Murali's top 10 batsmen

[nineteen eighty]

Now I'm not one to go on about lists and they are simply one man's opinion (and we all know one does not need a brain to have an opinion) but I find it absolutely incredulous that Murali could not even have 1 Australian in his top 10 list given some of the names he has in there. Really, how the heck can he have some of those batsmen in there ahead of some of the Aussie guns who have played against Sri Lanka over the years.

Sour grapes? Or just plain stupidity??? Either way, I've just lost respect for his opinion moving forward. And please don't start having a crack at me being a racist and typical aussie...you don't know my background.

Not 1 Australian amongst this list...I'm dumb ****ed!!!

http://www.backpagelead.com.au/cricket/2889-aussie-batsmen-not-in-my-top-10-murali

MUTHIAH MURALIDARAN’S 10 TOP BATSMEN

1. Brian Lara (WI)

2. Mohammad Azharuddin (India)

3. Sachin Tendulkar (India)

4. Navjot Sidhu (India)

5. Salim Malik (Pakistan)

6. Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pakistan)

7. Andy Flower (Zimbabwe)

8. Graham Thorpe (England)

9. Jon Crawley (England)

10. Hansie Cronje (South Africa)

[dan warna]

MUTHIAH MURALIDARAN’S 10 TOP BATSMEN

1. Brian Lara (WI) - fair call

2. Mohammad Azharuddin (India) - fair call - when not stashing cash under the bed

3. Sachin Tendulkar (India)- fair call

4. Navjot Sidhu (India) - mmm?

5. Salim Malik (Pakistan) - SL couldn't afford to pay him off

6. Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pakistan) - immovable object

7. Andy Flower (Zimbabwe) - LOL

8. Graham Thorpe (England) - ROFLOL

9. Jon Crawley (England) - who?

10. Hansie Cronje (South Africa) - again SL couldn't afford the bookies.

[ManWithNoName]

Yes, obviously we'd know more than Murali about which batsmen are hard to bowl at.

[krisholio14]

MUTHIAH MURALIDARAN’S 10 TOP BATSMEN

1. Brian Lara (WI) - fair call

2. Mohammad Azharuddin (India) - fair call - when not stashing cash under the bed

3. Sachin Tendulkar (India)- fair call

4. Navjot Sidhu (India) - mmm?

5. Salim Malik (Pakistan) - SL couldn't afford to pay him off

6. Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pakistan) - immovable object

7. Andy Flower (Zimbabwe) - LOL

8. Graham Thorpe (England) - ROFLOL

9. Jon Crawley (England) - who?

10. Hansie Cronje (South Africa) - again SL couldn't afford the bookies.

What's so funny about that?

For a bloke playing in a mediocre team most of his career he has a superb record.

[legend166]

Sour grapes for mine.

Along with the whole booing thing, Murali never did that well against us. 59 wickets at an average of 36. We were his hardest opposition by far (next closest average is 32 against India, then it drops to 25 against Pakistan).

[krisholio14]

Sour grapes for mine.

Along with the whole booing thing, Murali never did that well against us. 59 wickets at an average of 36. We were his hardest opposition by far (next closest average is 32 against India, then it drops to 25 against Pakistan).


I agree.

I don't even care if he's thinking more about county cricket than international when he included Crawley, but even if that's what he did, there would still be at least 7 or 8 Aussie batsmen ahead of him.

[albundysmate]

it's because he played them only in his career. he only played 12 tests against australia

[krisholio14]

it's because he played them only in his career. he only played 12 tests against australia

Would have played a fair bit of county cricket against them.

[Cousin Jed]

John Crawley. :o That must have been an impressive 156*. Murali's trolling I think... ;)

Murali dismissed Thorpe the last 5 innings they faced and pretty cheaply too so the first couple of centuries must have been good.

Navjot Sidhu averaged 70 against Sri Lanka. Seems a fair call.

[King Elvis]

Sour grapes for mine.

Along with the whole booing thing, Murali never did that well against us. 59 wickets at an average of 36. We were his hardest opposition by far (next closest average is 32 against India, then it drops to 25 against Pakistan).

I opened this thread half thinking the list would be full of sour grapes, but hoping it wouldn't be, but that's just pathetic.

Murali generally got his arse handed to him by Australia, yet nobody rates?

Sook.

Although, to be fair, he probably wouldn't be in the top 10 bowlers that any of our players had faced either.

[courtjester]

If it's Murali's opinion of the most diffficult batsmen to bowl to for a spinner, then fair enough.

I thought Mark Waugh might have snuck in as a great player of spin before John Crawley though.

[CAS79]

dan warner, there was nothing B grade about Andy Flower. In fact when you realise he never got to face the Zimbabwe bowling attack it gets better.

But Crawley, Murili you have got to be kidding.

In fact, Flower aside the whole bottom 5 is seriously questionable. Fair enough it's his opinion but his opinion is full of shit.

[Phone]

7. Andy Flower (Zimbabwe) - LOL


jesus wept. you don't know how good andy flower was do you?




Hansie's got in for one innings, but what an innings it was: http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63800.html

Jon Crawley has also got in for one innings. Those are the only two we can debate here (although we can't debate a person's opinion)


this isn't his top 10 batsmen ever guys, it's his toughest opponents.

worth noting you guys have only thrown up one Australian so far. Darren Lehman might have been a shot but I can't think of too many other Australians who have dominated Sri Lanka over a period of time.

[Phone]

also, keep in mind with some of them in particular Thorpe and Crawley he would have played against them - or with them - in county cricket.

[Reincarnation]

As soon as Murali leaves cricket the better. This whole farce has gone on for too long and plus his nation isn't even important to cricket in terms of $$$.

He comes across as a petulant little child when his action is questioned.

Yes he is rubber wristed but he also pegs the ball seemingly at right angles.

Howard was right.

[Dr Awkward]

Well it's clearly sour grapes.

To be fair he does get unfairly abused in Australia every time he comes. I wonder if Symonds would have many Indian bowlers in his top 10?

[Kim Hagdorn]

Who cares, he was a chucker.

[Reincarnation]

Well it's clearly sour grapes.

To be fair he does get unfairly abused in Australia every time he comes. I wonder if Symonds would have many Indian bowlers in his top 10?

How is it unfair abuse?

People go to AFL matches and abuse opposition players and sometimes their own.

I for one have abused Murali and enjoyed doing so. The little bucked tooth peice of shit deserves it.

[Bomber Bears]

You'd think a few players from the country where he got absolutely destroyed every time he toured would rate. Average of 36 against australia, closest to that is 32.6 vs India. Average in Australia of 75.

Bitter?

[Santana]

Not that it really matters but he had a pretty hard time against Australia. You would have thought at least one Australian would have made the list.

[Kram81]

The bloke is a muppet.

[dan warna]

Andy Flower, 2 innings v aus for a total of 28 runs
23 innings against SL for 778 at an average of 35.

career average of 51.

I don't see how he can be rated ahead of punter, s.waugh, Hayden, border, etc etc etc.

