*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

This is a final warning. Anymore abuse or bad language contained within this thread will see it being closed.

Clean it up!

honestbharani said:

Really.. I hope you know that his doosra's flex is now at 10 degrees. His EARLIER flex was 14 degrees. And even if it was still 14 degrees, I still don't see how it is done to benefit Murali alone. They simply used the 15 degree limit, because it encompassed ALL current bowlers. They coudl have kept it as 13 and I could argue that it was done to benefit McGrath and they could have kept it as 12 and I could argue it was done to benefit Gillespie and to put an end to McGrath. This point of yours is easily the worst you have made.

Click to expand...

Refer to the emboldened text please and substantiate the comment by producing the figures.

NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

luckyeddie said:

Refer to the emboldened text please and substantiate the comment by producing the figures.

NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

My source is The Hindu. We are subscribed to it and we get it delivered at my house every morning. I don't remember exactly when or anything. Murali made a similar comment and the fact that neither McGrath nor Gillespie actually said anything about


a. The reference that they chuck too
b. the degrees


make me believe that those figures were reasonably accurate.

social said:

Current law obviously improves the accuracy of assessment.

Unfortunately, (and to be honest, without unlimited funding and/or the likelihood of further mistakes being made, I dont have a better alternative) it delays the assessment of bowlers until it is too late.

Click to expand...

it does, but one can only hope that with the flow of money increasing from the game, it will be channelised properly and things can get better. What I don't approve of is saying that the old law was better simply because things were simpler at that time. When it has been proven that the old laws were WRONG, plain and simple, why keep discussing it. Discussing about the present law could be enforced in a better way would be more fruitful, IMHO.


Plus, if guys like Kazo think that Warney is better than Murali (chucking or not chucking), let us keep the discussion on that, on who is the better spinner of the two. I still don't think I can conclusively say one is better than the other. Till last year, I thought Murali was slightly ahead but Warne's run last year has me in doubts again.

honestbharani said:

There was a report on one of the best and most trusted newspapers in India that agreed that McGrath has a flex of around 13 degrees. Heck, even he hasn't disagreed with any of this. I don't see why you have to jump on this case for him.

Click to expand...

Could you please explain to me in the simplest terms you can manage (because obviously I am being very stupid here) just whose case I am jumping on?

If you are talking about Mukal Kesavan's 'Degrees of Guilt' (Time of India, 2004) I'm not disputing what he is saying at all, as a subsequent post of mine traces back to the material he used for his source - Simon Hughes's articles in the Daily Telegraph. I don't disagree with a word of it. However,

IT DOESN'T MENTION THIRTEEN DEGREES!!!!!!!!!

It was syndicated to a number of places - here's Cricinfo's version

If it's a different author, tell me and I will search for it.

honestbharani said:

My source is The Hindu. We are subscribed to it and we get it delivered at my house every morning. I don't remember exactly when or anything. Murali made a similar comment and the fact that neither McGrath nor Gillespie actually said anything about


a. The reference that they chuck too
b. the degrees


make me believe that those figures were reasonably accurate.

Click to expand...

Here's Murali's statement:

"Some bowlers from Australia, McGrath and everybody, they are all about 12, 13 degrees," said Muralitharan.

And The source it came from.

I'm really sorry if it comes across as though I feel that I'm debating with a bunch of children, but I am citing all my sources and not just sticking rigidly to a pre-defined viewpoint. The frustration I feel at the moment with people who refuse to do likewise is more than a little substantial.

Edit:

It is possible, of course, that I really AM on everyone's ignore list.

luckyeddie said:

Here's Murali's statement:

"Some bowlers from Australia, McGrath and everybody, they are all about 12, 13 degrees," said Muralitharan.

And The source it came from.

I'm really sorry if it comes across as though I feel that I'm debating with a bunch of children, but I am citing all my sources and not just sticking rigidly to a pre-defined viewpoint. The frustration I feel at the moment with people who refuse to do likewise is more than a little substantial.

Edit:

It is possible, of course, that I really AM on everyone's ignore list.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't remember exactly where I read it. I am pretty sure it was "The Hindu" though, since that is what I depend on the most for "accurate and unbiased" news. Anyways, people have mentioned the degree stuff of Gillespie and McGrath before and they never refuted it. If it was so false, I think they would have refuted it immediately. That's why I think it is true.

honestbharani said:

Like I said, I don't remember exactly where I read it. I am pretty sure it was "The Hindu" though, since that is what I depend on the most for "accurate and unbiased" news. Anyways, people have mentioned the degree stuff of Gillespie and McGrath before and they never refuted it. If it was so false, I think they would have refuted it immediately. That's why I think it is true.

Click to expand...

Cobblers, and by continuing to say so, you betray yourself us as coming from a pre-conceived standpoint.

I am pretty good at tracing things, because I multi-source.

