Beautiful moments on the cricket field

[luckyeddie]

For me, the two greatest golden moments which immediately spring to mind both featured (IMO) the greatest-ever cricketer, Sir Garfield Sobers.

The first was when he carted Malcolm Nash (not a bad bowler) for six sixes at Swansea. All credit to Nash - he continued trying to get the great man out (nearly did - one was 'caught' on the boundary but carried over. No prizes for guessing that the fielder wasn't Cheaty Hodge:P)

The second was after Lara went past Sobers' 365 - and The King strode out to the wicket amongst all the celebrations to shake Lara by the hand.

I missed Hayden going past Lara - got up too late. That'll teach me. Lazybones.

 

[Richard]

tired bowlers who had the game wrapped up

"Gone for the hook, there's a man back!... but forget him, that's going into the crowd!" (C), Dermot Reeve, July 31, 2002
A. Flintoff (the 90 mph bowler the previous day) to Ashish Nehra, a tail-ender with about as much batting ability as my Dad (who rarely made half-centuries in Yorkshire League Second XI cricket).
I think I agree on the tired bowlers!

 

[Richard]

For me, the two greatest golden moments which immediately spring to mind both featured (IMO) the greatest-ever cricketer, Sir Garfield Sobers.

The first was when he carted Malcolm Nash (not a bad bowler) for six sixes at Swansea. All credit to Nash - he continued trying to get the great man out (nearly did - one was 'caught' on the boundary but carried over. No prizes for guessing that the fielder wasn't Cheaty Hodge:P)

The second was after Lara went past Sobers' 365 - and The King strode out to the wicket amongst all the celebrations to shake Lara by the hand.

I missed Hayden going past Lara - got up too late. That'll teach me. Lazybones.

Well, I saw the moment Hayden drove Price through mid-on. The flattest record-break since Hutton did it. When Sobers broke Hutton's record and Lara broke his, the crowd were on the ground for the next 5 minutes.
I certainly agree with you about Sobers' status as the greatest cricketer ever, buddy. How anyone can average 57 in 92 Tests and be able to bowl seam-up and wristspin to Test class is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Richard]

A beautiful moment well in club cricket was when, one of my schools fastest bowler was getting smacked by some powerhouse and my then captain suggested to bowl a yorker..he did try but ended in beinmg a full toss straight for his gems..and he wasnt wearing a cup..wasnt pretty for him i bet

But unfortunatley all my team [expecially me] were cracking up on the ground with laughter...he decided to bat on..smacked him for a 4 next ball, got out after that...

funny game..we won..i got my first and only duck...

A beautiful moment...
Sometimes I wonder to what depths of sadism we human-beings have sunk.
Whenever I see someone hit in the box (and even worse when they are hit WITHOUT a box) I cringe and look away, while those around me hoot in laughter.
I once saw someone get the p*** taken out of him by a team-mate after such an incident (dismissed next ball, perhaps understandibly). He chucked his bat and hit him in the stomach.
And in the second over, these two were celebrating taking a two-man-juggled catch off my very own bowling.
What a great healer comradeship of the game of cricket is...

 

[Richard]

You wouldnt let a physically disabled person fly an airplane, so why should they be able to play absolute top level sport??? Its not discrimination against Murali, Shoaib and co, its being fair to the large proportion of bowlers who dont have disabilaties....

The thing is, Murali doesn't gain anything from his inability to fully straighten his arm (he does, mind you, from his double-jointed wrist, but that's another story...) so why he is victimised for it I don't know.
You could argue that Shoaib and Kirtley gain a little extra pace from the extra swing of the arm, but it's impossible to prove either way.
Would you say Chandrasekhar shouldn't have been allowed to play because his six fingers helped him grip the ball better?

 

[Langeveldt]

Would you say Chandrasekhar shouldn't have been allowed to play because his six fingers helped him grip the ball better?

I never knew of Chandrasekars six fingers, if so then he shouldnt have been able to play top flight cricket, definitely not...

 

[Langeveldt]

A weird moment was when I was getting padded up in a school match.. There was a big "Crack" noise, I went out of the pavilion thinking a cap gun was going off or something, and it was the previous batsman getting hit in the box, so I had to hurry up with the padding up and face the music

 

[gibbsnsmith]

A beautiful moment...
Sometimes I wonder to what depths of sadism we human-beings have sunk.
Whenever I see someone hit in the box (and even worse when they are hit WITHOUT a box) I cringe and look away, while those around me hoot in laughter.
I once saw someone get the p*** taken out of him by a team-mate after such an incident (dismissed next ball, perhaps understandibly). He chucked his bat and hit him in the stomach.
And in the second over, these two were celebrating taking a two-man-juggled catch off my very own bowling.
What a great healer comradeship of the game of cricket is...

well it wasnt a beautiful moment, it wasnt a pleasant moment but i couldnt stop myself from laughing [ alot]

 

[royGilchrist]

that was funny gibbsnsmith

as someone rightly pointed out this murali/shoaib chucking has been debated to death other times, but I would just make a simple point.