[ManWithNoName]

Andy Flower, 2 innings v aus for a total of 28 runs
23 innings against SL for 778 at an average of 35.

career average of 51.

I don't see how he can be rated ahead of punter, s.waugh, Hayden, border, etc etc etc.
Murali would've been ranking them on how good they are at playing spin, and how good they are at reading him (Murali).

How many truly great players of spin have we had in Muralis time? As compared to other countries.

[dan warna]

oh that must have been another team that has regularly shredded SL's bowling attack and murali in particular in all forms of cricket over the past two decades of murali's career. :rolleyes:

[Noobz0r]

Mark Waugh just heard the news on the Fox Sports coverage of the Warriors v Bushrangers ODD game, when Crawley was mentioned he asked if it was a serious top 10 haha.

But then admitted that County cricket might have had something to do with that particular selection. Could consider himself unlucky imo.

[King Elvis]

Murali would've been ranking them on how good they are at playing spin, and how good they are at reading him (Murali).

How many truly great players of spin have we had in Muralis time? As compared to other countries.

How many truly great players of spin have we had?

A fair few.

Have many great players of Murali have we had?


You'd think a few players from the country where he got absolutely destroyed every time he toured would rate. Average of 36 against australia, closest to that is 32.6 vs India. Average in Australia of 75.

Bitter?


A shitload.

[Phone]

Andy Flower, 2 innings v aus for a total of 28 runs
23 innings against SL for 778 at an average of 35.

career average of 51.

I don't see how he can be rated ahead of punter, s.waugh, Hayden, border, etc etc etc.

Andy Flower 5 matches in India, 3 centuries and 820 runs.

Flower was one of the very best players of spin in the world and surely no-one who knows even a little about him can argue about this.

And of those players listed only Border is a suitable comparison with Flower...in the sense that both Border and Flower for most of their career were their team's only world class player....nevertheless I'd take Flower over Hayden and Waugh easily.

[dan warna]

Andy Flower 5 matches in India, 3 centuries and 820 runs.

Flower was one of the very best players of spin in the world and surely no-one who knows even a little about him can argue about this.

And of those players listed only Border is a suitable comparison with Flower...in the sense that both Border and Flower for most of their career were their team's only world class player....nevertheless I'd take Flower over Hayden and Waugh easily.

s.waugh was many times a better player and leader than andy flower in my opinion.

and while hayden probably played a year or two too long, he destroyed bowling attacks in a manner that Flower could never match. He destroyed the indian attack which welcomed his return to the test side and started his rampage as one of the more impressive opening bats on the world stage.

[Phone]

yeah andy flower never destroyed india: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=438;type=series

Hayden was part of the world's best team for most his career - Flower the worst for his first 6-7 years of his career and second to third worst for the rest - and was able to bat knowing a) he had world class batsmen behind him in case he failed, b) he had world class bowlers too in case the rest of the batsmen failed too and c) didn't have to keep wicket. Nevertheless despite these clear advantages he still finished his career with an average below Flower's. Murali isn't the only one who thinks Flower was a better player of spin than Hayden.

my case for Flower over Waugh is mainly bias. Frankly I just like Flower more.

[dan warna]

yeah andy flower never destroyed india: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=438;type=series

Hayden was part of the world's best team for most his career - Flower the worst for his first 6-7 years of his career and second to third worst for the rest - and was able to bat knowing a) he had world class batsmen behind him in case he failed, b) he had world class bowlers too in case the rest of the batsmen failed too and c) didn't have to keep wicket. Nevertheless despite these clear advantages he still finished his career with an average below Flower's. Murali isn't the only one who thinks Flower was a better player of spin than Hayden.

my case for Flower over Waugh is mainly bias. Frankly I just like Flower more.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I missed when Murali' played for India.

the fact remains Against SL s.waugh, punter and Haydo's clearly outperformed Flower.

[Phone]

Sorry I can't like a cricketer more than another cricketer? Given the 100 odd tests Waugh played over Flower, there's no point in waging a statistic war to determine who is greater. So I'll just say I like Flower more as a cricketer.

You didn't. But I'm pointing to his performances in India as a example of how great Flower was against spinners.

Of course great performances doesn't equal greatness. As such, while Waugh, Ponting etc may have better statistics than Flower against Sri Lanka, it's perfectly reasonable for Murali to argue that bowling to Flower was tougher than other people, despite a poorer record. We weren't bowling, we can't say it was tougher bowling to Ponting than it was to Flower. It's his opinion over who he considers the toughest opponents, we can't say he's wrong.

[BluesMan]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

NOOOOOOOOOOO BALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

:D:D

I love it

[Dees]

Sorry I can't like a cricketer more than another cricketer? Given the 100 odd tests Waugh played over Flower, there's no point in waging a statistic war to determine who is greater. So I'll just say I like Flower more as a cricketer.

You didn't. But I'm pointing to his performances in India as a example of how great Flower was against spinners.

Of course great performances doesn't equal greatness. As such, while Waugh, Ponting etc may have better statistics than Flower against Sri Lanka, it's perfectly reasonable for Murali to argue that bowling to Flower was tougher than other people, despite a poorer record. We weren't bowling, we can't say it was tougher bowling to Ponting than it was to Flower. It's his opinion over who he considers the toughest opponents, we can't say he's wrong.
Agree 100%. If any spinner was to say Andy Flower was in their 10 hardest batsmen to dismiss, I can't see how anyone would have a problem with it.

[dan warna]

Sorry I can't like a cricketer more than another cricketer? Given the 100 odd tests Waugh played over Flower, there's no point in waging a statistic war to determine who is greater. So I'll just say I like Flower more as a cricketer.

You didn't. But I'm pointing to his performances in India as a example of how great Flower was against spinners.

Of course great performances doesn't equal greatness. As such, while Waugh, Ponting etc may have better statistics than Flower against Sri Lanka, it's perfectly reasonable for Murali to argue that bowling to Flower was tougher than other people, despite a poorer record. We weren't bowling, we can't say it was tougher bowling to Ponting than it was to Flower. It's his opinion over who he considers the toughest opponents, we can't say he's wrong.

sure he can say can say that, but it still remains he was tonked around in Aus, rarely had success against Aus, and doesn't rate any of the batsmen who hammered him through his career, which would call in his judgment as questionable and in some cases laughable.

One could say Merv Hughes in their opinion was a bowler of slim and lithe physique in their opinion as well, but doesn't make it a correct call, but it is their opinion.

[Quinz]

Well one thing in the article was spot on at least

“We were neck and neck on the Test table for years,” he said. “But I always felt Warnie was better as leg spin is so difficult. Your shoulder has to rotate more and for Shane to survive as long as he did was a tribute not only to his ability, but his tremendous stamina and competitiveness. He’s the No.1, not me!”

[outabounds]

One thing is for sure. He won't be in many batsmens top 10 bowlers lists in the years to come. I still shake my head in the way the ICC have let him go on to become the greatest wicket taker in history and then changed the Laws to accommodate him.

[jackster83]

How is it unfair abuse?

People go to AFL matches and abuse opposition players and sometimes their own.

