Muttiah Muralitharan could break another record

[WCE2000]

yes, every ball he has the same action, and his action is illegal.

the extra amount of control and spin and variance you can get by throwing the ball is ten fold as to when you use a proper legal action.

how am i jealous or racist, i hate it when people defend him and simply just pull the racist card out.

 

[Booze Hound]

Umpire calling.

he doesn't chuck every one, which is where the difficulty can arise.

The one he definitely does throw is the faster, flatter delivery which still turns a lot. That is not in doubt for me.

I was in Sri Lanka just over a year ago watching a schools game. Schools cricket is huge over there (the annual match between the two biggest schools can match any Test match for interest). I got talking to one of the coaches. This person had played Lancashire League in England, should have played Test cricket and gave me some very interesting insights in to the betting scandal (all bar two South Africans were taking bookies cash in the 1999 World Cup apparently) and on how Ranutunga got his first Test appearance.

He had also been coach of the Sri Lankan national junior side for some years. I asked him about some of the players he'd coached and their were a few names you would know.

"Was Muttiah in your teams" I asked.

He turned to me, unprompted, and said "Muralithuran's a thrower."

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by RogerC
Everyone goes mad about his action without really looking at it. I don't know whether it's a form of racism

Do you think that if a "white" bowler was accused of chucking and then cleared by the current head of the ICC, also a "whitey", that we wouldn't see the same sorts of protests that occured after the recent debacle in South Africa? The subcontinental cricketing countries regularly play the race card, even when race is not an issue, because they know how powerful it is. Muralitharan was not called because he is "brown", he was called because an umpire thought he chucked, the same way Ian Meckiff was called.

or simply competitiveness that prompts it, but it is misinformed.

What, everyone who believes he throws is "misinformed" now are they? That seems like a rather narrowminded comment, and that surprises me coming from you Roger. People who claim that because he cannot fully straighten his arm he does not throw are misinformed. People who claim he chucks without seeing his action are misinformed. People who have seen him bowl and are not happy that his action is at all times legitimate are not misinformed. Even if you don't happen to agree with them.

He doesn't get called because his action has been cleared,

How can you be "cleared" for something you haven't done yet? Are you claiming that the "tests" done prove somehow that he will never partially straighten his arm in the future? If you can, then I'd like next weeks tatts numbers while you're at it.

not because Dalmiya has played the race card.

In a word, bull****. Since the time he was first called his supporters have alleged that he was only called because of his color. Dalmiya still makes reference to the "brown man's burden" and "colonial powers". If that isn't the race card, what is it?

Plus, he proved himself a perfect gentleman over the whole chucking scandal (more than we can say for Ranatunga), and fought his way back from a potentially career-ending situation to become a genuinely talented bowler.

Which is completely irrelevant to whether he chucks or not. I'm sure Ian Meckiff was a tope bloke too.

So why some of you feel the need to slag him off is a bit perplexing to say the least.

Perhaps becuase some people do not like to see someone garner enormous success through breaking the rules.

And for Hilly's benefit, Murali's average away from home is 27.85 (48 in India, BTW). So I'd say he does all right outside the subcontinent.

Averages about 3 runs more per wicket outside the subcontinent. He's taken over three quarters of his wickets there though, slightly higher than the percentage of tests played there, although that's more likely due to the friendlier pitches spinners find there than anything else.

 

[TigerTank]

Shoaib Aktar is being hounded out of the game because he allegedly throws sometimes.

Muralitharan isn't.

Have a look at their actions and tell my in what way Shoaib throws, but Muralitharan doesn't.

 

[WCE2000]

Murlitharan's action is the same for every ball, and its illegal.

I can't believe people are so blind that they can't see it. And the worst thing is, that it is too late to do anything now. You can't let a guy get 370 wickets than decide its to late to do anything about it.

But if anything were done about it, it probably wouldn't be worth, as he is the Kumul in the side, which would lead to absolute anarchy within Sri Lanka, and it might not be worth the trouble.

Buts it an absolute blight on the game that our (soon to be) leading wicket-taker is a thrower.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by TigerTank
Shoaib Aktar is being hounded out of the game because he allegedly throws sometimes.

Muralitharan isn't.