Physical deformity is okay and there should be no discrimination against it in cricket. But if that physical deformity means you violate cricket laws, that should not be allowed (starightening ones arm after bending it for example). So Chandarsekar's example is not appropriate in this case. A more appropriate example will be Casey Martin, in golf, who had a problem walking due to some physical defect. So he gets to use a chair to transport him around the course, which I think is unfair to other players, and there was a big controversy over this among the players.

 

[V Reddy]

I never knew too that Chandrasekhar had six fingers:wow: . I had read that his right arm was weak b'coz of polio which meant he had a fast arm action. There is no mention of 6 fingers on his profile in CricInfo and BBC too.

 

[Richard]

I never knew too that Chandrasekhar had six fingers:wow: . I had read that his right arm was weak b'coz of polio which meant he had a fast arm action. There is no mention of 6 fingers on his profile in CricInfo and BBC too.

Well, maybe I've got him mixed-up with someone else. :rolleyes: :wow:
But I could have sworn Richie Benaud mentioned it just yesterday on C9, and I could have sworn I heard him talk about it two summers ago.
It certainly wasn't Venkat, and Bishen himself dropped in for a chat (in any case he was a left-armer, and it was certainly a right-armer) that summer.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I never knew of Chandrasekars six fingers, if so then he shouldnt have been able to play top flight cricket, definitely not...

Do we say that sufferers of gigantism can't play basketball, or that those with ridiculously slow metabolisms can't sumo wrestle?

Or even better, ban Ethiopians (whose high altitude living means they end up with more red blood cells and hence more oxygen capacity) from long distance running?

 

[Richard]

Physical deformity is okay and there should be no discrimination against it in cricket. But if that physical deformity means you violate cricket laws, that should not be allowed (starightening ones arm after bending it for example).

Oh, God...
I've already said this, what, three or four times.
Murali doesn't break the law. His arm isn't as straight as most people get theirs in delivery, but he doesn't straighten it from the level of the shoulder, and hence he doesn't get an unfair advantage (though he certainly gets an advantage from his double-jointed wrist, which means he can spin the ball more than anyone who hasn't got a double-joint in their bowling wrist. Imagine how much Murali would turn an orthodox leg-break:O ) from that disability.
The problem has stemmed from when these idiots like Emerson and Darell Hair have acted on impulse and used an instrument that is often faulty, especially from about 30 yards away. If they hadn't made a fuss, Emerson especially when people who logic would suggest know a bit more about it than him, none of the problems would have arisen.
As for Shoaib, Kirtley and anyone else who's ever bowled fast with a double-jointed elbow on their bowling-arm; of course it always depends on the individual action, but in my view neither Shoaib nor Kirtley straighten their arm from the shoulder-level to the release. Hence, their actions are legal. Even if they did it would, in my view, be unnecessary discrimination to ban them.

 

[royGilchrist]

I dont know the chucking rule exactly (Corey?, anyone?), but I think it roughly states that once the arm is bent it cannot be straightened. And that is what Murali does. This double jointed wrist (whatever that means, I dont know never seen one) used to get the spin that murali gets I do not believe in. Does that mean everyone with a double jointed wrist will get that kind of spin. In that case in junior cricket, one should start actively looking for kids with double jointed wrists.

 

[yaju]

Lots but my recent favourite happened on March 1, 2003 when Sachin hit Shoaib and Virender hit Waqar for six. But Sachin's shot was a classic, especially as the day before Shoaib had ranted Sachin a lot. He was taken off after that.

 

[Richard]

I dont know the chucking rule exactly (Corey?, anyone?), but I think it roughly states that once the arm is bent it cannot be straightened. And that is what Murali does. This double jointed wrist (whatever that means, I dont know never seen one) used to get the spin that murali gets I do not believe in. Does that mean everyone with a double jointed wrist will get that kind of spin. In that case in junior cricket, one should start actively looking for kids with double jointed wrists.

