*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[SJS]

If I've understood your post fully you are in agreeance with me.

Hi KaZoH0lic,

Yes I am in agreement.

The problem is/has been made far too complex PLUS people are too emotionaly involved for it to be discussed objectively here so I try not to do it any more. Suffice it to say, I think ICC and its technical committee could have done a better job and given a simple solution which would have been effective enough PLUS they wouldnt have had to compromise on one of the basic concepts of cricket that the ball should be bowled and not thrown.

(Edit : All they have done is redefined the term "thrown" in a way or broadened its scope, if you may which is really avoiding the issue PLUS it hasnt made things any easier for anybody, umpires, batsmen and bowlers)

More than that I am not realy willing to discuss on this forum so please excuse me.

As far as Murali is concerned, I consider him a great bowler, the greatest off spinner ever. The fact that I have reservations about what should constitute a legal delivery in cricket has nothing to do with Murali. Unfortunately, most people are so lpost in their persnality or country related issues that its impossible for them to separate an argument on an issue from the personalities, countries (sometimes even religion and colour !!) involved.

For me this controversy is much greater than all the bowlers concerned. This will remain much after all these bowlers have hung up their shoes thats why they need to be discussed beyond personality related prejudices.

When I see arguments moving in that direction, I close shop. Not because one cant answer the arguments but because one can see the futility of it particularly on a format like the one offered by a chat site. Sometimes one would rather have others have the last (in some of the cases first to last) word and feel thrilled about it than get into futile debates.

To each his own.

Regards

 

[luckyeddie]

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.

He started to use hypnosis.

 

[Ikki]

Hi KaZoH0lic,

Yes I am in agreement.

The problem is/has been made far too complex PLUS people are too emotionaly involved for it to be discussed objectively here so I try not to do it any more. Suffice it to say, I think ICC and its technical committee could have done a better job and given a simple solution which would have been effective enough PLUS they wouldnt have had to compromise on one of the basic concepts of cricket that the ball should be bowled and not thrown.

(Edit : All they have done is redefined the term "thrown" in a way or broadened its scope, if you may which is really avoiding the issue PLUS it hasnt made things any easier for anybody, umpires, batsmen and bowlers)

More than that I am not realy willing to discuss on this forum so please excuse me.

As far as Murali is concerned, I consider him a great bowler, the greatest off spinner ever. The fact that I have reservations about what should constitute a legal delivery in cricket has nothing to do with Murali. Unfortunately, most people are so lpost in their persnality or country related issues that its impossible for them to separate an argument on an issue from the personalities, countries (sometimes even religion and colour !!) involved.

For me this controversy is much greater than all the bowlers concerned. This will remain much after all these bowlers have hung up their shoes thats why they need to be discussed beyond personality related prejudices.

When I see arguments moving in that direction, I close shop. Not because one cant answer the arguments but because one can see the futility of it particularly on a format like the one offered by a chat site. Sometimes one would rather have others have the last (in some of the cases first to last) word and feel thrilled about it

To each his own.

Regards

Dear SJS,

I understand your position and I pretty much agree with everything said by you. I am not one for arguments either, I have bias as any other person though so I guess it can get the better of an inexperienced poster(myself). One wishes arguments could be directly relating to the point rather than one's ego and need to prove oneself correct. Every issue can have it's opinions...and that is that...

Regards,

Kaz

 

[Pratters]

He started to use hypnosis.

That made me laugh out loud.

You are a genius.

 

[marc71178]

When Murali plays Zim, I'm assuming he picks up wickets from all over the batting order, not just the top-order. Hence when you remove any Zimmie wickets from his analysis, you remove wickets from all 3 categories, not just the tailender category, which essentially means that I dont see the proportions changing.

Yes, but what he has got is a lot of weak wickets. Just because they're not batting in the tail doesn't make them stronger than tailend wickets.

 

[social]

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.

Very true.

A prominent Aus coach, upon reading the new legislation, commented that he was going to send his young bowlers back to school and basically teach them how to throw the ball in their bowling action. It was his belief that, given the new laws, he would not be doing his job if he didnt teach youngsters to take advantage of the relaxation in standards.

My problem is not that Murali, or anyone else, has been declared legal under this new legislation.

My problem is that it:

a. has virtually done away with on-field sanctions for breaches of the law; and

b. has the potential to change the fundamentals (as they were generally recognised) of the bowling action.

 

[Top_Cat]

A prominent Aus coach, upon reading the new legislation, commented that he was going to send his young bowlers back to school and basically teach them how to throw the ball in their bowling action. It was his belief that, given the new laws, he would not be doing his job if he didnt teach youngsters to take advantage of the relaxation in standards.