Have a look at their actions and tell my in what way Shoaib throws, but Muralitharan doesn't.

Sri Lanka have more influence than Pakistan?

 

[Fat Red]

Don't forget that the rules have been changed because of him.

When Darrel Hair called him, the Law was that if the umpire had any doubt about the bowler's legitimacy, he should no-ball him.

Hair was applying that law. Whether you think he throws or not, there is clearly doubt about it; no one could say with the naked eye, this guy definitely doesn't throw.

Simply, previous umpries had been too weak to apply the law.

Since then, the ICC has dodged the issue by setting up committees and so on, so that the issue become whether he throws rather thaqn whether he breaches the laws of cricket.

 

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by Dave


Sri Lanka have more influence than Pakistan?

At the moment it would appear so. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, and the Sri Lankans squeak and squeal more than most.

 

[Pies rock]

Originally posted by TigerTank


It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, and the Sri Lankans squeak and squeal more than most.

Too right, I couldn't have put it better myself. Remember those shocking scenes when Umpire Emerson called him in that One dayer against England (at the Adelaide Oval) a few years back?? Ranatunga took his players off the field, which should never happen on the cricket field. They whinge and whine and call everyone racist when umpires attempt justice, and the ICC is too weak to stand up to them. Later in that match u heard Alec Stewart from the stump microphone say to Ranatunga when he was batting, "your behaviour today, for captain of your country, has been a disgrace". Cheers to you Alec!

I laugh at the excuses I've heard of why he chucks. First of all, he couldn't straighten his arm. However, there was footage of him throwing the ball in from the deep, with a perfectly straight arm! So they went another way, it's simply "an optical illusion" because his wrists are double jointed. That was just laughed at, so now we are 'racists' and 'jealous' for calling a spade a spade...

 

[Darky]

It amazes me that doubts are never seriously pursued BEFORE alleged throwers play for their country. It really doesn't take much to get a video camera, position it at a few different angles and take some footage.

Instead of pushing players through the ranks unchecked, if there is any hint of doubt about a player's action, check him out while he is still a junior or a club cricketer, and sort it out then... there must be some forms of corrective action available.

Action when a player is in his teens, before he puts a case for first class or national selection, is preferable to casuing a controversy that engulfs a whole sport. Early action may also fix the problem, and ensure the player does not miss out on maximising his career prospects.

It might sound naive of me to think it, but surely it can't be that bloody difficult?

 

[Pies rock]

Originally posted by Darky
It amazes me that doubts are never seriously pursued BEFORE alleged throwers play for their country. It really doesn't take much to get a video camera, position it at a few different angles and take some footage.

Instead of pushing players through the ranks unchecked, if there is any hint of doubt about a player's action, check him out while he is still a junior or a club cricketer, and sort it out then... there must be some forms of corrective action available.

Action when a player is in his teens, before he puts a case for first class or national selection, is preferable to casuing a controversy that engulfs a whole sport. Early action may also fix the problem, and ensure the player does not miss out on maximising his career prospects.

It might sound naive of me to think it, but surely it can't be that bloody difficult?

The best way to do it, which I've seen done is take the footage and put it onto a computer simulator. It shows you whether the player is a chucker or not. You can also watch it without the hand or wrist and see Murali chuck.

Your right Darky, this should have been pursued before he strated playing for Sri Lanka...

 

[GoEagles]

Very interesting to read the late Sir Don Bradman's view on Murali.

"“Clearly Murali does not throw the ball. No effort in that direction is made or implied by him. His every effort is to direct the ball unto the batsman in the prescribed way, and his every effort - is to deceive the batsman! Murali wants to bamboozle, to trick, through flight and change of pace."

http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/cricket/bradman.html

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by GoEagles
Very interesting to read the late Sir Don Bradman's view on Murali.

"“Clearly Murali does not throw the ball. No effort in that direction is made or implied by him. His every effort is to direct the ball unto the batsman in the prescribed way, and his every effort - is to deceive the batsman! Murali wants to bamboozle, to trick, through flight and change of pace."

http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/cricket/bradman.html

Of course Muralitharan possesses the qualities of accuracy, guile, discipline and spotting and exploiting batsmen's weaknesses. In my opinion, it's also highly likely that Muralitharan's suspected throwing is NOT deliberate. It could just be a bad habit learned early that was never corrected, and is now second nature to him (thus meaning there may not be a great advantage because it IS his natural action).

