• 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.

For Australians

Do you believe Muttiah Muralitharan throws, in any guise?


  • Total voters
    51

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Michael Slater said:
In Australia, there is an almost universal belief Muralitharan is a chucker
I'd say that on CW this trend is far less obvious than he suggests. But I'm interested - interested enough to take the risk. Hopefully this might be doable without the usual descent into the usual crap, and with no C_C around I'm filled with a microcosm of hope. For the many anti-Murali-is-a-chucker brigade - myself firmly amongst said ranks - I'd ask that you resist the temptation. If someone makes a "he's blatantly a chucker, I can see it with my own eyes" please - just leave it this once. :) That's not to say I mind comments from other Australian-dwellers sharing their experience of the population at large.

(I'll take those who vote for the Dasa option as a no, BTW ;) And I should add non-Aussie, non-Dasa votes will be disqualified :p)
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Amongst the well-educated cricket public of Australia who actually interact with people from other countries and don't get the watered down bias as much - ie. those who post at CW - it is much less common, I'd say, to believe he is a chucker. However, average Joe Bloggs cricket fan in Australia definitely thinks he is a chucker; it is said almost as fact between your average fans.

My personal opinion on the matter is that he bowls within the limits set out by the rules currently, so he is fine. I don't think his action would be legal under the true spirit in which the laws were originally written, but I really don't care, TBH. Laws change, mostly for the better, and in this case they were changed to give some clarity and some boundries to a grey area. I'd hate to think that the cricketing world would have missed out on such a great bowler. Given all that, I'm going the Dasa option.
 
Last edited:

dontcloseyoureyes

BARNES OUT
My personal opinion on the matter is that he bowls within the limits set out by the rules currently, so he is fine. I don't think his action would be legal under the true spirit in which the laws were originally written, but I really don't care, TBH.
Agree with this to the very last word.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Amongst the well-educated cricket public of Australia who actually interact with people from other countries and don't get the watered down bias as much - ie. those who post at CW - it is much less common, I'd say, to believe he is a chucker. However, average Joe Bloggs cricket fan in Australia definitely thinks he is a chucker; it is said almost as fact between your average fans.

My personal opinion on the matter is that he bowls within the limits set out by the rules currently, so he is fine. I don't think his action would be legal under the true spirit in which the laws were originally written, but I really don't care, TBH. Laws change, mostly for the better, and in this case they were changed to give some clarity and some boundries to a grey area. I'd hate to think that the cricketing would would have missed out on such a great bowler. Given all that, I'm going the Dasa option.
Agree with this.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah ditto.

Fully appreciate I'm not Australian, but it's rare to read a post I agree with so wholeheartedly.
No rule against non-Aussies posting, it's just of less interest (to me) for Brits because I'm fairly well aware of the consensus on the ground over here. :p And Slats' comment didn't have anything to do with us.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't think his action would be legal under the true spirit in which the laws were originally written
Incidentally, neither do I. But nor would anyone else's. Nor do I blame those writing the rules in 1852 or whenever; they didn't have the knowledge we now have, and could only write the rules according to what they did know. When new knowledge is acquired, the rules are rewritten according to it.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
The question is sort of a pointless one, now.

As EWS said, he doesn't chuck under the current rules, at least not consistently, with any of his deliveries. I do think the rules have been changed specifically to accomodate him, and I do think that's going to be bad for the game in the long run, but that's not really Murali's fault.

Am I a fan of the current rules regarding chucking? No. Murali doesn't break them, though.
 

cameeel

International Captain
To an extent I agree with Prince EWS, however the fact that they have changed the rules to accomodate Murali means that personally whatever tally he ends up with will mean very little in my eyes.
I enjoy watching him bowl, but I don't believe that he should be classified amongst the greats; solely because that under the rules which the previous x'000 Test cricketers have played under, his action would be deemed illegal.
 

Julian87

State Captain
I agree with most of these sentiments, but IMO he throws 100%. They changed the rules for him which i still can not fathom.

