Fascinating Stuff on Murali's action

[Richard]

I think I first saw this same test (a different set of presenters and production company) in about 2004, maybe even 2003. I had always been happy to accept the UWA's findings and have never remotely cared for the "well he might chuck it in a match" because that applies past, present and future to every bowler ever to have played. Such occasional throwers have always been the biggest problem (blatantly consistently illegal actions have always been in a tiny minority) and the reason they've never been eradicated is simple and obvious - it's basically impossible to do.

Murali's case has no bearing on that whatsoever. The only difference between Murali and other bowlers is optical illusions.

 

[Furball]

I think I first saw this same test (a different set of presenters and production company) in about 2004, maybe even 2003. I had always been happy to accept the UWA's findings and have never remotely cared for the "well he might chuck it in a match" because that applies past, present and future to every bowler ever to have played. Such occasional throwers have always been the biggest problem (blatantly consistently illegal actions have always been in a tiny minority) and the reason they've never been eradicated is simple and obvious - it's basically impossible to do.

Murali's case has no bearing on that whatsoever. The only difference between Murali and other bowlers is optical illusions.

Was that the one where Mark Nicholas presented it?

That was the one that truly convinced me.

 

[Richard]

Yup - and it actually convinced a few people in this country (don't think it was screened around the planet all that much), though naturally not that many.

As has been said, most Murali-chucks brigade will go to any lengths to continue to believe it. Nothing, but nothing, is ever going to change their minds. He's 37 years old; those who were not convinced by findings years ago are not going to be convinced by anything now.

 

[SJS]

I knew you though he chucked it, SJS. But I thought that only pertained to his doosra? Do you believe he chucks all his deliveries? If so, I find that a little odd, as certain posts you have made seem to suggest that you hold his bowling in high regard.

The second clip is a good one, and one I have seen before. However, it still does not address the possibility that Murali may now throw in test matches with virtual impunity - albeit, I think, without intending to do so (especially for instance towards the tail end of long spells or a lot of bowling or when looking for something extra when bowling on unhelpful surfaces). His action has changed over the years, for a while there, it was quite dirty and was more prone to looking bad when Murali was doing a decent amount of bowling. He did some remedial work on it and came back a better bowler for it - this was in the early 2000s IIRC.

I sort of agree with doubts concerning the doosra. Murali may be the only bowler able to pull it off, but even he, I think, skirts too close to the legal line in doing so, and some deliveries I have seen have been a little too dodgy for comfort. My other issue is that I think, in some ways, it made him a worse spin bowler. At times I have rationalised it with the thought that I dont mind fast bowlers working on the ball in this era of big bats, flat pitches, and shortened boundaries - but that remains a rationalisation, and not a very good one at that. Especially when one takes into account other young spin bowlers. I still havent made up my mind about that.

My views were originally based purely on the doosra. I have known since I was a teenager how this delivery is bowled. I first saw a friend of mine bowling it indoors from about 15 yards. You know how you throw down deliveries from about half way or so down in the nets at youngsters. It was fascinating. I prided myself at my impregnable defence and this guy would throw in these apparent off breaks that turned sharply the other way on pitching. You just couldn't pick them ever. Of course they were not thrown in an overarm action. They were chucked from about in front of his face and thrown from the elbow. I learnt how to throw them myself and then used it to bamboozle many people myself. It was exactly Saqlain's doosra but we never ever tried to throw it with an over arm action. Then when Saqlain started bowling the doosra, I tried and found that first it took some effort to master throwing it over arm and second that it simply had to be thrown for flexing of the elbow was an unavoidable. Hence my views on throwing and doosra which went on to Murali as well.

Later when the Murali controversy became very loud one looked closely and you could clearly see the flex in all the balls he bowled and not just the doosra. Then started the talk of hyper extension etc which ended with ICC's ridiculous revision of the laws.

