• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Who the Aussies think are the best

Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
KaZoH0lic said:
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?
Click to expand...
They couldn't - but nor were they right to suspect Murali, because he was no different to 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?
Click to expand...
I'm a bit difficult in this case, because I only saw Murali for the first time in 1998, after the tests and when everyone with any sense knew he was fine.
I don't know what the feeling was before that, but I do know one thing - if someone looks bad, get him tested ASAP and then we'll all know one way or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top