See, this is part of the problem; how can he argue that he's taking advantage of a 'relaxation in standards' when there were none (quantifiable) before?

Anyway, the 15 degree limit isn't a relaxation in standards insomuch as it's an acknowledgement that all bowlers, inadvertently, display flexion when trying to bowl with a straight arm. To not do so would be to have steel bones and hinges instead of ligaments and tendons.

a. has virtually done away with on-field sanctions for breaches of the law; and

As shoud be the case. The umpires are not in the best position to judge whether a bowler throws or not. That much is surely beyond dispute anymore. This is, in-part, shown by the reaction when flexion measurements were done for all bowlers and those who it was believed had ramrod-straight arms, in fact, didn't

b. has the potential to change the fundamentals (as they were generally recognised) of the bowling action.

How? The flexion limit of 15 degrees allows for natural flexion and little more. 15 degrees isn't much so if you had it in your mind to deliberately throw the ball to gain an advantage, to keep the degree of bend within 15 degrees would be very, very difficult. So to argue that we're suddenly going to be seeing a generation of deliberate pingers is to not realise just how small 15 degrees is in the context of natural human movement. We may see a few bowlers certainly try to do so but I'd be pretty confident they wouldn't get anywhere.

 

[social]

See, this is part of the problem; how can he argue that he's taking advantage of a 'relaxation in standards' when there were none (quantifiable) before?

Anyway, the 15 degree limit isn't a relaxation in standards insomuch as it's an acknowledgement that all bowlers, inadvertently, display flexion when trying to bowl with a straight arm. To not do so would be to have steel bones and hinges instead of ligaments and tendons.



As shoud be the case. The umpires are not in the best position to judge whether a bowler throws or not. That much is surely beyond dispute anymore. This is, in-part, shown by the reaction when flexion measurements were done for all bowlers and those who it was believed had ramrod-straight arms, in fact, didn't



How? The flexion limit of 15 degrees allows for natural flexion and little more. 15 degrees isn't much so if you had it in your mind to deliberately throw the ball to gain an advantage, to keep the degree of bend within 15 degrees would be very, very difficult. So to argue that we're suddenly going to be seeing a generation of deliberate pingers is to not realise just how small 15 degrees is in the context of natural human movement. We may see a few bowlers certainly try to do so but I'd be pretty confident they wouldn't get anywhere.

Much of what you say is true. However:

1. it's proven that well over 90% of bowlers have less than 13 degrees of flexion in their actions. As such, a coach would be well within his rights to "modify" the action of a bowler that otherwise appears to posess a "standard" action to enable him to get more work on the ball as substantial modifications can be achieved without danger of breaching the threshold.

Likewise, the incentive to rectify any perceived jerkiness in a bowler's action is lessened because tolerance levels "appear" to have relaxed.

Unfortunately, the coach made these comments after having witnessed the actions of a stream of youngsters at a junior tournament on the sub-continent - none of whom were coming under scrutiny despite looking dodgy. His view was akin to "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em."

2. As weve seen in the case of Shabbir, the new laws allow a bowler that is, in the opinion of the umpires, apparently breaking the laws of the game repeatedly, to play an influential part in the match.

Given that they cited at least 7 deliveries (and I think everyone would agree that that was being extremely generous) that required further investigation, I would have thought that the fairest result was simply to remove him from the attack.

Bowlers' running on the pitch only get a few opportunities, whilst apparent chuckers can continue unchallenged.

 

[honestbharani]

Much of what you say is true. However:

1. it's proven that well over 90% of bowlers have less than 13 degrees of flexion in their actions. As such, a coach would be well within his rights to "modify" the action of a bowler that otherwise appears to posess a "standard" action to enable him to get more work on the ball as substantial modifications can be achieved without danger of breaching the threshold.

Likewise, the incentive to rectify any perceived jerkiness in a bowler's action is lessened because tolerance levels "appear" to have relaxed.

Unfortunately, the coach made these comments after having witnessed the actions of a stream of youngsters at a junior tournament on the sub-continent - none of whom were coming under scrutiny despite looking dodgy. His view was akin to "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em."

2. As weve seen in the case of Shabbir, the new laws allow a bowler that is, in the opinion of the umpires, apparently breaking the laws of the game repeatedly, to play an influential part in the match.

Given that they cited at least 7 deliveries (and I think everyone would agree that that was being extremely generous) that required further investigation, I would have thought that the fairest result was simply to remove him from the attack.

Bowlers' running on the pitch only get a few opportunities, whilst apparent chuckers can continue unchallenged.

yeah, but since so much exhaustive analysis is required before coming to a conclusion, we just have to live with it. I mean, if someone takes performance enhancing drugs (and I have NO intention of dragging Warney into this, just a hypothetical scenario), it is only found out after the game. But that won't change the result of the game in which the player who took the drug may have played an important part. This is pretty much the same scenario.