I for one have abused Murali and enjoyed doing so. The little bucked tooth peice of shit deserves it.

I'm sure he cries himself to sleep each night because some Steven Milne lookalike abused him a few years back. :rolleyes:

[Marklar_33]

7. Andy Flower (Zimbabwe) - LOL


Whoops!

If Gilchrist was unavailable, I'd have Andy in my World XI (of players I've seen ;))

[thorne89]

One thing is for sure. He won't be in many batsmens top 10 bowlers lists in the years to come. I still shake my head in the way the ICC have let him go on to become the greatest wicket taker in history and then changed the Laws to accommodate him.

Lol. Bullshit.

Why are people so bitter about Murali and his holding the record? He's an amazing bowler. Seems like a great character too. :thumbsu:

All that 'No Balling' and chucking accusations are pretty childish, it made me feel embarrassed to be an Aussie fan at the WACA one day when some bogan drunks started up a chant.

[Black Thunder]

andy flower was a great batsmen.

but yeah, a lot on that list is seriously questionable.

no different to when shane warne did his list of top 50 players he played with or against though.

some of these top sportsmen have difficult being objective about things.

[pistonbroke23]

Now I'm not one to go on about lists and they are simply one man's opinion (and we all know one does not need a brain to have an opinion) but I find it absolutely incredulous that Murali could not even have 1 Australian in his top 10 list given some of the names he has in there. Really, how the heck can he have some of those batsmen in there ahead of some of the Aussie guns who have played against Sri Lanka over the years.

Sour grapes? Or just plain stupidity??? Either way, I've just lost respect for his opinion moving forward. And please don't start having a crack at me being a racist and typical aussie...you don't know my background.

Not 1 Australian amongst this list...I'm dumb ****ed!!!

http://www.backpagelead.com.au/cricket/2889-aussie-batsmen-not-in-my-top-10-murali

MUTHIAH MURALIDARAN’S 10 TOP BATSMEN

1. Brian Lara (WI)

2. Mohammad Azharuddin (India)

3. Sachin Tendulkar (India)

4. Navjot Sidhu (India)

5. Salim Malik (Pakistan)

6. Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pakistan)

7. Andy Flower (Zimbabwe)

8. Graham Thorpe (England)

9. Jon Crawley (England)

10. Hansie Cronje (South Africa)
That list is a long winded insult rather than something creadable. I think ,as everyone else should, that murali should never have played internation cricket.Whether you call him a cheat,or the asian block of nations that lobbied and bullied to allow him to play,his action was illegal from start to finsh and anything he says lacks authority on that basis

[PrideOf]

Lol. Bullshit.

Why are people so bitter about Murali and his holding the record? He's an amazing bowler. Seems like a great character too. :thumbsu:



Yeah, he does seem like a good bloke - most of the Sri Lankans do.

But when the ICC changes the laws specifically to let him bowl, that's when people don't accept him as a true champion.

Would you respect Cam Mooney as the greatest goalkicker in AFL history if he kicked 1500 goals in his career, but only because the AFL widened the posts at his end so it was harder for him to miss?

[Dr Awkward]

How is it unfair abuse?

People go to AFL matches and abuse opposition players and sometimes their own.

I for one have abused Murali and enjoyed doing so. The little bucked tooth peice of shit deserves it.

May I ask on what basis he "deserves" crowd abuse?

Because he is a great player?
Because he is Sri Lankan?
Or because his action has been cleared by the ICC numerous times?

[Dr Pangloss]

May I ask on what basis he "deserves" crowd abuse?

Because he is a great player?
Because he is Sri Lankan?
Or because his action has been cleared by the ICC numerous times?

Isn't it obvious from his post? It is because he is a 'buck toothed piece of shit'.

But seriously, what a baffling post. It threads a strand of illogic between public abuse, excrement and an enlarged dentition.

Baffling, and disturbing.

[Bombertastic]

He's a chucker. When rightfully called he cried and Sri Lanka threathened all sorts of things. Rules were changed to accomodate him and if any of you have any brains you over look anything he says and any "record" he has.

[The Falcon Strike]

Crawley is the only erroneous one IMO

The rest were all quality players of spin - particularly Azzhur and Sidhu

A little surprised Marto or Hayden didn't get a mention - they'd be the two of the Aussies to get a gig I would have thought

[The Falcon Strike]

May I ask on what basis he "deserves" crowd abuse?

Because he is a great player?
Because he is Sri Lankan?
Or because his action has been cleared by the ICC numerous times?

His action wasn't cleared.

It was shown that some of his deliveries breached the rules.

So rather than change his action - they changed the rules.

So after the rule change, his bowling was legitimate - prior to the rule change his action was illegitimate.

[King Elvis]

And the doosra was still dubious, wasn't it?

[Bombertastic]

[/B]

His action wasn't cleared.

It was shown that some of his deliveries breached the rules.

So rather than change his action - they changed the rules.

So after the rule change, his bowling was legitimate - prior to the rule change his action was illegitimate.

Still made it illegal before. Doesn't matter if some deliveries were ok. Changing the rules for one player or rather so a country doesn't get upset was weak as piss.

[dan warna]

Still made it illegal before. Doesn't matter if some deliveries were ok. Changing the rules for one player or rather so a country doesn't get upset was weak as piss.

$$$$$

Subcontinental dollars make for a lot of facilitation of decision making.

[Dr Awkward]

[/b]

His action wasn't cleared.

It was shown that some of his deliveries breached the rules.

So rather than change his action - they changed the rules.

So after the rule change, his bowling was legitimate - prior to the rule change his action was illegitimate.

Ok, that is not the whole story and I'm not going to go into it but regardless of what the ICC did I still don't think that means that he "deserves" to be abused when playing here.

[Crickfan]

It was shown that some of his deliveries breached the rules.


And the same analysis showed that 99% of the other bowlers at some point of time or another bowled deliveries that exceeded the erstwhile limits. So much so, that Holding, one of Murali's biggest critics before the analysis, completely changed his mind after viewing the analysis and advocated the rule change as a member of the ICC committee which was tasked with looking into it.

So rather than change his action - they changed the rules.


So rather than ask all of the bowlers to change their actions, the rulemakers realized that modern science is better able to show up the flaws in the existing rules, and therefore the existing rules were changed to accommodate the "breach" by all bowlers, not just Murali.


So after the rule change, his bowling was legitimate - prior to the rule change his action was illegitimate.

As were the actions of the other bowlers, particularly fast bowlers.

Murali's deformity and the fact that he was a slow bowler just made it easier to spot and hence all the attention on one bowler instead of the entire universe of bowlers.


PS: For the record, the analysis of Murali (both under test conditions) as well as culled from live match situations with the help of high speed cameras was done by an Australian based sports analytics firm.

[Dr Awkward]

^^ Good, I couldn't be bothered posting that but you articulated it well.

[aflcliche]

Most were great players of spin, but Crawley was a bit of a dud that must have done well against Murali only. No Gilly?

[King Elvis]

The bulk of the testing was done in controlled conditions, wasn't it?

And the analysis which allegedly showed that all bowlers were chuckers was never released to the public, was it?

