Who the Aussies think are the best

[Top_Cat]

Vaas was the bowler that dominated Australia in the match that they lost, which is what I meant. Murali had a hand too, of course.

Vaas: 31 overs, 6/58 for the match
Murali: 51.1 overs, 7/128 for the match

Bit more than just 'playing his part'. Vaas took the early poles on day 1 but Murali knocked over Australia's two top-scorers for the match, took the two openers in the second dig and bowled nearly twice as many overs.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Vaas: 31 overs, 6/58 for the match
Murali: 51.1 overs, 7/128 for the match

Bit more than just 'playing his part'. Vaas took the early poles on day 1 but Murali knocked over Australia's two top-scorers for the match, took the two openers in the second dig and bowled nearly twice as many overs.

Fair enough. Personally, I always consider that the match in which Vaas, Gillespie and Waugh beat Australia, as it was his early burst that triggered Australia's first innings collapse, and the injuries which took all the fight out of the Australians. However, I'm happy to rephrase my original point to include the fact that Murali hasn't been in a successful test against Australia for 7 years, and most of the current Australian players weren't in that team. Their recent experiences against Murali are finding him tough but managable, like in Sri Lanka in 2004, and in the two recent VB Series he has played.

 

[Top_Cat]

Fair enough. Personally, I always consider that the match in which Vaas, Gillespie and Waugh beat Australia, as it was his early burst that triggered Australia's first innings collapse, and the injuries which took all the fight out of the Australians. However, I'm happy to rephrase my original point to include the fact that Murali hasn't been in a successful test against Australia for 7 years, and most of the current Australian players weren't in that team.

Meh, I'm just being a poo. Certainly agree that Murali has, especially in the last series, been 'good but not great'.

Incidentally, just got the significance of your username you Tool. Damn I'm slow sometimes........

 

[howardj]

Incidentally, just got the significance of your username you Tool. Damn I'm slow sometimes........

What is it?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Meh, I'm just being a poo. Certainly agree that Murali has, especially in the last series, been 'good but not great'.

Incidentally, just got the significance of your username you Tool. Damn I'm slow sometimes........

Only took 18 months or so.

Really, I just like the name, and the translation from Enochian (and the fact that nobody speaks Enochian also) suits my ego. Or maybe it doesn't, I dunno.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What is it?

It's a Tool song, hence the particular form of abuse.

Also means "voice of God".

 

[Richard]

Yeah there was a thread about this a while ago. Interesting stuff. The Freddy over Murali one surprised me, but it was immediately after the Ashes and Freddy had just demolished them so its fair enough.

Intreguing thing is, Flintoff bowled less well than Simon Jones!

 

[Richard]

You wonder whether a few on the team who have... reservations regarding Murali's action didn't vote for him because of that. At the same time, the Aussies have fairly deliberately sought to hit Murali out of some of their recent ODIs, with more success than not - perhaps they are deliberately downplaying his abilities to help themselves play well against him.

I'm not sure if that last sentence makes sense, but I guess what I'm saying is that they're seeking to do the opposite of what opposition teams normally do with Murali and Warne which is hypnotise themselves and defeat themselves before battle is even joined.

I think in recent times, Lara's cost Australia more tests than Tendaulkar. I'm surprised, if this is based on performances against Australia, they didn't nominate Vaughan or Laxman - the recent series against those guys have shown they rise to their best against the Aussies.

Not really - Vaughan can only be said to have won 1 Test against Australia (a dead game), and during the time Vaughan and Laxman scored the mountain of runs they did, they also scored plenty against other teams.
Tendulkar has certainly made plenty of contributions to beating or causing India to have superiority over Australia, too.

 

[Richard]

Fair enough. Personally, I always consider that the match in which Vaas, Gillespie and Waugh beat Australia, as it was his early burst that triggered Australia's first innings collapse

More accurately the twin early bursts of Vaas and Zoysa - the greatest moment of those two.

 

[Richard]

I don't wanna open up a can of worms with this, but a couple of years ago Murali action was illegal. So I don't blame the Aussies for thinking that under the past ICC bowling regulations. When the doosera became more controversial, the ICC changed the allowed degree of angle allowed when thou bowls which I agree with. Changing that rule and allowing Murali to bowl was a positive move in the developement of bowling.

The point I'm making is that back then the Aussies were technically right. Now that the rule has been changed, I don't think they, the English, or anybody else cares.

While you're right that Murali's action was illegal before the lancing of the false ideals, I don't agree that anyone was right to believe it so, because they believed it was illegal and most others weren't.
When, in fact, all actions were illegal - hence the ideals were false...