I have a great opinion of Murali for inspite of my reservations about the doosra, I can see that he is a great bowler beyond the issue of his flexing of the elbow. His control and his ability to turn the ball on almost any surface was amazing and this marks him out as an all time great. But I was always disturbed by his action and wished he could bowl with a clean action.

I agree with your point that Murali may throw in a match situation even his off breaks and that is a possibility but there is no way to be sure of it. This clips at least shows that he can bowl with an elbow completely prevented from being flexed.

I still think ICC is wrong in the way they have tried to address the issue but at least I have leant that while the doosra can not be delivered without bending at the elbow by most people, those with the kind og 'helicoptor' movement that Murali is able to get from his wrists can. I dont know if there is another person somewhere with a similar conditions who is working on becoming another Muralitharan but in the meantime so many youngsters in India and Pakistan have clearly been encouraged to chuck and in India this year it has been accepted even by BCCI that the problem has reached epidemic proportions. For this I hold ICC's flawed 15 degree allowance policy responsible.

 

[Matt79]

I think it's ridiculous that Murali has had to go through analysis like that.

Given how pronounced the optical illusion is, and how unique the explanation for it is, it's not surprising. Kudos for him having the balls to do it though.

 

[Richard]

Yup. Murali is both remarkably fortunate to have one physical deformity (the double-jointed wrist which enables him to attain such spin) and remarkably unfortunate to have another (the not-fully-straightening elbow). It's to his massive credit that he's prepared to go to whatever lengths he can to prove all he's tried to down the years - so many would've just taken a "**** em - I couldn't care less any more" stance long ago.

 

[Richard]

My views were originally based purely on the doosra. I have known since I was a teenager how this delivery is bowled. I first saw a friend of mine bowling it indoors from about 15 yards. You know how you throw down deliveries from about half way or so down in the nets at youngsters. It was fascinating. I prided myself at my impregnable defence and this guy would throw in these apparent off breaks that turned sharply the other way on pitching. You just couldn't pick them ever. Of course they were not thrown in an overarm action. They were chucked from about in front of his face and thrown from the elbow. I learnt how to throw them myself and then used it to bamboozle many people myself. It was exactly Saqlain's doosra but we never ever tried to throw it with an over arm action. Then when Saqlain started bowling the doosra, I tried and found that first it took some effort to master throwing it over arm and second that it simply had to be thrown for flexing of the elbow was an unavoidable. Hence my views on throwing and doosra which went on to Murali as well.

Later when the Murali controversy became very loud one looked closely and you could clearly see the flex in all the balls he bowled and not just the doosra. Then started the talk of hyper extension etc which ended with ICC's ridiculous revision of the laws.

SJS I'm intregued - surely you know that Murali's "Doosra" and the ball purveyed by Saqlain, Harbhajan and (to a much lesser quality) some others such as Shaftab Khalid and Daniel Cullen are completely different balls?

As Murali's standard Off-Break (to RHB) delivery is unique, so too his his Wrong-'Un. The Doosra of Saqlain and Harbhajan, like their Off-Break, is bowled with completely different style.

Whether or not the concerns about the legitimacy of the standard fingerspinner's Doosra are well-founded (personally I can't see how it's impossible to bowl legally as some claim because I can't see how a wrist action can force the elbow to take a certain course of action), that surely makes no impact on how you judge any of Murali's deliveries? As I say, there has never been another like Murali. No prototype or precedent exists.

As for the talk of hyperextension, that's irrelevant to Murali. Murali's elbow has the exact opposite of the hyperextension which is seen in bowlers like Shoaib Akhtar and James Kirtley (and, in times past, for example Brian Statham). Shoaib et al's elbows straighten beyond 180 degrees; Murali's will not straighten to that level.