Shoab and Lee I think were apparently two of the main culprits when they bowled effort balls, but didn't they try and claim McGrath quite often chucked it as well?

And wasn't the flex for the fast bowlers generally a percent or two over, where as Murali's was much more?

[Dr Pangloss]

And wasn't the flex for the fast bowlers generally a percent or two over, where as Murali's was much more?

Which was the result of his naturally bent arm.

[Crickfan]

Shoab and Lee I think were apparently two of the main culprits when they bowled effort balls, but didn't they try and claim McGrath quite often chucked it as well?

"
The sports scientists called in to adjudicate the matter determined that the bending and straightening was an optical illusion caused by the rotation of Murali's congenitally crooked arm.

This failed to satisfy the doubters and Murali was reported several times afterwards. On each occasion the scientists found in his favour till finally, a comprehensive survey of contemporary bowling actions established a paradoxical and ironical fact: not only was the manifest illegality of Murali's action an optical illusion, the taken-for-granted legality of the actions of the world's bowlers was an optical illusion too!

Put simply, the scientists found that nearly every bowler in the world bent and straightened his arm, including never suspected paragons of bowling virtue like McGrath and Jason Gillespie.

Hostile critics of Murali, like Michael Holding and Ian Botham, turned on a dime and accepted without a murmur the new definition of a legal delivery, which allowed all bowlers to flex their arms up to 15 degrees.

"

http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/255809.html

[Crickfan]

And wasn't the flex for the fast bowlers generally a percent or two over, where as Murali's was much more?

"
The latest tests were done after local media reports suggested that Murali's action was again under question because he was bowling more than 20kmph faster than when he was last tested at UWA. The tests showed that Murali's average elbow extension while bowling the doosra at 86.5 kmph was 12.2 degrees and for the offbreak it was 12.9 degrees at 95 kmph, well within the stipulated ICC limit of 15 degrees.

"There's nothing more he could do," said Bruce Elliot, a UWA scientist. "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15 degrees, so none were illegal." He said Muralitharan was bowling faster because of a shoulder surgery he underwent in 2004

"


http://www.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/235693.html (http://www.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/235693.html)


and


"
The clincher, it turns out, was the news that a survey of the bowlers in the ICC Champions Trophy revealed that 99 per cent of all bowlers chucked.

This isn't so different from earlier declarations that 90 per cent of all bowlers chuck, so the turnabout must have to do with the names named rather than the general conclusion. It turns out that under the current definition of a legitimate delivery, such pillars of the bowling establishment as Glenn McGrath, Shaun Pollock, and Jason Gillespie chuck. They straighten their arms in excess of the current 10-degree allowance for fast bowlers.
"

http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/136043.html

[The Falcon Strike]

Ok, that is not the whole story and I'm not going to go into it but regardless of what the ICC did I still don't think that means that he "deserves" to be abused when playing here.

Abused? Definitely not

Made the subject of crowd attention? Absolutely

Hell - the barmy army deliver attention to the aussie cricketers when they are here - why shouldn't we direct attention to Murali, or any other cricketer for that matter.

The comment that he can't straighten his arm is a fallacy as well. Deformity or not - he can straighten his arm from a bent position - it may not be able to go to linear - but it can go from 45% to say 80% - that's still straightening.

On Lee and Akhtar - absolutely they bend their arms - and i'd imagine way over the tolerance - the problem is - they bend it the other way. They bend it from straight to bent (the wrong way). It's not a straightening, rather a reverse flexing against the elbow.

Chucking by definition is straightening the arm, not bending it - so the actions are permissable.

What i get irate about is the calls that Aussies have an issue with Murali because he is Sri Lankan or sub-continental - which is garbage. Go and have a read of threads on Aaron Bird - massive chucker and shouldn't be in the game. Same wih Johan Botha.

[Crickfan]

ICC study reveals that 99% of bowlers throw

"
Extensive research conducted by the International Cricket Council is set to reveal that 99% of bowlers in the history of cricket have been throwers. The study was undertaken in the wake of the furore surrounding Muttiah Muralitharan, whose doosra was banned earlier this year after Chris Broad, the match referee for the Tests against Australia, reported it to the ICC.

"The scientific evidence is overwhelming," said Michael Holding, the possessor of one of the smoothest bowling actions in history, and a member of the six-man panel of former Test players who have been gathered in Dubai to investigate the issue. "When bowlers who, to the naked eye, look to have pure actions are thoroughly analysed ... they are likely to be shown as straightening their arm. Under a strict interpretation of the law, these players are breaking the rules. The game needs to deal with this reality and make its judgment as to how it accommodates this fact."

.... The current law states that there should be no straightening or partial straightening of the bowling arm during delivery, and in-depth research has revealed that even bowlers like Glenn McGrath and Shaun Pollock, usually considered examplars of the classical action, occasionally go over the prescribed tolerance limit, bending their arms by as much as 12 degrees.....


....As Angus Fraser - another member of the six-man panel - wrote in The Independent, even the likes of Fred Trueman, Dennis Lillee, Curtly Ambrose, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, and Ian Botham were found to have exceeded the straightening-limit set by the ICC.

"

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/141558.html

[King Elvis]

Did they ever release that report?

[The Falcon Strike]

So if analysis of bowlers from yesteryear can be done from tapes - why couldn't they do an analysis of Murali during a game?

And there is a major difference to the occasional delivery being inappropriate due to fatigue, mix up etc - then every time you bowl a delivery you threw it.

If Lillee bowled with 12-15% flex every delivery - he'd have been called for chucking, as Ian Meckiff was. If he bowled with less than that and occassionally chucked it - then it's going to be let through.

The biggest insult to Murali was when he was called for bowling a leggie - i don't even think it's physically possible to chuck a leggie. It was a case of umpires having ore-determined ideas about his bowling. Emerson in particular had told local cricket he was going to call him.

However when Aaron Bird or Ian Meckiff got called for chucking, the captain didn't try and lead the team of the pitch, nor claim the world as racist or that they were being victimised.

The current system of a match referee reporting it after the game are more sensible though.

[crownie]

for those begging for Murali's innocense, have any of you seen footage of him bowling while being tested? no doubt its totally different in a match situation.

[Crickfan]

Did they ever release that report?

Dont believe there was any obligation to do so.

However, it appears (as at least 25+ articles in the Cricinfo database attests to, alongwith public statements of numerous ICC panel members), that this is not a highly guarded secret.

Frankly, I am not a conspiracy theorist and I find it easier to believe editors at Wisden / CI as well as ex players privy to the actual information, but hey, thats just me.

[Crickfan]

for those begging for Murali's innocense, have any of you seen footage of him bowling while being tested? no doubt its totally different in a match situation.


Fair point but the only way to determine that would be actual match level testing using the same technology.

What we do know is that using the same technology in match play situations, they found that 99% of current players exceeded the limit -- a list of current players that includes great bowlers. And the degree of flexion was found to range between 7% to 20% -- 20%, which is actually 5% higher than even the current law's upper limit of 15%.

