strewthcobber
Senior List
- Jul 20, 2015
- 272
- 256
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
The problem we have with officialdom in all sports is that we (the public) rarely get to know what their real thoughts are, disguised by political correctness. I am reasonably well connected in cricket and have been fortunate enough to befriend several Test umpires, both Australian and International.
Many years ago I was told that a majority of Test umpires weren't happy that Murali's action was legal and lodged their concerns with the ICC. This was after the initial reports from umpires Hair & Emerson, and after Murali began wearing long sleeves buttoned to the wrist.
This led to the farcical tests in Perth where Murali rolled his arm over and convinced the authorities that his elbow was less than 15% flexed in his action. At no stage was he made to bowl as he would in a Test match, and at no stage was he asked to bowl the doosra, a delivery that is impossible for an off spinner to bowl without chucking.
From that time on, umpires were instructed not to call Murali on suspicion of an illegal action. This was the green light he needed and from that time on he flicked and chucked his way to a wicket taking record. Umpires and match referees were, however, allowed to express their concerns to the ICC, who largely ignored any further complaints from officials trying to do their jobs.
It became obvious the entire question of chucking was shelved indefinitely, and that the subject was taboo in the media. Channel 9, for instance, would always show great bowlers' actions from in front, as well as from side on. When it came to Murali, at no stage was he ever analysed from side on like ever other bowler. It was apparent the entire episode had been put to bed and no further discussion took place ... not in the media anyway. The umpires continued to gnash their teeth but were powerless to do anything about it. Any further comment about it would place their umpiring careers at risk.
There was indeed a massive cover up. Why Murali, nobody really knows, but the moment he retired, suddenly discussion on illegal actions were back on the agenda. You really didn't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to understand what was going on. The authorities had dug a hole too deep to cover and couldn't possibly ban a bowler for life after they'd allowed him to take 400+ Test wickets.
Now, the Murali lovers out there will hate what I've posted. They will also think it fabricated, but I'm telling you this is precisely what took place. My umpiring acquaintances would only discuss Murali with me on the grounds I not quote them. Pathetic, isn't it?
The UWA testing in 2004 was specifically done on his doosra.....