As for ICC's revision of the Laws (which I actually agree with you are ludicrous - the new rule is fair and unpoliceable, as the old rule was unfair and policeable), that had nothing to do with Murali nor any bowlers with hyperextension. That was based on analysis of bowlers with "normal" arms, hundreds of them. The conclusion of that analysis was that, unfortunately, there was no remotely ideal way to deal with chucking. Short of every bowler bowling with a brace on in a cricket match to ensure uniformity, there is just no way to make sure all are abiding by the same rule. The human eyes are not a reliable instrument on which to make judgements; the technology required to make a fair assessment cannot be used while a match is in progress.

 

[trapol]

I believe he chucks for the following reason

I saw Murali play first hand in a game. He was warming up (mucking around) bowling to mid on bowling leg spin and you know what.....you guessed it....he bowled with a dead straight up and turned it.

So why cant he bowl his offies and the like with that same straight arm?

 

[honestbharani]

Murali chucks with the new laws.......just not as often.

unless you have any real confirmation that he exceeds 15 degrees, that is juz speculation...

 

[honestbharani]

I believe he chucks for the following reason

I saw Murali play first hand in a game. He was warming up (mucking around) bowling to mid on bowling leg spin and you know what.....you guessed it....he bowled with a dead straight up and turned it.

So why cant he bowl his offies and the like with that same straight arm?

coz offspin is different to legspin?????

 

[aussie]

Used to think Murali chucks. But then i saw in live here in ENG in 2002 in a test, sat side on to watch & i believe he is legal with is off-breaks. Not so sure about his dossra though..

 

[Richard]

I believe he chucks for the following reason

I saw Murali play first hand in a game. He was warming up (mucking around) bowling to mid on bowling leg spin and you know what.....you guessed it....he bowled with a dead straight up and turned it.

So why cant he bowl his offies and the like with that same straight arm?

First of all as mentioned in the first few posts of this thread a straight arm is irrelevant - I'll be charitable and assume there isn't misunderstanding of the rules in this post (as there is in so many places) but merely poorly phrased content.

So, the fact is Murali cannot bowl with a straight arm. He cannot in fact do anything with a straight arm. Murali's elbow only straightens to ~160 degrees, while most people's go to ~180. Murali like everyone else however doesn't appear to be straightening his arm as much when he bowls conventional wristspin which the eye is accustomed to as he does when he's bowling his unique, unprecedented brand of wristspin. The faulty human eyes think there is straightening in one and not in the other when in reality there is straightening in both - and probably not much difference.

As I say, some people will go to any lengths to hold-on to their beliefs that Murali chucks, including things that simply defy logic.

 

[Jono]

Murali is such a legend. Didnt' say a word throughout the whole video.

 

[Matt79]

Reckon he might actually be an alien tbh...

 

[Jono]

Yeah fully expect that if Men In Black was made nowadays, that scene about celebrities who are aliens would have featured Murali.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Good Luck Slates in trying to convince folks back home. Not happening.

Not true.

 

[Matt79]

Do think that in a sense it was unfortunate that Slats said at the outset "I've never thought Murali chucks". It would have been awesome to get someone like Gilly, who is respected, but who has been in the "he's chucks" camp, and see what he had to say after facing him in the brace.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Agreed, actually.

As someone who, in moments of weakness, retains doubts about the probity of Murali's action, it's nice to have a bloke like Eric, who's patently not a headbanger and one of the more intelligent cricketers of the last decade, share those doubts. However it would be interesting to see what he felt afterwards.

 

[Migara]

I believe he chucks for the following reason

I saw Murali play first hand in a game. He was warming up (mucking around) bowling to mid on bowling leg spin and you know what.....you guessed it....he bowled with a dead straight up and turned it.

So why cant he bowl his offies and the like with that same straight arm?

There are some thing called optical illusions. When some people are obsessed with it it becomes a hallucination, and when bias sets in it becomes a delusion.

 

[Black_Warrior]

There are some thing called optical illusions. When some people are obsessed with it it becomes a hallucination, and when bias sets in it becomes a delusion.

Incredible..I am writing that down