*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

At least one might be naughty enough to suggest that whatever changed in him post Jan 1998 is what makes him the great bowler we know and without that change he may have been another ordinary off spinner (very ordinary indeed from the suggestion of those first SIX years)??

By that logic, one might be 'naughty enough' to suggest that whatever changed Sachin Tendulkar in the mid 90s is what made him the great batsman we know and without that change, he may have been another ordinary batsman ( very ordinary indeed from the suggestion of those first few years of his caeer).

PS: Murali didnt develop the doosra till the new millenium.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I think you'll find you were informed reliably in the first place, so you should pat whomever that was on the back and say "mate, you were right". Whomever's told you different has their facts wrong. Hyperextension is NOT related to the current tolerance levels, and isn't considered as an illegal action by the ICC.

From the recommendations of the Bowling Review panel:

- Clarifying that the focus of the rules is to concentrate on bowlers who straighten their arm from the flexed position during their bowling action rather than on those players who involuntarily hyperextend (i.e. move the arm backwards) or whose arm moves sideways at the elbow joint during the bowling action.

From page 9 of the current (subsequent to the March 2005 rule changes) Procedure for the Review of Bowlers with Suspect Bowling Actions at the ICC's website:

1.4 The ICC has determined that it is the degree of elbow extension, as opposed to hyperextension or abduction/adduction that is prohibited. Elbow hyperextension and elbow abduction/adduction are involuntary movements that cannot be controlled by the individual during the bowling action.

Fantastic! Thank god that's the way it is assessed, anything else would be bordering on the ridiculous. Thanks for clearing that up mate!

 

[Deja moo]

No, the original point was nothing to do with weightings of tailend wickets after Zimbabwe and Bangladesh were taken out of things, which seems to be what Moo is arguing. It was simply to do with the amount of wickets Murali gets against Minnows, it wasn't anything to do with tailend wickets after they're taken out.

Its not a point at all if you to latch onto it and stop there. You'd be wasting your time. Yes, Murali does have many minnowy wickets, and therefore they need to be deducted from his record, so to say.

We're in agreement thus far.

Next, run a breakdown of wickets captured by Murali and Warne based on batting order, after removing all minnow wickets from the equation. You'll still find Warne takes a higher proportion of tailend wickets.(And dont give me that same BS about how Zimmie top order wickets are worthless. Its true, but irrelevant now since It doesnt influence this comparison at this stage. They've all been discounted, havent they ????).

Now this is the point you're ignoring. All you're doing is walking halfway down a path and stopping at a point convenient to your argument. Then you've been playing like a broken record with that half-done analysis. Walk the whole distance I say.

 

[Top_Cat]

By that logic, one might be 'naughty enough' to suggest that whatever changed Sachin Tendulkar in the mid 90s is what made him the great batsman we know and without that change, he may have been another ordinary batsman ( very ordinary indeed from the suggestion of those first few years of his caeer).

His numbers early-on were still fantastic and I don't think there was any doubt he'd be a great. I have footage of his 148* at the SCG and it, for a seasoned Test player let alone a 19-year-old bloke, was masterful. The 114 he scored at the WACA was a great counter-punch knock too. Both knocks were studies in batsmanship; the 148* had every shot and was a highly orthodox knock. The 114 was a time where his side was in trouble and his ability to improvise in conditions which would have been completeley foreign to him came to the fore.

His record after that knock was 16 matches, 951 runs, 3 100's, 4 50's, ave 43.22. After a subsequently ordinary series against SA, he biffed the daylights out of Zim and from there onwards, his average rarely dipped sub-50. My personal opinion was that what changed him was his greater propensity to knock the ball into the stands. Early-on, he was an extremely orthodox player who had an uncanny knack for hitting the holes in the field. It was when he started hitting well over the fence that I thought he became a world-beater. I'm pretty sure consistent success as an opener in ODI's was responsible in-part for this too.

As for Murali, I think that around 1998 he started to not rely so heavily on just ripping the ball and using his head a lot more. Since then, his numbers speak for themselves, really. And, if anything, I say his introduction of the doosra has resulted in a lesser bowler. Against guys who were new to it, it was a potent weapon. Now people are used to it, I'm definitely in the camp who says he over-uses it. It must be hard not to if you can turn a doosra more than most leggies can turn the ball but, as was shown in the Super Test, his orthodoxy as an off-spinner makes him great. THAT spell was, well, wicked.