 

[Goughy]

While you're right that Murali's action was illegal before the lancing of the false ideals, I don't agree that anyone was right to believe it so, because they believed it was illegal and most others weren't.
When, in fact, all actions were illegal - hence the ideals were false...

WTF? Anyone understand that let alone agree with it?

 

[Jono]

Yes but I really don't want to engage in this argument, or have it fill this thread. But what he means is, going by the research done at the ICC Champions Trophy 2004, all bowlers (except Sarwan) breached the original bowling limit laws when they bowled. Not just Murali.

 

[luckyeddie]

WTF? Anyone understand that let alone agree with it?

I'm past trying to work Richard out. The game he espouses to is foreign to me - his opinions seem to be just a bit too far out there nowadays.

Perhaps it's a sign that I really am getting old.

 

[Ikki]

While you're right that Murali's action was illegal before the lancing of the false ideals, I don't agree that anyone was right to believe it so, because they believed it was illegal and most others weren't.
When, in fact, all actions were illegal - hence the ideals were false...

Hahaha, What the?!?! You mean everyone HAD a right to think it was illegal considering it looks so bad. I mean, for a while his main argument was an illusion. So you're saying after all this, they WEREN'T right to believe so?

 

[Richard]

It was an illusion. Murali's arm appeared to straighten vastly more than most people's did.
But it turned-out not to be that way.
The point I'm making - in case people don't understand - is that no-one was right to question Murali's action unless they questioned everyone else's too.

 

[Ikki]

It was an illusion. Murali's arm appeared to straighten vastly more than most people's did.
But it turned-out not to be that way.
The point I'm making - in case people don't understand - is that no-one was right to question Murali's action unless they questioned everyone else's too.

That's the disputed point here...

Whilst others LOOKED normal and Murali's didn't what reason would they have had to look at other people's actions when Murali's looks so terrible? I don't get it, you're blaming them over something, that within that time, they had no other reason not to think.

 

[honestbharani]

That's the disputed point here...

Whilst others LOOKED normal and Murali's didn't what reason would they have had to look at other people's actions when Murali's looks so terrible? I don't get it, you're blaming them over something, that within that time, they had no other reason not to think.

The reason his action looked worse than the others was because

a. He started with a bent elbow and it is amazing how many people don't know (even here at CW) that bowling with a bent arm is actually ok under the centuries old laws of cricket.


b. He has a physical deformity, which means he looks to be straightening his elbows more than he actually does. Apparently he is missing a bone or two in there, Shoaib Akhtar's is the opposite case. He has a couple of extra bones, I believe, with the result that he can never really completely straighten his elbow, even though his degree of flex was almost the same as few other bowlers around the world.

 

[Richard]

I think it's more a case of Shoaib (and James Kirtley - plus countless other bowlers down the years) having an arm that drops below 180degrees. Murali's arm only goes to about 160 or something.
Opposites, yes - but I've never heard of anything about Murali's arm being minus bones! As far as I've always been aware the illusion is caused by the simple fact that the arm is so obviously bent, whereas most arms are near enough 180degrees throughout action (probably give or take 5 degrees or so).

 

[Richard]

That's the disputed point here...

Whilst others LOOKED normal and Murali's didn't what reason would they have had to look at other people's actions when Murali's looks so terrible? I don't get it, you're blaming them over something, that within that time, they had no other reason not to think.

They did have reason to think something else - medical and biomechanical tests were done on Murali's elbow and bowling-action respectively, and it was PROVEN that his arm when fully straightened is at an obtuse angle (which most people's are not) and that there was no undue amount of straightening in his bowling-action.
The original point was that Murali broke the old rules and, so it turned-out, people were right to say that. But they were wrong to say that almost everyone else didn't, too.

 

[Ikki]

They did have reason to think something else - medical and biomechanical tests were done on Murali's elbow and bowling-action respectively, and it was PROVEN that his arm when fully straightened is at an obtuse angle (which most people's are not) and that there was no undue amount of straightening in his bowling-action.
The original point was that Murali broke the old rules and, so it turned-out, people were right to say that. But they were wrong to say that almost everyone else didn't, too.

Yes, that's not the point, it's only due to the tests done on Murali we've come to know that. The point is for what reason could they suspect anyone else? Pardon me, but if you think pre-biomechanics cricket Murali's action wasn't considered shotty based on looks than I'm not sure how to discuss this with you. What would you have had them do? Go after Pollack?