The basic point is lets stop the witch hunt. Murali may be wrong but by that token so are the entire lot of the bowlers.

Test all in the lab and under match conditions or not at all. Dont pick on one guy and try to make an example out of him.

If we all care so much about the fairness of the game, then lets get the whole lot of these bowlers under the scope and subject them to testing.

Anything less, and its selective administration of convenient standards.

And BTW, its not the odd delivery either -- in the 2006 Champions trophy, on average, almost 50% of deliveries were found to exceed the limits. For example, one sampling found that 13 of 23 surveyed deliveries were well over the prescribed limits --that definitely does not constitute the occasional misstep due to fatigue, etc.

[pistonbroke23]

Fair point but the only way to determine that would be actual match level testing using the same technology.

What we do know is that using the same technology in match play situations, they found that 99% of current players exceeded the limit -- a list of current players that includes great bowlers. And the degree of flexion was found to range between 7% to 20% -- 20%, which is actually 5% higher than even the current law's upper limit of 15%.

The basic point is lets stop the witch hunt. Murali may be wrong but by that token so are the entire lot of the bowlers.

Test all in the lab and under match conditions or not at all. Dont pick on one guy and try to make an example out of him.

If we all care so much about the fairness of the game, then lets get the whole lot of these bowlers under the scope and subject them to testing.

Anything less, and its selective administration of convenient standards.

And BTW, its not the odd delivery either -- in the 2006 Champions trophy, on average, almost 50% of deliveries were found to exceed the limits. For example, one sampling found that 13 of 23 surveyed deliveries were well over the prescribed limits --that definitely does not constitute the occasional misstep due to fatigue, etc.
You just dribbled forth the same crap and spin the asian controlled cricket council did.He was a chucker and should never have played international cricket.End of story

[SriLankanCat]

Murali is a legend :D simple fact. Doesnt matter if everyone says he chucks. To take 800 wickets is amazing.

If anyone else was allowed to chuck would they have been able to take 800 wickets? I doubt it so whether people think he chucks or not deserves a lot of respect.

Murali is allowed his opinion and i cant really argue with anyone on that list. Navjot Sidhu was ana wesome player of spin. Andy Flower is the most underrated batsman in test history.

How many Aussies actually dominated Murali? Not many have played him a lot.

[Bombertastic]

What the changes did was make a continued mockery of bowling legality. Seeing front on shots of a fair percentage of bowlers makes me cringe. As an opening batsman in club cricket when it became apparent that club bowlers were being allowed the same luxury it really really made me angry.

That's the problem all the rule changes end up in club cricket and it's changed the game forever now.

Then there are bowlers like Aaron Bird who should be banned forever.

[Crickfan]

You just dribbled forth the same crap and spin the asian controlled cricket council did.He was a chucker and should never have played international cricket.End of story


By your argument, the overwhelming majority of the rest were chuckers too (and that includes the greats), and should never have played international cricket too. End of Story.

Or should these players be excused because they debuted when the English and Australian controlled ICC called the shots ? Just to show how misplaced your argument is with respect to whether Asian or non Asian countries controlled the ICC, please note that when the revision was made, Malcolm Speed was the ICC CEO

Seriously, against the backdrop of the revelations that 99% of the bowlers chuck, the double standards inherent in your argument are shocking.

[krisholio14]

By your argument, the overwhelming majority of the rest were chuckers too (and that includes the greats), and should never have played international cricket too. End of Story.

Or should these players be excused because they debuted when the English and Australian controlled ICC called the shots ? Just to show how misplaced your argument is with respect to whether Asian or non Asian countries controlled the ICC, please note that when the revision was made, Malcolm Speed was the ICC CEO

Seriously, against the backdrop of the revelations that 99% of the bowlers chuck, the double standards inherent in your argument are shocking.

Or should these players be excused because they debuted when the English and Australian controlled ICC called the shots ?

Seriously, against the backdrop of the revelations that 99% of the bowlers chuck, the double standards inherent in your argument are shocking.

But that's the thing. By the letter of the old law, Glenn McGrath was a chucker too. It was proven by the same test Murali was subjected to.

The rules were changed because we've moved on, not because of some half cooked Aussie driven conspiracy theory.

[Crickfan]

But that's the thing. By the letter of the old law, Glenn McGrath was a chucker too. It was proven by the same test Murali was subjected to.

Mate, aernt you saying the same thing I am ?

That under the old archaic laws, 99% of bowlers including Gleanno & Murali were chuckers.

Which is why the laws were changed to 15 degrees for everyone.

And my point was if under the old law, all were chucking at some point of time or the other, why single in on Murali ?

And since under the new law, Murali (and for that matter Gleanno) are not chuckers, then why the continued debate and more so focussed on only one player (Murali) and not the rest ?

The rules were changed because we've moved on, not because of some half cooked Aussie driven conspiracy theory.

Sorry, I lost you here.

Who claimed any Aussie conspiracy ? I certainly didnt.

I made a rhetorical point to show the absurdity of pistonbroke23's argument that implied that the Asian controlled ICC was why Murali got away scott free.

My comment in response to that was -- using his warped logic, anyone would argue that the rest got away because they played when the Poms and Aussies were controlling the ICC, no ?

My comment was to show the flaw in the argument, not meant to be literal. Please read again in context, and it will make sense.

[Borisdog]

The bloke's completely entitled to state who he had the most trouble bowling to, none of us are in any position to argue with him.

No-one, however, will ever convince me to the day I die that the man wasn't playing darts.

If it looks like a duck and quacks - it's a duck.

He wouldn't have made it through under 16's in Australia or England with that action.

But I will say that calling him a cheat is completely unfair - the onus of blame should be on the large amount of administrators who constantly squibbed the obvious, and there were plenty of well credentialled Test Batsmen who thought it pretty obvious, and a couple of Test Umpires for that matter.

[ManWithNoName]

Has anyone brought up the fact that when Murali was being tested, the balls he was bowling were about 20km/h slower than his match deliveries?

Anyone?

[Marklar_33]

Yes, here

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19464408&postcount=73

[Crickfan]

Has anyone brought up the fact that when Murali was being tested, the balls he was bowling were about 20km/h slower than his match deliveries?

Anyone?

Factually incorrect.

Please read on ---


From the original bowling analysis performed on Murali by The School of Human Movement & Exercise Science at the University of Western Australia (UWA). http://www.islandcricket.lk/news/61520712/bowling_report_testing_muralitharans_doosra

"
Session 1 Results
Following a warm-up, markers were attached to Mr Muralitharan as shown in Figure 1. The mean velocity of six deliveries selected for analysis was 64 km/hr. A mean elbow extension range of 14° was recorded for these six “doosra” deliveries (Table 1, Figures 2). The curves graphed in Figure 2 clearly show that each delivery was bowled with a similar action. One can then be confident that Mr Muralitharan bowls with a similar action in his “doosra” delivery. While one could argue that this extension is acceptable it is outside the current extension threshold of 5° set by the ICC. Hence a period of remediation followed aimed at reducing the level of elbow extension from upper arm horizontal to release.