But that's not the issue - if his arm straightens, he's throwing.

With respect to his obvious knowledge and standing in the game, Sir Donald was in near enough to 90 when he made his observations. How often would you normally trust the eye sight of a 90 year old?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Darky
It might sound naive of me to think it, but surely it can't be that bloody difficult?

Of course it's not, but you have to WANT to do it first Darky!

 

[RogerC]

Hey Dave. Thanks for the dressing down. Not sure I agree entirely with everything you've said, but I can see where you're coming from.

To me the photos I'm looking at on the page I mentioned earlier explain both the reason for the controversy and the legitimacy of Murali's action. A bent arm seen from a certain angle looks straight. Once he's past the umpire (ie releasing the ball) the umpire sees the first shot of figure 9, which looks straight,while the side-on view reveals the arm is still bent.

Your first paragraph confuses me. You talk as if a white bowler has never been cleared of chucking. Does the name Brett Lee ring a bell? I don't recall the subcontinental controversy after he was cleared. And I imagine that if the technology was there, Meckiff may well have been cleared of chucking too. Possibly.

As for all the misinformed stuff, I'm simply talking about those of us who are happy to sit back and call him a chucker because they've seen a video. Nothing against Darryl Hair, but it is a slur on all the other umpires who haven't called him, and continue not to call him, to claim that they are only doing so because they are weak. That may not be true.

The next paragraph - the one about how he may straighten his arm in the future - well, so may Brett Lee. What point are you trying to make? The tests were to see whether his action is illegal. They showed that it isn't. Of course they don't prove that his action might become illegal. But that applies to every bowler.

The rest I think I can ignore. The whole race card claim works both ways. A lot of us are going to portray subcontinentals who cheat and then hide behind the color of their skin. The more we say that about them, the more defensive they are going to get, the wider the divide between us and them. But that's a whole other issue.

 

[Booze Hound]

There was an interesting one on England's recent one day tour to Zimbabwe.

The Sussex pace bowler James Kirtley had his action criticised by the match referee despite all umpires involved in the game being happy with it.

IMHO, compared to Muttiah and the new Indian off spin 'bowler' Kirtley should have no problem. His action has been 'questioned' before but interestingly (I believe) only by Asian officials.

Kirtley's action is nowhere near as dubious as Shoaib Ahktar or Brett Lee as he was a year or so ago.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by RogerC
Hey Dave. Thanks for the dressing down.

*Grins* No charge

Not sure I agree entirely with everything you've said, but I can see where you're coming from.

To me the photos I'm looking at on the page I mentioned earlier explain both the reason for the controversy and the legitimacy of Murali's action. A bent arm seen from a certain angle looks straight. Once he's past the umpire (ie releasing the ball) the umpire sees the first shot of figure 9, which looks straight,while the side-on view reveals the arm is still bent.

Perhaps, but then the angle of the photos isn't necessarily what the umpire sees. I think he chucks, though not every ball. If I was the only person who thought this then I'd have no problem with him, however a number of experienced international umpires have reported his action in the past and that's good enough for me. He should have been told to modify his action as a few others have.

Your first paragraph confuses me. You talk as if a white bowler has never been cleared of chucking.

No, I was highlighting that white bowlers have been banned for chucking. Permanently too I might add. Makes a bit of a mockery of the claims of racism don't you think?

Does the name Brett Lee ring a bell? I don't recall the subcontinental controversy after he was cleared.

Lee was cleared by the process set up by the ICC, not by the personal intervention of the ICC president (Ahktar). Nor did the ACB carry on in the manner that the BCCSL did when Murali was called. Despite that there was still disquiet about it in the sc. Have a look in the usenet cricket groups and at google for some of the articles that appeared in indian newspapers. They were not happy.

And I imagine that if the technology was there, Meckiff may well have been cleared of chucking too. Possibly.

Possibly, moot point though. I highlighted Meckiff to show that the claims of racsim were bunkum.

