thousand miles just for him to bowl his normal off breaks.

Have a think about it, really.

Just because the news may show footage of 1 or 2 balls, it means EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be like that?

Just because the public hasn't seen it, doesn't mean the correct testing hasn't occured.

I'm sure if his action comes back legal, the testing would be "rigged" or something along those lines.

Rob

8 Apr 2004, 01:31

Originally posted by DKA
Ah, yeah. They'd fly him a few thousand miles just for him to bowl his normal off breaks.

Have a think about it, really.

Just because the news may show footage of 1 or 2 balls, it means EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be like that?

Just because the public hasn't seen it, doesn't mean the correct testing hasn't occured.

I'm sure if his action comes back legal, the testing would be "rigged" or something along those lines.

If it comes back legal, it means Murali didn't bowl the doosra for the high speed cameras in the same way as he does in test matches.

CatManDo

8 Apr 2004, 12:14

Originally posted by DKA
Ah, yeah. They'd fly him a few thousand miles just for him to bowl his normal off breaks.

Have a think about it, really.

Well they see fit to fly Murali a few thousand miles to test him, so why not? If they are going to go through all this hoo-haa you'd think they would try and re-create match conditions as much as possible, and take every caution to ensure he is bowling like he does in the Tests. Have a think about it, really.

Originally posted by DKA
Just because the news may show footage of 1 or 2 balls, it means EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will be like that?

Just because the public hasn't seen it, doesn't mean the correct testing hasn't occured.

Ive read several different reports that suggested that his action was much more relaxed compared to the tests. And when you consider the complete different circumstances under which he was tested, its hardly surprising.

muesli

8 Apr 2004, 17:37

Originally posted by frankrizzo
After watching the tests on the news I have no doubts these tests are a waste of time, murali was barely bowling a warm up ball.

All these tests will prove is that he didn’t chuck in the test itself, the question of whether he chucks in a game will remain unanswered as long as a process as idiotic as this is allowed to be the only gauge.
Exactly right they should be watching TV footage of him bowling in matches. Personally think he chucks.

DKA

8 Apr 2004, 20:19

Originally posted by Rob
If it comes back legal, it means Murali didn't bowl the doosra for the high speed cameras in the same way as he does in test matches.

And you were there, present, to see all that were you?

What would a member of the University Of WA be doing on here?

So many experts out there, that think just because they themselves didn't see anything, that it didn't occur.

Utter ignorance.

DKA

8 Apr 2004, 20:23

Originally posted by CatManDo
Well they see fit to fly Murali a few thousand miles to test him, so why not? If they are going to go through all this hoo-haa you'd think they would try and re-create match conditions as much as possible, and take every caution to ensure he is bowling like he does in the Tests. Have a think about it, really.

Why not try make some sense......

Let's see here, now, if they want to fly him a few thou miles to test him, why not let him bowl his normal off breaks. And because, they've created all this "hoo-haa" they will let him get away with it.

That's your argument?

If you had any sort of brain cells, you'd think that BECAUSE they're creating all this hoo-haa, the more LIKELY they are to make sure the proper delivery is tested.

You talk utter crap.

Next time try think about it, yes, really.

:rolleyes:

scmods

8 Apr 2004, 21:35

Originally posted by DKA
And you were there, present, to see all that were you?Were you, Ray?

What would a member of the University Of WA be doing on here?What, Ray? Don't Universities have internet access?

So many experts out there, that think just because they themselves didn't see anything, that it didn't occur.I think it's what they do see that they're concerned about, Ray.

DKA

9 Apr 2004, 10:48

Originally posted by scmods
Were you, Ray?

What, Ray? Don't Universities have internet access?

I think it's what they do see that they're concerned about, Ray.

Immaturity runs deep here, is that something that was in your genes? Unlucky break there mate.

I can guarantee you, I'm not Ray. I'm aware he's been on Murali's side, and I can assure there are heaps of people who are also on Murali's side, yet don't waste time posting on this site.

But, I'm willing to. Yet can't seem to find a genuine argument against murali, other that what people "have seen on the news" and what ever they think, basically is correct.

And if it doesn't go their way, it's rigged or something.

Play the ball mate.

Cooldude

9 Apr 2004, 12:12

Originally posted by DKA
Immaturity runs deep here, is that something that was in your genes? Unlucky break there mate.

I can guarantee you, I'm not Ray. I'm aware he's been on Murali's side, and I can assure there are heaps of people who are also on Murali's side, yet don't waste time posting on this site.

But, I'm willing to. Yet can't seem to find a genuine argument against murali, other that what people "have seen on the news" and what ever they think, basically is correct.