Round about the last week of April, 2004, many of the internet message boards and press sources started to 'chatter' about the Murali findings (some of them were deliberately 'leaked' a week before the official press release) - and then of course Simon Hughes got involved. Suddenly, a number of people started talking in terms of Glenn McGrath throwing as a matter of fact - these messages on various boards (this one included) had replies posted to them refuting some of the more hysterical statements (I note that someone in one thread on another forum actually mentioned 22 degrees the other day - it was immediately refuted but the following day it had become established as a 'fact' because someone else quotes it as so).

It all started to die down until the end of November, a couple of days after the new tolerance levels were issued - and we finally find 13 degrees and McGrath mentioned in the same breath...

By Murali - only he's doing it in exactly the same way that you do...

"Some bowlers from Australia, McGrath and everybody, they are all about 12, 13 degrees," said Muralitharan.

That is not a statement of fact - that is a kneejerk reaction to a question (and I don't blame him for it). I suggest you read the BBC report - I posted it an hour ago.

I read it, but like I said, I am still pretty sure that there was a report on Hindu which said bowlers like Pollock and McGrath have flexes of 12-13 degrees or something of that sort. I am not too fussed about whether McGrath flexes it at 13 or 12 or 11. He still flexes and that's that. I think I remember Hindu using the word "respectively", which is why I assumed that McGrath flexed 13 degrees.

luckyeddie said:

The Note, 171104

This one?

Click to expand...

I meant an article in The HIndu newspaper. That is not the one.

honestbharani said:

I meant an article in The HIndu newspaper. That is not the one.

Click to expand...

I'm really glad you pointed me to The Hindu - because this article on their website pretty well lays the matter to rest.

I claim total victory in repudiating the whole 13 degree nonsense - the evidence really does begin to point to Murali lashing out because of accusations made towards him.

Let that be an end to the matter (unless someone else knows better, of course ).

As I said before...Warney is just a legend. The greatest...

I said a week ago that your (C_C's) attitude over the whole affair was "It's a secret" - and once more, you seem to confirm that supposition. Why is it so hard to obtain these specific figures that you are so fond of quoting, and why are you so keen to protect your source?

You seem to be in possession of facts that don't appear to be in the public domain, yet you are unwilling to share them. Even in a court of law, if something is used as evidence for the defence, it has to be made available to the prosecution or it can't be used.

Click to expand...

I am reluctant to share that data openly because i am not sure i have the authority to do so. The data i came across was through a biomechanist friend of mine who thought this whole chucking episode ( he is canuck- cricket is an obscure sport to him) to be hillarious. However, when data is shared through official channels in universities, it is often done in good faith- ie, do not publicise the data rashly without paying due attention to copyright, consent of the right-holder(s), etc. etc.
However, i did outline the way I got hold of the data and suggested that you(and anyone else who is interested) try the same.

KaZoH0lic said:

A fish outwitting a human. Doesn't happen often...especially with the advent of dynamite .

Click to expand...

'Often' is the catchphrase here. Remember that.

That is RACISM...that was just a snippet of your banter. He didn't call you a racist till you posted that bullcrap. Of course he is going to call you a racist when you initially instigated it.

What is hypocritical, not consistant reasoning, is how you can label Australians as such. Yet when you come to back Murali, there are references to Steve Waugh and Sir Don Bradman and even someone who was against Murali but changed sides due to scientific evidence, in Dean Jones.

So are they or aren't they? If culturally we're fed nationalistic pride and BS why are there professionals that side towards Murali? Even labelled here by some "The Don Bradman of bowling". No mate...you're a disgrace....you'll take this argument to the sewage and back just to save face, even referencing the Nazi regime.

Click to expand...

Simple lesson in English. Lets see if you can differentiate between the two:

1. All Australians over 50 are racist. You fit the bill
2. Almost all Aussies I've met over 50 are racist. You fit the bill.

The point i was trying to make is a very valid one in sociological circles - that people are essentially a product of their times. And while you dont go assuming carte blanche about anybody ( which is why i categorically stated that I personally dont consider Hair to be racist or anything), the societerial conditions prevalent during one's upbringing are taken into consideration- which is why i said that I *CAN* see why doubting Hair in that sphere ( racism) would have some basis. Hair is over 50- 35-40 years ago when he was growing up, OZ was a cesspool of ignorance-driven racism. Which, from a completely neutral and unassuming perspective, raises the likelyhood that he shares the same sentiments. Perhaps he doesnt, but it isnt a straight-off assumption in the lines of 'thou art virtuous until proven otherwise' pervading the new generation(s). Atleast, not in this matter. That was the entire point.

Was that the point? Or was your behaviour and take on every point against your view? Take it easy....

Click to expand...

The point is, when you make a claim, you have an obligation- not only out of common decency but also out of the spirit of sharing knowledge- to explain that claim....something you have not done even remotely. You havnt even defined your claim clearly.