 

[Ikki]

This comming from somoene commenting about who chucks and who doesnt based on pure personal prejudice and not facts ?

No, the original point was nothing to do with weightings of tailend wickets after Zimbabwe and Bangladesh were taken out of things, which seems to be what Moo is arguing. It was simply to do with the amount of wickets Murali gets against Minnows, it wasn't anything to do with tailend wickets after they're taken out.

Thanks for being Tom .

Blah Blah, BlahBlahBlah Blah....Blah....Murali is the coolest

For every point you make, maybe it's better to look at the other side of the coin. Having a good support in bowling can help as well as demean your bowling performances. That is just one example of many that others have constantly tried to bang into consciousness here.

BTW, you consider everyone a chucker based on what I see as a flawed law. That "fact" as you say was flawed and in the only capacity can one argue is in common-sense. If you were less of a stats man and maybe had played cricket even at amatuer level you may consider what I say weighting with such a quality, a.k.a common sense. For me, you either lack one or both: Common sense; Cricketing knowledge(not stats, the game itself).

 

[SJS]

BTW, you consider everyone a chucker based on what I see as a flawed law. That "fact" as you say was flawed and in the only capacity can one argue is in common-sense. If you were less of a stats man and maybe had played cricket even at amatuer level you may consider what I say weighting with such a quality, a.k.a common sense. For me, you either lack one or both: Common sense; Cricketing knowledge(not stats, the game itself).

You know KaZoH0lic To say the law is flawed is to allow Gavaskar and his technical committee to get off with just an error - a flaw. This is worse. Here they clearly decided what they wanted to achieve and then framed a law that would allow it.

This is one of the most ill intentioned bits of legislations to come out of the cricketing body in many a year. Unfortunately a lot of the Asian countries ( I feel sorry saying that as an Indian but its a fact that we need to face up to) were supportive of this kind of a measure and they are the one's that carried the day. It is here that Wasim's protestations about Goras running ICC are so blatantly shallow. If that was the case this law would have never seen the light of day.

Its not helping us either. Bowlers, more so in Pakistan it would appear, young bowlers, have decided the laws have changed and bowling actions across the board in the countryside are changing. I was in Delhi last month and went to see the nets of a prominent senior division club. I was stunned at the bowling actions that were going through. The coach was not bothered.

Now this angle bit is not something a bowler can control. Most of them have no clue as to what is the degree of flex. Even the umpires in the league games cant check. So it goes on.

Then we will have a poor Shabbir anfd another career will be at stake.

 

[Dasa]

BTW, you consider everyone a chucker based on what I see as a flawed law. That "fact" as you say was flawed and in the only capacity can one argue is in common-sense. If you were less of a stats man and maybe had played cricket even at amatuer level you may consider what I say weighting with such a quality, a.k.a common sense. For me, you either lack one or both: Common sense; Cricketing knowledge(not stats, the game itself).

What do you suggest in place of this so-called flawed law then? Like it or not, it is a fact that the vast majority of bowlers 'chuck' the ball, so is it not unfair to punish one bowler merely because his action looks worse to the naked eye although it doesn't provide him any unfair advantage? Would you prefer that umpires, who clearly do not have the capacity to judge whether a bowler is 'chucking' or not just by watchin have the right to end a bowlers career merely because his action is different?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Alright, can we stop at the cold, hard facts?

Warne takes more tailend wickets.

Murali takes more minnow wickets.

These are both results of circumstance - McGrath and co. remove the top order before Warne can, and Murali has played a large chunk of his career against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

These circumstances are beyond both bowlers' control. It does not affect, and is not a reflection on, their innate skill, guile or overall ability.

Murali has been proven to take established wickets and Warne regularly wipes out top orders. In essence, a negative stigma has been created around both tweakers where one cannot justifiably be placed, as there is contradictory evidence by the bucketload.

Can we leave it at that?

 

[SJS]

Can we leave it at that?

I support the motion

 

[Ikki]

You know KaZoH0lic To say the law is flawed is to allow Gavaskar and his technical committee to get off with just an error - a flaw. This is worse. Here they clearly decided what they wanted to achieve and then framed a law that would allow it.

This is one of the most ill intentioned bits of legislations to come out of the cricketing body in many a year. Unfortunately a lot of the Asian countries ( I feel sorry saying that as an Indian but its a fact that we need to face up to) were supportive of this kind of a measure and they are the one's that carried the day. It is here that Wasim's protestations about Goras running ICC are so blatantly shallow. If that was the case this law would have never seen the light of day.