As for all the misinformed stuff, I'm simply talking about those of us who are happy to sit back and call him a chucker because they've seen a video. Nothing against Darryl Hair, but it is a slur on all the other umpires who haven't called him, and continue not to call him, to claim that they are only doing so because they are weak. That may not be true.

Those that merely reported him initially were, though the way DH has been treated it's understandable (even if he brought some of that on his own head by the silly stuff he said in THAT book). Now that the rules have been changed they cannot call him.

The next paragraph - the one about how he may straighten his arm in the future - well, so may Brett Lee. What point are you trying to make?

That the umpires who stand Test matches should be empowered, as they once were, to call bowlers who's actions are suspect.

The tests were to see whether his action is illegal. They showed that it isn't.

No, they showed that his action in the nets where the tests were performed was legal. They have no bearing whatsoever on how he bowls in a Test match. How do you, or they, KNOW that he bowled the same way that he does in a Test? You can't, and that is why it should be left to the umpires.

Of course they don't prove that his action might become illegal. But that applies to every bowler.

Yes it does. Which again is why it should be left to etc etc.

The rest I think I can ignore. The whole race card claim works both ways. A lot of us are going to portray subcontinentals who cheat and then hide behind the color of their skin. The more we say that about them, the more defensive they are going to get, the wider the divide between us and them. But that's a whole other issue.

Mostly it's a difference in culture. It's no big deal to appeal all the time there but we see it as "cheasting". Sledging is not seen as a big deal here, within limites, but it's not quite received the same way there. What we need are for those that administer cricket not to stir the pot with claims of racism, but then they have their own agendas.

 

[RogerC]

Yep, all duly noted Dave. I'm not criticising your opinion, but I've always thought that bad sportsmanship has been worse for the game than an action that may or may not be suspect, and has never really been proven either way. (How's that for a bit of backtracking... ) I get angrier at the actions of Dalmiya, Ranatunga or Cronje than I do those of Murali. As a cricketer I have no problem with him, as a person he seems a nice guy. In demonising his delivery action, people appear to want to demonise him, and I don't like that.

The rest I'll leave to the armchair experts.

 

[Goldenblue]

He's a cheat and a thrower...

Now call me a racist...I have Indian blood

 

[London Dave]

I've never quite figured how doing some tests at the Uni of WA proves a guy doesnt chuck the odd one in a match. Run match footage thru a computer or whatever. My old science teacher once told me as soon as you start to measure something, you've interfered with the nature of it. Case in point here.

Roger, don't think anyone is trying to demonise the guy...by all accounts he is a good bloke, but I still reckon he chucks, not every ball.

 

[PaulSalmon_38]

WCE 2001 you r just aanother jealous piece of white trash...When he beats Fatguts Warney this country will have another sook..Funnily enough this is the only country that has a problem with his action...Says something doesnt it...

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by RogerC
Yep, all duly noted Dave. I'm not criticising your opinion, but I've always thought that bad sportsmanship has been worse for the game than an action that may or may not be suspect, and has never really been proven either way. (How's that for a bit of backtracking... )

Not bad Though nobody has to prove his action is bad, according to the laws if an umpire is not totally happy his action IS legal then it isn't.

I get angrier at the actions of Dalmiya, Ranatunga or Cronje than I do those of Murali.

Agreed

As a cricketer I have no problem with him, as a person he seems a nice guy. In demonising his delivery action, people appear to want to demonise him, and I don't like that.

Fair call. I have nothing against him personally at all.

The rest I'll leave to the armchair experts. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by PaulSalmon_38
Funnily enough this is the only country that has a problem with his action

Funnily enough a number of umpires who reported his action to the ICC are not Australian.

 

[PaulSalmon_38]

What are you tallking about..Darrell Hair and that other idiot called him...The idiot in bris called him for bowling leg spin and and you cant chuck bowliong that..YOu are all just jealous aussies cuz he is going to beat shane fatguts

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by PaulSalmon_38
What are you tallking about..

The dozen or so international umpires who reported him to the ICC over their concerns with his action, most of whom are not Australian.

Darrell Hair and that other idiot called him...The idiot in bris called him for bowling leg spin and and you cant chuck bowliong that..

I didn't say they called him, I said they reported him. Learn to read child.