Session 2 Results
The mean extension for the elbow from upper arm horizontal to ball release was 10.2° (Table 2, Figure 3). Variations in the elbow extension curves (Figure 3) and the small standard deviation for the 6 deliveries (Table 2), show that each of these deliveries is very close to a 10° level. He therefore bowls with a consistent action.

His mean delivery speed of 72 km/hr, which is at the higher end of his “test match range” of 65-75 km/hr, shows that he was bowling with intensity in this laboratory environment. The spin bowling expert also testified to the fact that the deliveries analysed deviated in the appropriate manner with “venom”. He rotated his upper arm from the horizontal to release in a mean time of 0.072s, which is quicker than in Test 1 and also quicker than the time taken to rotate through the same angle by Shabbir Ahmed Khan.
"


and

from a re-testing done after some people claimed that Murali's bowling speeds had changed.
http://www.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/235693.html

"
The latest tests were done after local media reports suggested that Murali's action was again under question because he was bowling more than 20kmph faster than when he was last tested at UWA. The tests showed that Murali's average elbow extension while bowling the doosra at 86.5 kmph was 12.2 degrees and for the offbreak it was 12.9 degrees at 95 kmph, well within the stipulated ICC limit of 15 degrees.

"There's nothing more he could do," said Bruce Elliot, a UWA scientist. "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15 degrees, so none were illegal." He said Muralitharan was bowling faster because of a shoulder surgery he underwent in 2004.
"

[Cooldude]

Been trying not to respond to this but some of the drivel dished out by Crickman just can't be tolerated anymore

So you're saying all the other greats chuck because of a single poorly done report released by the ICC. So they decided to make those baseless allegations despite not having every single bowler going through the same lab testings that Murali have gone through.

The conclusion they reached was logically flawed to begin with: so they accused 99% of the bowlers as chuckers based on methods that they would not used to test Murali on such as match/video footage, because apparently it was all an "optical illusion?"

Anyone who ever took that report seriously must be some major dummy

What's more, anyone who ever saw Murali bowling in those lab tests cannot possibly say it mirrored match conditions. The bloke was strolling slowly and not even following through properly when he bowled, for goodness sake.

Testing bowlers on whether they throw in a lab is like monitoring drivers in a road test and see whether they'd speed. Completely pointless and stupid

[Crickfan]

Been trying not to respond to this but some of the drivel dished out by Crickman just can't be tolerated anymore



You make it sound as if I made up all this.

However, I have just been quoting reports published by different news organizations which in turn are based on research done by different institutes that have looked into biomechanics of bowling. I believe I have also documented my sources via links.

Whether you take the time to revaluate your opinion based on reading through the material or not is up to you. And whether you wish to term that as drivel or not is up to you as well.


So you're saying all the other greats chuck because of a single poorly done report released by the ICC. So they decided to make those baseless allegations despite not having every single bowler going through the same lab testings that Murali have gone through.



You are assuming its a poorly done report, perhaps because it doesnt agree with our well established conceptions that all the greats are sacrosanct.

The fact is they analyzed bowling actions based on high speed cameras at CT 06 which captured images at camera speeds far greater than what the human eye could possibly capture and then broke that down to arrive at their conclusions.

And the results were analyzed by a 6 member ICC committee that included test players who have a lot more experience than me, and I would venture to say you as well.

And its not a single report --The ICC analysis was done in 2006. Similar analysis had been done back in 2003 and has also been done by other biomechanical research institutes based in other parts of Australia and New Zealand as well.

The conclusions have been unanimous -- that all bowlers have a flexion which varies between 7 to 14 degrees approximately.

The ICC study is the only one (to my knowledge) that identified the names of some of the famous players.

Additionally, the biomechanical institutes have tested not just Murali but a host of other bowlers in lab conditions (some, not all of whom, were suspected of having a flawed action). While some have been cleared and some have not, what this rigor of lab testing has done is provide a rather extensive database of information that has helped in understanding the issue.

So I would be hesitant to dismiss all this as poor reserach or half baked analysis.


The conclusion they reached was logically flawed to begin with: so they accused 99% of the bowlers as chuckers based on methods that they would not used to test Murali on such as match/video footage, because apparently it was all an "optical illusion?"


No.

The "optical illusion" refers to what the naked eye captures or is captured via normal television cameras which provides a picture in 2 dimensions.

The 99% conclusion was based on data culled from high speed cameras capturing more than 250 frames per second. There were multiple such cameras used to capture images, thereby rendering a 3 dimensional analysis.

The premise is not flawed, nor is there any inherent contradiction in the logic used.


What's more, anyone who ever saw Murali bowling in those lab tests cannot possibly say it mirrored match conditions. The bloke was strolling slowly and not even following through properly when he bowled, for goodness sake

Testing bowlers on whether they throw in a lab is like monitoring drivers in a road test and see whether they'd speed. Completely pointless and stupid


I believe we have all seen selected clips. So its hard to draw a conclusion one way or the other.

What we do know is that in his original tests, the researchers had Bruce Yardley as the bowling / cricketing expert overseeing the entire process. Yardley's presence was there to ensure that the tests took into consideration as close to match conditions as possible.

Murali's pace of bowling, how much he spun the ball, his bowling trajectory, and loop were all reviewed by Yardley. And the deliveries chosen for further analysis were those deliveries that Yardley and the reserachers agreed upon as being the most representative of match situations and effort.

Having said that, let us assume for a second that the lab tests did not simulate real life situations as is your contention. Fair enough -- which leaves the only avenue open for proper testing as match conditions.

Let me then go back to the same questions I asked in reply no 65 ---

which is given that the only fair way to test would be to analyze through match action analyzed via cameras,

how come we are all so fixated on just Murali and not on the rest of the lot who have already been found out in match conditions to have breached the limits of flexion ?

Why not calls for testing everyone alongwith Murali in match conditions ?

And why keep harping on just 1 guy's action when all the rest have been shown (in match conditions) to be beyind the limits ?

I also find it rather curious to connect 2 divergent strains of your argument except to see how they all serve to castigate one guy and exonerate the others. To wit (your arguments stated below) ---
Murali is not above suspicion because he is not match tested. However, other players who have been match tested and have been castigated, have been "done in" on the basis of flawed analysis and hence they are victims of baseless allegations.
Murali's lab tests (since he has passed the lab tests) does not mean much due to variance from match conditions but other bowlers cannot be castigated on match analysis because they have not been tested in the lab.
Seriously, can you really argue both sides with one preordained outcome ?

As I said before, conducting a witch hunt for one guy reeks of double standards.

Because, If fairness were the issue, we would ask for all of these bowlers to be tested in lab and in match conditions, just not focus on one guy. And we certainly wouldnt be trying to exonerate others found to be in breach with excuses such as "poorly done report", "baseless allegations", and "flawed logic", etc.

Neither would we ask for match testing for Murali while discounting match testing for others. Nor I venture to say, would we claim on one hand that its pointless and stupid to rely on Murali's lab tests because lab doesnt reflect actual conditions while in the same breath ask rhetorical questions about how the ICC can claim that the greats chucked without having tested them in the lab !!