Its not helping us either. Bowlers, more so in Pakistan it would appear, young bowlers, have decided the laws have changed and bowling actions across the board in the countryside are changing. I was in Delhi last month and went to see the nets of a prominent senior division club. I was stunned at the bowling actions that were going through. The coach was not bothered.

Now this angle bit is not something a bowler can control. Most of them have no clue as to what is the degree of flex. Even the umpires in the league games cant check. So it goes on.

Then we will have a poor Shabbir anfd another career will be at stake.

If I've understood your post fully you are in agreeance with me. You are right by the way, flaw is a weak word. I originally used it to describe the law that was made before the Murali controversy and that led to everyone being called a 'chucker'. The fact is, that for a long time, even with this law being 'flawed' it was adhered to properly. Now that because in text we failed to describe the proper action of a bowl we are of an open opinion now of what is a throw and what is not. Let's not get into the science of the matter and compare the law then to what the law is now. It was of the culture and universally agreed what is an acceptable bowl of the ball.

What do you suggest in place of this so-called flawed law then? Like it or not, it is a fact that the vast majority of bowlers 'chuck' the ball, so is it not unfair to punish one bowler merely because his action looks worse to the naked eye although it doesn't provide him any unfair advantage? Would you prefer that umpires, who clearly do not have the capacity to judge whether a bowler is 'chucking' or not just by watchin have the right to end a bowlers career merely because his action is different?

I think like the English legal/poltical system we have to take into account unwritten laws and abide by them in the same way if it were written. The confusion is that we had a proper idea of what it was to throw and had a verbal possible cultural agreeance to what was a 'chuck'. However, because the law that was written did not cover all bases we have ultimately come to the point to where we are now, and what SJS described is only the makings of an even worse scenario in the future.

I think we have to make a conscious decision, even if it isn't an accurate science to let bowlers bowl, and if an umpire formulates it as a 'chuck' let that action be under review by top bowlers and the decision be a majority of opinion. Because the proper action, I would assume, is not something that is mathematically grounded, and if it were to be it would ALSO need the approvement of qualified personal to give their 2 cents. My argument is not about the hyper-extension or the angle, it is a plain sight to see when one is bowling incorrectly.

 

[Dasa]

I think we have to make a conscious decision, even if it isn't an accurate science to let bowlers bowl, and if an umpire formulates it as a 'chuck' let that action be under review by top bowlers and the decision be a majority of opinion. Because the proper action, I would assume, is not something that is mathematically grounded, and if it were to be it would ALSO need the approvement of qualified personal to give their 2 cents. My argument is not about the hyper-extension or the angel, it is a plain sight to see when one is bowling incorrectly.

Why on earth should cricket be exempt from science then? Is it such a sacred game that you can allow people who have no real knowledge of a particular field (biomechanics) to make a decision relating to that field? The fact is that things change, and cricket has, and will continue to change. As knowledge increases, the laws will be refined further, and I think it is foolish to just hold on to tradition just for the sake of it when doing so can have such an impact on a bowlers career. Cricket exists in the real world, not some idealised world where only gentlemen play the game and everyone has tea and scones after the game.
At any rate, your argument seems to be based on some notion that it is the look of the action, rather than the action itself that defines what is a chuck. How this argument can be supported by any sort of logic is beyond me...

 

[Ikki]

Why on earth should cricket be exempt from science then? Is it such a sacred game that you can allow people who have no real knowledge of a particular field (biomechanics) to make a decision relating to that field? The fact is that things change, and cricket has, and will continue to change. As knowledge increases, the laws will be refined further, and I think it is foolish to just hold on to tradition just for the sake of it when doing so can have such an impact on a bowlers career. Cricket exists in the real world, not some idealised world where only gentlemen play the game and everyone has tea and scones after the game.
At any rate, your argument seems to be based on some notion that it is the look of the action, rather than the action itself that defines what is a chuck. How this argument can be supported by any sort of logic is beyond me...

Let me answer your question with another question then: Do you think Umpires should be replaced with a computer that has camera's on all neccessary points to make the decisions correct 99.9% of the time?

Essentially, this is the same thing my friend. You are right however, the game will improve and evolve but what will remain constant is the professional approach to a professional game. Cricket is not about teas and scones and I don't know where that came from? You cannot define the action of a bowl coherently or as accurately as would need be to use such science to the letter of the law. It is in this judgement, that what is a chuck or not should be review by the professionals in respect to the culture of the game and how it was intended to be played.

