warne and murali issue

[Bas]

so warne got into the icc awards test side. and murali didn't. Fair enough, if the judges thought warne has been the better spinner.

But what i have a problem with is the attitude of the white world towards this. An example is Botham's comments today saying that a reason was the cloud over murali's action. Still fine, if warne was an angel.

But they conveniently forgot a somewhat more significant "cloud" over warne - he has been out of action for much of the past 12 months and the reason? He took drugs. The scourge of modern sport. and yet because he is a white man and, even better he is an australian cricketer, that is deemed irrelevant.

If a subcontinent player were to have been found guilty of taking drugs then he would be slammed by the media and have no chance of winning such an accolade.

 

[Sanz]

Shut Up.

 

[steds]

Oh god, this Murali vs. Warne thing gets pretty boring after several hundred arguments put forwards by everyone...It's everywhere...

 

[Langeveldt]

No point in this at all... Its been done to death here if you wonder why Sanz says "Shut Up"

I despise Murali, but If people want a different opinion, they have that right as much as i have mine... And what a load of wasters on a cricket forum thing doesnt change anything ever....

 

[Richard]

There were some ridiculous comments today having said that.
How anyone can claim there is a difference between them with regards bowling ability is beyond me anyway, but to suggest as genuine all the rubbish about re-writing the record-books because of subsequent findings is totally stupid.
This whole "ICC World XI" is a ridiculous concept IMO, turning what is a bit of time-passing fun for millions and millions of cricket-followers around The World into an officialised idea.
If you look back through some thread or other you'll find I even managed to predict the problems this would cause on here.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

warne is a disgrace. and its an even bigger disgrace that he made the team ahead of murali. This is a freakin joke.

 

[a massive zebra]

In the qualifying period - August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004 - Murali played nine Tests, taking 73 wickets at an average of 18.56. He took his wickets against Australia (28), England (26), South Africa (5) and Zimbabwe (14). Australia and England are the ICC's two top-ranked teams, and not long ago South Africa was challenging Australia for No. 1 status.

Warne, by comparison, missed more than half the qualifying period because he was still serving a one-year doping ban. When he came back he played five Tests - all against Sri Lanka. Admittedly he routed the fifth-ranked Lankans, taking 36 wickets at 22.25, but is that enough? In the year under scrutiny, Murali took twice as many wickets at a better average and played much tougher teams than Warne - beating the Aussie in two of the criteria Benaud listed.

Perhaps the debate over which of the two most successful bowlers was more deserving of a place in a World XI reveals some hard truths about world cricket and its bias. Warne appears to have gained his place by virtue of reputation. The fact he was serving a drug ban during the voting period should have been taken into consideration, but Warne is one of those characters whose flaws and misdemeanours are constantly brushed aside or ignored.

Murali, whose only fault is a wonky arm, endlessly pays the price for his controversial bowling action. During the voting period he was placed under review and his doosra was banned. He played only one Test with the doosra ban in place - the rest of the matches were effectively legal and he cannot be punished retrospectively. But it seems he has been.

Joining Benaud on the selection panel were Ian Botham, Sunil Gavaskar, Michael Holding and Barry Richards. Perhaps someone from New Zealand should have been on the panel. After all, the Kiwis won the inaugural Spirit of Cricket award, and fair play seems to have been missing in this team selection.

 

[Richard]

As I say, the whole thing is a complete joke and would be best ignored by all.

 

[Dar]

I pretty much agree with everything a massive zebra said. And i don't think this argument has been done to death cos the awards took place only the other night. This thread started by Bas isn't about who's a better bowler its about the double standards in the reasoning for picking Warne and he makes a genuinely good point as does the zebra dude. How comes any problem with Murali's action has worked against him whereas the fact that Warne served a years drug ban hasn't made a difference.

And Langeveldt, i was under the impression the whole point of a cricket forum is to share opinions. If you beleive that "what a load of wasters on a crikcet forum think doesn't change anything" then what the hell are you doing here

 

[Langeveldt]

And Langeveldt, i was under the impression the whole point of a cricket forum is to share opinions. If you beleive that "what a load of wasters on a crikcet forum think doesn't change anything" then what the hell are you doing here

How does your, or mine, or anyone elses opinion on here change the way the ICC does anything??

 

[Zeke]

Warne doesn't have any issue.

Murali has the issue. Why does everyone always try and bring Warne into Murali's issue?

 

[Langeveldt]

Warne doesn't have any issue.

Murali has the issue. Why does everyone always try and bring Warne into Murali's issue?

Warne did have an issue, Murali always has issues....

 

[marc71178]

I find it interesting that so many people are now saying England are a top side when it suits them (because it makes Murali's wickets seem more worthy) yet last week they were saying England weren't so good.

Double standards?

 

[Langeveldt]

Double standards?

Ehhhh?

 

[Swervy]

I pretty much agree with everything a massive zebra said. And i don't think this argument has been done to death cos the awards took place only the other night. This thread started by Bas isn't about who's a better bowler its about the double standards in the reasoning for picking Warne and he makes a genuinely good point as does the zebra dude. How comes any problem with Murali's action has worked against him whereas the fact that Warne served a years drug ban hasn't made a difference.

And Langeveldt, i was under the impression the whole point of a cricket forum is to share opinions. If you beleive that "what a load of wasters on a crikcet forum think doesn't change anything" then what the hell are you doing here

erm..i think most of Massive Zebras post was lifted straight from an article on cricinfo...so give the credit to Michael Donaldson.

 

[marc71178]

Ehhhh?

When it suits them, England are good yet most of the time, England are useless and only winning because the opposition are even worse.

 

[Langeveldt]

When it suits them, England are good yet most of the time, England are useless and only winning because the opposition are even worse.

My Ehh was saracsm Course its DS...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Aargh.

 

[Deja moo]

Stupid selector and stupid selections...

 

[anzac]

I find the racial comments from Bas in his lead post to be distasteful and inflamatory - IMO this thread should have been closed as a result.............

furthermore the citing of Botham's comments as an attempt at justification is deplorable & misleading, as he was not the only judge to have taken that view - the other being Holding who is non-white...............

the resulting post is then so flawed that it denegrates any subsequent logical arguement in it's favor & should be dismissed as the rant it is...........