Noone can tell this percent of a degree, so therefore he is a protected species because an umpire can not no ball him without repucussions. I am really annoyed by that. I see it as the same as someone with a foot problem overstepping and the umpire not being able to rule on it. Umpires are an integral part of cricket and now their powers are diminishing, the whole spirit and etiquette of the game will be effected.

The one thing that irks me and proves to me that his bowling action is illegal is that if a junior emulates it in Australia, it is stamped out immediately. I have seen this on a few occassions when a junior cricketer has worked on their wristy off spin, get to the next level nd the coaches/officials there tell them they have to fix their action. Why one rule for one person and not one for everyone else?
 

cameeel

International Captain
The main issue I have with the accuracy of Slater's comments is that Murali's action was tested in laboratory conditions, which for mine means that the findings must be taken with a grain of salt. Surely, as Shane Warne has just suggested, he should be tested under Test match conditions rather than in a laboratory?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
For the many anti-Murali-is-a-chucker brigade - myself firmly amongst said ranks - I'd ask that you resist the temptation. If someone makes a "he's blatantly a chucker, I can see it with my own eyes" please - just leave it this once. :)
Worth reiterating, I think.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Incidentally, neither do I. But nor would anyone else's. Nor do I blame those writing the rules in 1852 or whenever; they didn't have the knowledge we now have, and could only write the rules according to what they did know. When new knowledge is acquired, the rules are rewritten according to it.
No, there's a difference between the letter of the original laws and the spirit of them. I don't believe the original laws were written to outlaw bowlers like McGrath and Asif, for example. Even though they did actually outlaw them if you follow the letter of the law, that was not the spirit in which they were written in. I do believe they were written to outlaw bowlers like Murali though, but as I said, I really don't care and I think the rule change is a good one as it gives some definite boundries.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, that's what I was trying to say. The law then - and until the false ideals were exploded very recently - was based on the presumption that almost all bowlers never straightened their arms; and that if they appeared to be straightening them, then they were.

As this was all that these people knew, we could not blame them for acting in the way they did. They could not know how poor a tool the human eye was, and hence could not know that all bowlers had some amount of elbow-straightening; nor that some elbows which actually straightened no more than others could appear to do so. They thought the Asifs and McGraths obeyed said laws, so, basically, they did, because no-one knew they didn't.

The law may have been factually wrong, but morally (spiritually? Spiritually-of-cricket?) it wasn't, because they didn't know it was wrong at the time. Same way anyone who says Hair did the wrong thing in 1995\96 is actually speaking out-of-line, because he acted as it was seen fit to act by what was known at the time.
 

The_Bunny

State Regular
Not so sure he doesnt chuck, but I still belive his is one of the best, if not the best bowler ever.
Saying they I would really like to see him tested in a match situation.
 

Malleeboy

U19 12th Man
He is a champion bowler, and appears to be a great guy. However given his action (especially the doosra) I can't see how at the end of the fifth day after having bowled the truckload of overs that he does in many matches, he wouldn't get tired. As he tires and has to put extras effort in during a match, I think it a reasonable suggestion to make that his action might deginerate slightly from what he did in a lab.


The current situation is untenable(IMHO). An umpire suggest someone is chucking in tests and he is referred. Tests in the lab show he is OK. So he gets a clean slate and he goes back to bowling. How do you really control a guy whose action deginerates at the end of the day in pressure situations but whose normal action is within the limits. He will test everytime as OK, and it may only be several balls a day that have a problem.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd like to say something in response to that, but I don't wish this thread (of which the question is all that I'm interested in) to be tangled-up in that. Could you check here for said response.
 

Julian87

State Captain
The current situation is untenable(IMHO). An umpire suggest someone is chucking in tests and he is referred. Tests in the lab show he is OK. So he gets a clean slate and he goes back to bowling. How do you really control a guy whose action deginerates at the end of the day in pressure situations but whose normal action is within the limits. He will test everytime as OK, and it may only be several balls a day that have a problem.
Best comment on the matter IMO.

The power of the umpire has been taken away, so when he acatually does break the law (if he does) there is no way of patrolling it.
 

Top