I also wish to add that if one does not honour this facet of the game, then the whole sport will be changed, and it will no longer BE cricket. That is a radical view of what is a very plausible forecast. Didn't Rugby start when a player decided to handle the ball in a football/soccer match and run with it?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Why on earth should cricket be exempt from science then? Is it such a sacred game that you can allow people who have no real knowledge of a particular field (biomechanics) to make a decision relating to that field? The fact is that things change, and cricket has, and will continue to change. As knowledge increases, the laws will be refined further, and I think it is foolish to just hold on to tradition just for the sake of it when doing so can have such an impact on a bowlers career. Cricket exists in the real world, not some idealised world where only gentlemen play the game and everyone has tea and scones after the game.
At any rate, your argument seems to be based on some notion that it is the look of the action, rather than the action itself that defines what is a chuck. How this argument can be supported by any sort of logic is beyond me...

Cricket's more than a science. It is an art. With all arts come traditions, and one of those traditions IMO is that a true chuck is visible to the naked eye.

If they are a chucker, they will be called on the field of play. Demanding that would-be throwers are scrutinised by scientific equipment strikes me as a witch-hunt of sorts.

 

[Top_Cat]

Cricket's more than a science. It is an art. With all arts come traditions, and one of those traditions IMO is that a true chuck is visible to the naked eye.

Shoaib Akhtar is the perfect example of a bowler who chucks to the naked-eye but upon closer examination, does nothing of the sort. Most people I know didn't even know what a hyper-extension was until he was looked-at. This is why people with dubious actions should be cited but not punished by umpires on the field of play because they are not in the best position (or even a good one) to determine whether a bowler chucks or not.

 

[honestbharani]

Only because he is tested in a laboratory rather than on the field

His action from on the field is tested as well, and if it is found to vary from his lab action, he can be banned/fined/whatever. The same happened with Shabbir.

 

[honestbharani]

I dont recall exactly when Murali started bowling the doosra but his bowling figures before and after 1998 are remarkable and need revisiting.

PERIOD - Matches - Wkts - 5w/I - 10w/T - Avg - SRate - Eco Rate - W/Test - Tests/5W - Tests/10W

1992-97 ----- 34 ---------135 ------9 ------ 0 ------31.2 ----- 72.1 ---- 43.2 ---------- 3.97 ----- 3.8 ---------- NA

1998-05 ----- 65 -------- 449 ---- 39 ---- 14 -----19.8 ------ 52.0 ---- 38.0 ---------- 6.91 ----- 1.7 ---------- 4.6

Clearly he is a changed bowler since 1998.

At least one might be naughty enough to suggest that whatever changed in him post Jan 1998 is what makes him the great bowler we know and without that change he may have been another ordinary off spinner (very ordinary indeed from the suggestion of those first SIX years)??

I am almost 100% sure he didn't have a doosra worth speaking about till 2000/2001.

 

[honestbharani]

Cricket's more than a science. It is an art. With all arts come traditions, and one of those traditions IMO is that a true chuck is visible to the naked eye.

If they are a chucker, they will be called on the field of play. Demanding that would-be throwers are scrutinised by scientific equipment strikes me as a witch-hunt of sorts.

Every art is closely involved with science and in fact, every art grows a few levels because of help from science. From movies to sports, it happens everywhere. To argue against science is to waste your time, because science simply means "studying how things work" and only if you know how something works can you actually improve it. And given how much science has improved our lives (sure there are negatives, but there are a lot more positives), I don't see any reason why science shouldn't be allowed a chance to improve the game we love so much.

 

[Ikki]

Lol, you'd hope mirages would be more attractive than this.

 

[SJS]

I am almost 100% sure he didn't have a doosra worth speaking about till 2000/2001.

You may be right. I dont know honestly. One can check if one wanted I suppose.

 

[Pratters]

At least one might be naughty enough to suggest that whatever changed in him post Jan 1998 is what makes him the great bowler we know and without that change he may have been another ordinary off spinner (very ordinary indeed from the suggestion of those first SIX years)??

I am not going to be naughty and suggest any thing..

But I do remember Murali was played with ease by Indians in the early part of his career. He was a no threat bowler. It was very surprising to me when he started taking 5 wickets an inning and 10 wickets a match so regularly.