As goes the double-jointed wrist, it is the reason Murali is unique. There has never been another bowler like him. A wristspinner whose stock-ball has been the off-break. Double-joints are not that common, but anyone with one could bowl like Murali and someone without a double-joint won't be able to bowl like Murali can.
As regards the illegal delivery rule, it simply states that "the arm is not straightened partially or wholly" once it has passed the level of the shoulder. Murali may have an arm that is less straight than most (and it's completely unrelated to the double-joint in his wrist), but he doesn't straighten it as he bowls. Hence, his action is legal.
It's a bit silly not to believe in double-joints; that's like saying you don't believe in Downs Syndrome or Autism. They're medical facts, and they have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[luckyeddie]

Would you say Chandrasekhar shouldn't have been allowed to play because his six fingers helped him grip the ball better?

Bhagwat Chandrasekhar might well have had an extra digit (not sure on this) but his real physical disability was due to polio he suffered as a child. It left him with a very weak, almost atrophied right arm.

You play the cards you are dealt, and one of Chandra's was definitely a high trump. The polio left his right wrist extremely flexible (a bit like Murali's) and consequently he could give the ball an almighty rip. He also on occasion bowled the biggest pile of steaming whatnots, but when he was on song he was incredible.

There's also a lovely 'golden moment' in his test career.

His batting made Courtney look good - so much so that during the 1977-78 series against Australia, the Aussies made a special presentation to him.

It was a bat with a hole in the middle.

 

[Top_Cat]

Law 24; 3

3. Definition of fair delivery – the arm
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

Sorry Roy, I'm going to have be on the other side of the fence on this one. I don't think Murali throws (his ball which goes the other way is slightly dubious) and I say the same about Shoaib and Brett Lee. Obviously there will be instances where they all do but it's the same for all bowlers.

As it stands, the law is inadequate. Every bowler of any pace has some flexible movement in their arm when they bowl where the arm flexes and straightens. I think it needs to be in the laws what an acceptable margin is. Not in terms of 'such-and-such millimetres' is too much because all people flex differently. I'd accept no more than a 20% (around 5 degrees) flexing of the arm in what would ordinarily be called a throw as being acceptable because I think 10%-15% is pretty much what everyone does anyway. If the law were applied to the letter, we all throw to a degree. We just need to define what an acceptable degree would be.

The problem has stemmed from when these idiots like Emerson and Darell Hair have acted on impulse and used an instrument that is often faulty, especially from about 30 yards away.

All agreed except for the first time Hair called Murali; there weren't the processes in place there are now for him to follow. Under the letter of the law, sole descretion for whether a bowler threw was down to him because the ICC have always been reactive, not proactive when it comes to legislation like this. If the same reporting processes were in place then as today, Hair would have had to raise concerns with the ICC first.

As for Shoaib, Kirtley and anyone else who's ever bowled fast with a double-jointed elbow on their bowling-arm; of course it always depends on the individual action, but in my view neither Shoaib nor Kirtley straighten their arm from the shoulder-level to the release. Hence, their actions are legal. Even if they did it would, in my view, be unnecessary discrimination to ban them.

If you read the letter of law, both those guys have illegal actions. When it talks about bending and straightening of the arm, it says nothing about which way. So if you arm involuntarily hyper-extends 40 degrees (as Shoaib's does) and then straightens at the point of delivery, then technically that's illegal. Ludicrous, ain't it?

I think the core issue is the difference between a bowler gaining an advantage with a disability they might have or whether it's an UNFAIR advantage. What's unfair is often entirely subjective so, as in laws in the real world, a subjective example must be proided for what is 'fair' so that making a judgement on what is 'unfair' would be easier, with allowances for exceptions to every rule.

My opinion is that Murali doesn't gain an 'unfair' advantage and neither do the others.

It's a bit silly not to believe in double-joints; that's like saying you don't believe in Downs Syndrome or Autism. They're medical facts, and they have their advantages and disadvantages.

Actually, technically, there's no such thing as true 'double-joints'. It's just that some people have a greater amount of hyper-extension than others in their joints. That's why you hear cracking whenever someone who claims to be 'double-jointed' proves it; they're rupturing little pockets of fluid in their joints as they bend them several degrees in the 'wrong' direction but their flexibility in those joints is what allows them to do that, not that their joints are comfortably bending the other way.

 

[royGilchrist]

Sorry Roy, I'm going to have be on the other side of the fence on this one

Hey no problem TC, you have a pretty good idea of the details and so I (like others) always respect your opinion

I don't think Murali throws (his ball which goes the other way is slightly dubious) and I say the same about Shoaib and Brett Lee. Obviously there will be instances where they all do but it's the same for all bowlers.

