Murali's top 10 batsmen

[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) - LOL

Was ranked by this board 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

 

[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.