Anyways, I have posted enough and quoted enough studies and articles and research. Members who wish to think differently will and those who choose to cling to dearly held beliefs despite other information that contradicts, will choose to do so as well.

[King Elvis]

But that's the thing. By the letter of the old law, Glenn McGrath was a chucker too. It was proven by the same test Murali was subjected to.

The rules were changed because we've moved on, not because of some half cooked Aussie driven conspiracy theory.
Which is bullshit.

Lee and Shoab, sure, when they bowled around 160km, you could see flex in their elbow joint, but McGrath (throw Pollock in as well) has one of the purest actions you'll ever see - to suggest that he was a chucker in any way is laughable.

Also, wouldnt the straigthening of the arm be of a lot more benefit to a spinner than a quick?

Anyway, nobody will ever convince me that Murali wasn't a chucker.

Seems like a good bloke, but he throws it, and his standing in the game is a blight on it.

[Cooldude]

Talk about missing my point, Crickman

I am fully aware of the methods they used to make up their "reports", the fact that they dismissed the method of using cameras to analyse Murali in match conditions due to the "optical illusion" excuse, yet thinks it fit to use the same method on other bowlers and draw such a conclusion, implies the double standards and the unreliability of the results, no?

You can crap on with all the details but it still makes no difference, the conclusion and comparisons make no logical or reasonable sense.

And Lol at them selecting Bruce Yardley, who is a great supporter and friend of Murali and very publicly insisted he doesn't chuck. Unbias judge, no?

Stop giving me useless boring details, lab condition bowling can never be compared to match condition bowling. No matter how many times a bowler is cleared in lab conditions, it means nothing because it's a totally different environment and intensity once you cross the fence. Any results of the lab tests are completely irrelevant for me.

[SouthSwans]

7. Andy Flower (Zimbabwe) - LOLWas ranked by this board (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13311432&postcount=766) as the 15th best player of all time, not lolworthy.

[dan warna]

ahead of hutton, miller, lara, imran khan, s.waugh, joel garner, hadlee, greg chappel, border, kallis, to name a few...

very lolworthy, all of them stand head and shoulders above andy flower.

[MaccaKnowsBest]

Good work Crickfan but you're wasting your time posting that sort of stuff in here.

[Belnakor]

The conclusions have been unanimous -- that all bowlers have a flexion which varies between 7 to 14 degrees approximately.


BS. in the Champions trophy there were bowlers with less than 5% flex. Indeed, one with 0%.

[Kim Hagdorn]

You can come up with all the 'propeller head' bullshit you want but just watching him 'bowl' he obviously ditched the ball, an absolute disgrace that he was allowed to play. Say what you like about Nathan Hauritz's bowling ability at least he doesn't cheat.

[Bourky23]

I absolutely love the bloke and bowl a bit of off-spin myself, but there is no doubt he had a dubious action.

The only people who seem to argue his case are the traditional "aussie haters" on this board or people who have to be different for the sake of being different.

His records stand and that's well and good, but I honestly don't know how people can geniunely believe he didn't throw it.

If anybody 'bowled' like that at domestic or local level, they'd be stopped straight away and you're deluded if you think otherwise.

It was an ugly situation that got out of hand far too quickly.

Not Murali's fault at all but IMO you're defending the undefendable if you reckon his action was legal.

As I said, his records will stand and good on him but he'll always be tainted in my opinion.

He's been great for cricket but thems the facts folks :thumbsu:

[dan warna]

Its probably one of the two genuine hard issues to deal with that the ICC has had to face.

the issue of whether a bowler was chucking
the issue of match fixing

I've swung on the issue of murali. I am still not sure on the issue but in the end I suspect money and the application of pressure and power had as much to do with tradition.

As for match fixing, I think they should be banned for life.

[Crickfan]

BS. in the Champions trophy there were bowlers with less than 5% flex. Indeed, one with 0%.


Yes, they were some exceptions but most were part time bowlers -- the one with 0% flexion was Ramnaresh Sarwan, part time legspinner.

thats your counterpoint ? Seriously ?

[Crickfan]

Good work Crickfan but you're wasting your time posting that sort of stuff in here.

Thanks mate

[Crickfan]

I am fully aware of the methods they used to make up their "reports", the fact that they dismissed the method of using cameras to analyse Murali in match conditions due to the "optical illusion" excuse, yet thinks it fit to use the same method on other bowlers and draw such a conclusion, implies the double standards and the unreliability of the results, no?


2 things --

first, with regards to Murali and optical illusion -- the scientists stated that the optical illusion was due to 2 dimensional view using normal TV cameras or even naked eye view. This was the explanation as to why he looks like a chucker in plan sight and was predicated solely on his congenital deformity, a situation unique to him and uncommon with most other bowlers.

2nd,
When they analyzed Murali in 2004, they did 3 D analysis using multiple cameras. The analysis was done in a lab to allow for the maximum amount of precision (degree of error ~1 degree as opposed to degree of error ~3 degrees) since Murali was sent to the lab by ICC, and the tests needed to be as precise as possible.

they analyzed bowlers at CT 2006 using similar techniques -- multiple cameras so as to render a 3 D analysis.

So there really wasnt a difference in the type of analysis - both were 3D. The setting did vary -- lab vs match.

You are conflating the optical illusion argument with the type of analysis done.

And Lol at them selecting Bruce Yardley, who is a great supporter and friend of Murali and very publicly insisted he doesn't chuck. Unbias judge, no?


Was Yardley his buddy even before all this happened ? even before the testing ?

And didnt the researcher's select Yardley ? What would the researcher's motivations be ? Considering he has been tested in 3 Australian cities by Australian scientists, what would the logic be for scientists of a different
country to be biased in favor of a Sri Lankan - so much so as to choose his buddy, and then possibly even alter the results of their analysis to favor him ?

[Belnakor]

the simple question is, if they can analyse all these old bowlers and say that they "definately" chucked, why can't they look at Murali bowling, say on the 5th day of a close test match and see if he is chucking in those videos?

This mysterious video to me, sounds like the kind of video you don't release to the public because it will be dissected and proven to be unreliable.

[Belnakor]

Yes, they were some exceptions but most were part time bowlers -- the one with 0% flexion was Ramnaresh Sarwan, part time legspinner.

thats your counterpoint ? Seriously ?

the point if you can bowl clean if you want. Warne didn't play in that cup but he had, theres no doubt he would have been within the tolerance.

[sherb]

Was Yardley his buddy even before all this happened ? even before the testing ?

And didnt the researcher's select Yardley ? What would the researcher's motivations be ? Considering he has been tested in 3 Australian cities by Australian scientists, what would the logic be for scientists of a different
country to be biased in favor of a Sri Lankan - so much so as to choose his buddy, and then possibly even alter the results of their analysis to favor him ?
Yardley wasn't a good choice for another reason.

His views on chucking may well have been biased or tainted given that he himself was called for throwing by Douglas Sang Hue on the Australian tour of the West Indies in 1978.

[Crickfan]

the point if you can bowl clean if you want. Warne didn't play in that cup but he had, theres no doubt he would have been within the tolerance.