For example, they pulled up Harbhajan for a suspect action during the test series against Pakistan but the tests showed later that he was very much within the limits. So how unfair it would have been if he had been banned from bowling in that match. It is the old adage really "innocent till proven guilty" and since there is no way an umpire can unequivocally PROVE that a certain bowler has been violating the laws, it is better to do it this way.

 

[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.

Is there anywhere we're able to get a copy of the findings from the Champions Trophy etc too? I've been wanting to have a look at exactly what this 'everyone chucks' notion is based on, as I have my doubts 'everyone' does...but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

 

[social]

Is there anywhere we're able to get a copy of the findings from the Champions Trophy etc too? I've been wanting to have a look at exactly what this 'everyone chucks' notion is based on, as I have my doubts 'everyone' does...but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Also have a look for findings of University of WA and Uni of Wellington

 

[social]

yeah, but since so much exhaustive analysis is required before coming to a conclusion, we just have to live with it. I mean, if someone takes performance enhancing drugs (and I have NO intention of dragging Warney into this, just a hypothetical scenario), it is only found out after the game. But that won't change the result of the game in which the player who took the drug may have played an important part. This is pretty much the same scenario.


For example, they pulled up Harbhajan for a suspect action during the test series against Pakistan but the tests showed later that he was very much within the limits. So how unfair it would have been if he had been banned from bowling in that match. It is the old adage really "innocent till proven guilty" and since there is no way an umpire can unequivocally PROVE that a certain bowler has been violating the laws, it is better to do it this way.

All true but unfortunately the powers-that-be have left the decision making power in the hands of the umpire but have effectively neutred them when it comes to calling someone for chucking.

What's to stop a bowler from utilising an illegal action?

The threat of a report.

Does anyone really think that that is what's going through a bowler's mind in the middle of a test match?

Fortunately, the pakistanis won the final test of the recent campaign to put the issue beyond doubt. Had they failed to do so, the English could quite rightly have pointed to Shabbir's involvement in the first test and claimed that the series victory was tainted.

This is one area of the game where the rule makers have had an each-way bet.

In all other areas, decision making is made either by umpires on the field or by the third umpire with the assistance of technology. In both cases, it is instantaneous.

IMO, the ICC has simply attempted to remove this controversial issue as far as possible from the cricket field but has left it open to continued abuse.

 

[Deja moo]

Yes, but what he has got is a lot of weak wickets. Just because they're not batting in the tail doesn't make them stronger than tailend wickets.

Yes, and for the last time, you could remove all of those minnow wickets from his career stats, and he would still have a lesser proportion of tailender wickets than Warne ( get it ? not a single minnow wicket included in the analysis this time ).

 

[C_C]

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).

Perhaps. But i do know and understand the fundamentals of science and the science behind chucking. Every bowler is a chucker according to the old law. Can you deal with that simple fact ?

 

[C_C]

1. it's proven that well over 90% of bowlers have less than 13 degrees of flexion in their actions. As such, a coach would be well within his rights to "modify" the action of a bowler that otherwise appears to posess a "standard" action to enable him to get more work on the ball as substantial modifications can be achieved without danger of breaching the threshold.

You have any idea how much 13 degrees is ? Or how much mean displacement it is over the span of 2 feet( approx. arm length) ?
If a bowler can control his elbow movement to a few degrees, he'd have to concentrate far more on the elbow than on the delivery and would be worse than a club level bowler.

 

[social]

You have any idea how much 13 degrees is ? Or how much mean displacement it is over the span of 2 feet( approx. arm length) ?
If a bowler can control his elbow movement to a few degrees, he'd have to concentrate far more on the elbow than on the delivery and would be worse than a club level bowler.

People are training themselves to do it as we speak.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Bowling skill is irrelevant - the legitimacy of the action is the first priority.

 

[displaced]

Numbers dont tell the whole story- just the biggest friggin part of it.
.

Do you actually watch the cricket, or feast your eyes upon the scoreboard as it ticks over?

 

[social]

Bowling skill is irrelevant - the legitimacy of the action is the first priority.

It always used to be the case that a coach, at the most basic level, would provide assistance to youngsters to bowl with a "legitimate" or straight-arm action.

Unfortunately, I get the feeling were entering an era where near enough is good enough because now people can sit back and say "well, theoretically everyone chucks so we'll let the scientists decide down the line."

The latter approach might, in time, prove to be correct. However, in the mean time it's my prediction that we'll see an increasing no. of emerging players with less than traditional-style actions.

 

[C_C]

Do you actually watch the cricket, or feast your eyes upon the scoreboard as it ticks over?

Both actually.