And if it doesn't go their way, it's rigged or something.

Play the ball mate.

What have you "seen" that makes you think he either doesn't chuck or is good for the game?

90% of the cricket community think that Murali throws the ball, the other 5% are either Sri Lankans or Sri Lankan supporters.

A genuine argument is simple: Murali is damaging the game with his questionable action. It is now no longer the issue whether he chucks or not, it's the kids around Sri Lanka and around the world copying his action that is becoming a genuine concern.

There are cricketers who go to Sri Lanka and watch some local club cricketer "bowl" in the nets, and they can't believe how many of them are chucking it.

Bowling the ball is the unique-ness of cricket, it differs from throwing. It's been around for 100 years, but the principles of the game are damaged and ignored nowadays with so many chuckers are the international scene, it's not only Murali, there are many others. ICC are prepared to turn a blind eye to it, or have their half-@ssed throwing remedy program that hardly fixes anything.

From 10 years' time, you'll see many bowlers emeraging with the carbone copy of Murali's action, some of them WILL chuck it, because they don't have the physical abnormality that Murali possesses, then what do we do with them? Let them play even though we know they're illegal? Or ban them, then what'd they say, how come you don't ban the highest wicket taker ever even though we're copying his action?

Murali is leaving a black black mark on the game, whether he chucks it or not (which I believe he does), for the good of the game he should be banned. How can you abandon the integrity of this great game just to accomodate one man?

pav_is_god

9 Apr 2004, 13:27

Originally posted by Cooldude
What have you "seen" that makes you think he either doesn't chuck or is good for the game?

90% of the cricket community think that Murali throws the ball, the other 5% are either Sri Lankans or Sri Lankan supporters.

A genuine argument is simple: Murali is damaging the game with his questionable action. It is now no longer the issue whether he chucks or not, it's the kids around Sri Lanka and around the world copying his action that is becoming a genuine concern.

There are cricketers who go to Sri Lanka and watch some local club cricketer "bowl" in the nets, and they can't believe how many of them are chucking it.

Bowling the ball is the unique-ness of cricket, it differs from throwing. It's been around for 100 years, but the principles of the game are damaged and ignored nowadays with so many chuckers are the international scene, it's not only Murali, there are many others. ICC are prepared to turn a blind eye to it, or have their half-@ssed throwing remedy program that hardly fixes anything.

From 10 years' time, you'll see many bowlers emeraging with the carbone copy of Murali's action, some of them WILL chuck it, because they don't have the physical abnormality that Murali possesses, then what do we do with them? Let them play even though we know they're illegal? Or ban them, then what'd they say, how come you don't ban the highest wicket taker ever even though we're copying his action?

Murali is leaving a black black mark on the game, whether he chucks it or not (which I believe he does), for the good of the game he should be banned. How can you abandon the integrity of this great game just to accomodate one man?

Who are the remainding 5%? The UWA human movement staff?:p

CatManDo

9 Apr 2004, 16:06

Originally posted by DKA
Why not try make some sense......

Let's see here, now, if they want to fly him a few thou miles to test him, why not let him bowl his normal off breaks. And because, they've created all this "hoo-haa" they will let him get away with it.

That's your argument?

What Im saying is that Murali was bowling in a completely different environment - and if they are going to go to the trouble of flying him all that way and doing these tests, they should have put more effort into ensuring that the conditions matched those he faces in a Test match as closely as possible.

Can you not understand this?

Originally posted by DKA
If you had any sort of brain cells, you'd think that BECAUSE they're creating all this hoo-haa, the more LIKELY they are to make sure the proper delivery is tested.

You talk utter crap.

Next time try think about it, yes, really.

:rolleyes:

You finally seem to have got my point. So according to you, I talk crap, but you agree. What were you saying about brain cells?

scmods

9 Apr 2004, 16:26

Originally posted by DKA
I can guarantee you, I'm not Ray.
Of course not. You're just a brand new BigFooty member who happens to agree with him, and also somehow knows the entire history of this debate on this site.

I'm aware he's been on Murali's side, and I can assure there are heaps of people who are also on Murali's side, yet don't waste time posting on this site.
I'm sure there are, so what?

For what it's worth, I'm not on anybody's "side". I gave up years ago giving a **** about whether Murali's bowling is legal or not, as it was made pretty clear that he's going to be allowed to continue doing it. I'm still not 100% convinced either way, but I don't lose sleep over it. I do find it interesting at times, however, to enter the ongoing debate on the topic. But if you look back at my posts, you won't find me anywhere saying conclusively he does or does not chuck.
But, I'm willing to. Yet can't seem to find a genuine argument against murali, other that what people "have seen on the news" and what ever they think, basically is correct.Most people's argument is based on what they have personally seen. Why is that inferior to an argument based on results of testing done away from match conditions, using procedures that no-one knows about?