I have to respectfully disagree.

I dont think the majority (99% per the ICC findings) bowl "uncleanly" or "cheat" of their own free will.

Rather I would suggest that the original laws as they were written were written in a scientific vacuum -- that is, it is very much near impossible to bowl without flexing your arm as scientific research has shown.

Which in turn led to setting ad hoc limits of 5 deg for spinners, 7.5 deg for medium pacers, and 10 deg for fast bowlers.

When further research showed that the pace at which a bowler bowls (spin vs fast vs medium pace) did not necessarily correlate with the pace at which the arm rotates about the shoulder, ICC had to reconsider the differential degrees of flexion it had imposed.

When further analysis showed that majority of bowlers flex upto 14 deg, they had to agree on a threshold that would accomodate that. What settled it at 15 deg is that biomechanical experts pointed out that around the 15 degree mark is where a kink becomes noticeable to the naked human eye. Thus the flexion limits were set at 15, which then satisfied both what had been scientifically observed as well as the spirit of the rule that the arm not be bent, the reasoning being that the flexion would only be visible around the 15 deg mark or more.

The reason Murali's arm shows up to the naked eye is because his elbows are bent to start off with -- he cannot straighten them. But his arm does not flex more than 15 degrees in relation to the position of his elbows (which is the baseline position). So while it may look like he bends his arm more and chucks because he starts off from a baseline position where his elbows are bent, in reality, his arm does not straighten in relation to his elbow position by more than 14 degrees at most --- that is the synopsis of the scientific conclusion drawn by the University of Western Australia scientists as well as a host of other biomechanists from Auckland and the rest of the world. That is the conclusion on which Murali was allowed to bowl.

Sure, you can argue with the premise that a congenital defect should debar someone from bowling. But other than that, I dont see what else the ICC could have done --once the ICC went the scientific opinion route, how could it not abide by what the same scientific community overwhelmingly recommended post testing of Murali, and several others (direct or indirect testing) ?

And I also dont see how you can claim that people can bowl with zero degree flexion if they chose to -- since biomechanics has shown that any significant velocity of the arm while rotating causes a natural flexion, I would not venture to accuse all these bowlers of being intentional cheaters.

[Cooldude]

2 things --

first, with regards to Murali and optical illusion -- the scientists stated that the optical illusion was due to 2 dimensional view using normal TV cameras or even naked eye view. This was the explanation as to why he looks like a chucker in plan sight and was predicated solely on his congenital deformity, a situation unique to him and uncommon with most other bowlers.

2nd,
When they analyzed Murali in 2004, they did 3 D analysis using multiple cameras. The analysis was done in a lab to allow for the maximum amount of precision (degree of error ~1 degree as opposed to degree of error ~3 degrees) since Murali was sent to the lab by ICC, and the tests needed to be as precise as possible.

they analyzed bowlers at CT 2006 using similar techniques -- multiple cameras so as to render a 3 D analysis.

So there really wasnt a difference in the type of analysis - both were 3D. The setting did vary -- lab vs match.

You are conflating the optical illusion argument with the type of analysis done.



Was Yardley his buddy even before all this happened ? even before the testing ?

And didnt the researcher's select Yardley ? What would the researcher's motivations be ? Considering he has been tested in 3 Australian cities by Australian scientists, what would the logic be for scientists of a different
country to be biased in favor of a Sri Lankan - so much so as to choose his buddy, and then possibly even alter the results of their analysis to favor him ?

You're still missing my point

Thanks for proving my point that there's a set of rules for Murali and a separate set for the rest. Since they refuse to use cameras and test Murali in match conditions because of the "optical illusion" factor, yet happily do the same for all the other bowlers and reach such a conclusion, that's where the double standards and inconsistency comes from. Which is why the results cannot be reliable. How many times do I have to say that before you get it?

Bruce Yardley was basically doing what Bill Lawry does to Warnie when he commentates on Murali, and very vocal on his support for him not being a chucker. For all sorts of reasons he was a bad choice.

There is no way in the world you can justify the results of Murali's lab tests being relevant to the real issue, nor can you prove the "tests" done on the rest of the bowlers were in anyway reliable or legit.

[Bombertastic]

Oh Crickfan you really are missing a very important key point. You highlighted yourself the original rules regarding (for most bowlers) unavoidable flex. You seem to think that these were just plucked from the sky. Have you considered why the original rules were 5 degrees for spin and 10 for pace.

As an offspin bowler I can tell you that flexing your arm is done to improve spin much more then pace. Yet all we get from the reports is that under lab conditions Murali's deliveries had "venom". What ever that means. Yay they deviated. who cares about pace. No recording or measurement of the amount of turn at all.

The simple fact of the matter is that the rules which had stood the test of time for decades were changed for one player.

He's a chucker and will always be remembered as such. I'm not saying this as some biased fanboy of Warne either. I'm saying it as a traditionalist fan of cricket.

[Crickfan]

You're still missing my point

Thanks for proving my point that there's a set of rules for Murali and a separate set for the rest. Since they refuse to use cameras and test Murali in match conditions because of the "optical illusion" factor, yet happily do the same for all the other bowlers and reach such a conclusion, that's where the double standards and inconsistency comes from. Which is why the results cannot be reliable. How many times do I have to say that before you get it?




No, I do not think I am missing the point.

Because in the 2006 CT, all the bowlers were tested with high speed cameras under match conditions. THIS LIST ALSO INCLUDED MURALI.

The only difference in Murali vs the other players testing is that the others have not been tested in lab conditions --that is the difference I alluded to earlier, that other bowlers werent lab tested*.

*Note: There was an extensive lab test done of 69 bowlers, 40% of whom were test bowlers, including some of the elite. This test confirmed the findings of other studies. However, I have not found a list of who the bowlers involved were, hence I cannot claim that the elite bowlers that we have discussed thus far, were lab tested.

[Crickfan]

Oh Crickfan you really are missing a very important key point. You highlighted yourself the original rules regarding (for most bowlers) unavoidable flex. You seem to think that these were just plucked from the sky. Have you considered why the original rules were 5 degrees for spin and 10 for pace.


But the original laws did not stipulate 5 or 10 degress.

In fact the original law had changed 5 times already over the course of the 20th century. The 6th iteration, after the first round of biomechanical testing came up with these ad hoc limits.

Then more testing into the efficacy of such limits led to the universal 15 degree limit.

As an offspin bowler I can tell you that flexing your arm is done to improve spin much more then pace.

yes, I agree that this is possible


Yet all we get from the reports is that under lab conditions Murali's deliveries had "venom". What ever that means. Yay they deviated. who cares about pace. No recording or measurement of the amount of turn at all.


Thats what Yardley was there to determine. They determined that it turned enough.

I see your skepticism about the lack of measurement of turn however.

[Bombertastic]

Thanks for the kind response. I guess there will always be disagreement with Mulrali from fans around the world. His personality and character does him good.

I don't blame him one little bit in all this. If he was Australian things would have been handled a lot differently before he played international cricket, that's for sure.