Ok fine you onvince me, but I have a question, why do I and many other neutral people like me think that Murali, and Shoaib (and for awhile Shoaib Mali and Shabbir too) throw. I never thought that way about any prominent bowler in the 80s for example. There must be something wrong with their action? And the reason is NOT because they are exceptional bowlers. I mean for example Malcom Marshall, or Wasim Akram or Dennis Lillee were exceptional bowlers too but not for an instance did I ever think they threw.

I'd accept no more than a 20% (around 5 degrees) flexing of the arm in what would ordinarily be called a throw as being acceptable because I think 10%-15% is pretty much what everyone does anyway.

How will this be implemented. Surely such intricate calculation cannot be done real-time by the umpire. It will have to be done after the match, and not sure how ICC will handle that.

Actually, technically, there's no such thing as true 'double-joints'. It's just that some people have a greater amount of hyper-extension than others in their joints.

Yeah thats what I remember a freind of mine in high school could bend his fingers so much that they touched his wrists (quite a spectacle that was, ouch), and it was just because his joints were more flexible than others.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hey no problem TC, you have a pretty good idea of the details and so I (like others) always respect your opinion

I still hate to disagree with ya. I think we can agree on THAT.

Ok fine you onvince me, but I have a question, why do I and many other neutral people like me think that Murali, and Shoaib (and for awhile Shoaib Mali and Shabbir too) throw. I never thought that way about any prominent bowler in the 80s for example. There must be something wrong with their action? And the reason is NOT because they are exceptional bowlers. I mean for example Malcom Marshall, or Wasim Akram or Dennis Lillee were exceptional bowlers too but not for an instance did I ever think they threw.

Well it could be argued that the television technology to make stuff like this public wasn't around then. And maybe after demonising guys like Meckiff in the 60's, people thought it was a thing of the past. You have to admit, I bet you didn't hear much about bowlers who chucked until Murali was called and his action scrutinised. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

As for the guys you mention, considering the speed they bowled at, I find it awfully tough to imagine that they DIDN'T chuck at least sometimes. To me it's unavoidable sometimes such as when you're trying for that extra yard. I can't really make a convincing argument that it was primarily down to publicity and technology that we didn't see these guys up close but I can't rule it out either and in fact, I believe they were contributing factors.

Except for Marshall; his arms were too short to flex much anyway so it's highly unlikely he chucked.

Maybe the crux of the issue is intent. I mean, why was a chucking law enacted in the first place? Because bowlers gained an unfair advantage by pinging the ball at the batsmen (I don't buy into this whole 'dangerous' thing; I mean, a ball coming at you thrown or bowled at 130km/h is going to hurt!). Hence, it was outlawed. That could explain why it is stigmatised so much; being known as someone who need remedial work on his action is entirely different to being known as a chucker. People think you do it deliberately to cheat, hence you're villified for it. Food for thought I guess.

How will this be implemented. Surely such intricate calculation cannot be done real-time by the umpire. It will have to be done after the match, and not sure how ICC will handle that.

Yeah but it'll be no different than the process now (I didn't intend for the idea to be a real-time idea anyway). If an umpire sees a bowler with a dubious action, they generally won't call them anyway. They refer back to the ICC who suspends the bowler (if it's a serious problem) until they get checked out and/or remedial action is recommended.

Same with my system but it's where the actual testing comes into play that the methods differ; a bowler gets reported by an umpire as dubious, is sent away to have his action looked at and it's determined whether he, on the surface, consistently breaches the legal % flexing (the video is compared to match footage to ensure that bowlers don't do one thing in a match and another in a proper test). The two samples of footage (match vs practice) and measurements are compared in something like a one-factor ANOVA to see where the variability about the mean is random variation and you effectively test to see whether the means of both samples are representative of the bowler's style of bowling.

If they are, have an arbitrarily determined measure of how many times a bowler is allowed to exceed the legal flexing limit vs how many times they do exceed it (because of my assumption that no bowler will be perfect in this regard). If they exceed the maximum flex too much, figure out by how much on average and work out a way to help them fix it (it could be as simple as strength exercises on a particular muscle group). Repeat the same test after remedial work is done to see if there has been any improvement. Bowler is free to play if they pass.

No no-balling, no embarrassment and a credible test based in statistical frequencies is the result. Obviously this is simplified but the current system is pretty unscientific and probably isn't totally fair on the bowlers.

Yeah thats what I remember a freind of mine in high school could bend his fingers so much that they touched his wrists (quite a spectacle that was, ouch), and it was just because his joints were more flexible than others.

I bet he can sure put some rip on a cricket ball!