If they're going to investigate his action, why not do it under match conditions or as close to as possible? Surely it's not impossible to have cameras at a match dedicated to examining his delivery action? Wouldn't get as many decimal points as lab tests with electrodes up and down his arms, but at least you'd know you were testing what you want to test.

Even people who are on "Murali's side" should be concernced about the way these tests were done, as they are not going to satisfactorily resolve the issue whatever the result.

And if it doesn't go their way, it's rigged or something.
That's only the Essendon fans.

Play the ball mate.
Happy to, so long as it's legally delivered! ;)

Rob

9 Apr 2004, 17:23

Originally posted by DKA
And you were there, present, to see all that were you?

What would a member of the University Of WA be doing on here?

So many experts out there, that think just because they themselves didn't see anything, that it didn't occur.

Utter ignorance.

That's right. I've never seen Murali bowl. Ever. You d*ckhead.

I've seen enough of him and his doosra at multiple camera angles to know that his arm extends from about a 90 degree bend to a 10 degree bend, i.e a blatant chuck. The side on shot shows it perfectly. If he was bowling the same deliveries for the UWA cameras, there is no possible way that it could not be called a throw. i.e If it comes back legal, then he was not bowling his normal doosra.

And given a mate of mine who saw Shoaib's UWA tests reckoned he was going at about half pace sending them down at about 120km/h, I don't really rate the credibility of them anyway. All it really says is that the bowler is just capable of bowling legally.

I just can't understand why they can't perform exactly the same tests during a test match. There were enough gaps in the outer for any of the Sri Lankan games to fit in as many high speed cameras as necessary.

frankrizzo

9 Apr 2004, 18:34

Murali’s half arsed attitude to the tests really disturbed me, if he truly believed he didn’t chuck (as he so often has said) he would have bowled as if the world cup final was on the line, I always thought that if he did chuck it wasn’t his fault and that it wasn’t deliberate, his patently poor attitude towards the tests shows that he may in fact be deliberately using an action he knows is suspect that makes him a common cheat.

Ray Nolan

9 Apr 2004, 23:42

Just for the record this DKA geezer is not me. I always put my name to what I have to say, whether it's popular or not. I don't hide behind an alias, never have, never will. I also don't feel the need to create phantom users to back up my point of view. I'm not bothered if I'm in a minority of one. I'm sure the administrators can confirm that DKA is not me, and I would appreciate it if they did. Cheers.

DKA

10 Apr 2004, 08:43

Originally posted by Rob
That's right. I've never seen Murali bowl. Ever. You d*ckhead.

I've seen enough of him and his doosra at multiple camera angles to know that his arm extends from about a 90 degree bend to a 10 degree bend, i.e a blatant chuck. The side on shot shows it perfectly. If he was bowling the same deliveries for the UWA cameras, there is no possible way that it could not be called a throw. i.e If it comes back legal, then he was not bowling his normal doosra.

You know the 90/10 degree angles do you? So you got a ruler and so forth out, went upto the tv a proved it?

Look, there's no doubting that murali is different, that's just the way he is. He can't change that about himself. The way he bowls his normal off break, is not normal, nor is the doosra - but as far is his off breaks are concerned, this has been cleared, so people having a go at that one, are basically never going to win, as that will not be taken away from him.

The ball he delivers, is with his palm almost facing the sky. The conventional way, is for the hand/palm to be angled to the ground, like warne and any other spin bowler.

The only stand out benefit he gets, is the air. Warne or any spinner can use any amount of force as they rip down over the ball. They also have the air benefit of tossing the ball up. Thus warne's use of variation.

Murali's talent does not lie in his finger or his arm. It's his wrists that do the damage, if you've seen on the cricket show, where he's bent that thing to all sorts of angles.

If you had a rubber wrist, wouldn't you be bowling wrong-un's too?

Everyone man and his dog can't do what murali does. You can't teach a person to cheat or chuck.

People will always have their opinion, no matter what verdict is given.

If he's called, it's a good thing - others say not

If he's cleared, it's a bad thing or it was rigged - others say not.

I just hope it all ends soon, either way.

BTW - I don't think he should tour Zim, until this is all settled.

I'm not Ray Nolan either, I don't say "geezer" and don't say "cheers" - just that's I've read most of the cricket threads, and it's actually quite good, so I decided to join.