HAHA...so if you called Australians racist, that isn't supposed to warrant a reaction...just because it wasn't directed at me? I am not of Australian nationality, however, the last thing I would do is stand by and let you rubbish this country.....just because you overhead some people talking... For someone with the pompous inclination of intelligence...you really talk a lot of non-sense.

Click to expand...

Pompous inclination of intelligence ? Find me a single post where i referred to myself as 'intelligent'. I merely stated the obvious - i know more about this field than you do, given that it is close to my field of specialisation and it isnt for you. If you are a chef, i am not gonna argue with you on how to make veal cordon bleu. And if you are not a student of science, don't argue about what is a valid scientific supposition/test condition and what arnt. Not only is that minimum decency- it is also a profound lack of humility. You wouldnt see me arguing with someone about their field of expertise, when it isnt mine. I dont go around telling former FC cricketers ( supposedly) on how to bat/bowl or field. Not my field of specialisation. They however, shout shut their collective traps on what is and what isnt a conclusive scientific test, what is an acceptable margin of error and what isnt. For it is not their speciality. Too much to ask from people who have maximus head swellimus syndrome ?

PS: a little bit less political correctness and a little bit more honesty- try that for a change and the discussion will go a lot faster.

C_C said:

I am reluctant to share that data openly because i am not sure i have the authority to do so. The data i came across was through a biomechanist friend of mine who thought this whole chucking episode ( he is canuck- cricket is an obscure sport to him) to be hillarious. However, when data is shared through official channels in universities, it is often done in good faith- ie, do not publicise the data rashly without paying due attention to copyright, consent of the right-holder(s), etc. etc.
However, i did outline the way I got hold of the data and suggested that you(and anyone else who is interested) try the same.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you must think that I was born yesterday.

social said:

Sorry, not 50

BTW, given that your exposure to Aussies is apparently limited to a few passing by a ticket window in Toronto, I'd respectfully suggest that that is hardly a meaningful sample from a statistical stand-point.

Finally, you wouldnt find yourself being labelled a racist if you'd refrain from using racial connotations as a last resort in virtually all your arguments on any topic.

Click to expand...

1. Vancouver. Not Toronto.

2. I know it is a small sample space- which is why i didnt make a generalisation about OZ. Surely, you can differentiate between a statement making an assumptive generalisation and a statement about one's meager personal experience.

3. I havn't brought up any racist connotation(s)- you've had. I observed that you are Aussie and questioned the neutrality in this matter, given that one of the protagonist is an Aussie. Of which you responded with speculation stemming from my subcontinental roots ( note : I made a reference to nationalism, YOU made a reference to racism). Instead of beating around the bush in politically correct psychobabble, i brought what you started out in the open. So next time, when one defends Murali and is from the subcontinent, you'd do well not to refer to it, as reference to that is racism ( while referring to your common nationality with the player in concern is nationalism, not racism).
If you wanna play, i can play. But i tend to play a lot more directly than most- a style Aussies should be familiar with.

luckyeddie said:

I'm sorry, but you must think that I was born yesterday.

Click to expand...

Well i am sure if there is an obscure discussion over superstring theory in some physics messageboard, people post their entire research works there for everyone's benifit.
I guess I was born yesterday for i've never encountered any research from Bell Labs or Fermi particle accelerator over the net......

C_C said:

Well i am sure if there is an obscure discussion over superstring theory in some physics messageboard, people post their entire research works there for everyone's benifit.
I guess I was born yesterday.

Click to expand...

Australian Cricketers' Association chief executive, Tim May, responded: 'I sat on that (ICC) committee and I don't know where those figures (quoted by Muralitharan) came from. (But) there has been a lot of speculation around Murali. So I have sympathy for him.'

The above statement was made on or before Wednesday, 17 November, 2004 and was reported in The Hindu.

When given the choice between believing him (for the information volunteered and the reasons stated) and you (despite the hilarity of your rather pompous pontificating on the ethics of academia), it's close but I think I know where my vote goes.

When given the choice between believing him (for the information volunteered and the reasons stated) and you (despite the hilarity of your rather pompous pontificating on the ethics of academia), it's close but I think I know where my vote goes.

Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion. I have no problems with that. However, feel free to ignore the channel i've indicated for obtaining the said information.

PS: Sod the ethics of academia. My primary concern is not jeopardising my own academic progress simply because i shared something not in pubic domain over the internet. Would give gullibility a whole new meaning. Sorry. Not gonna spoon-feed ya.Especially not at the risk of my own neck. Go find out for yourself if you are really interested to find out. I've pointed the way. If not, feel free to call me a liar. I have zero problems with that either.

C_C said:

You are entitled to your opinion. I have no problems with that. However, feel free to ignore the channel i've indicated for obtaining the said information.

PS: Sod the ethics of academia. My primary concern is not jeopardising my own academic progress simply because i shared something not in pubic domain over the internet. Would give gullibility a whole new meaning. Sorry. Not gonna spoon-feed ya.Especially not at the risk of my own neck. Go find out for yourself if you are really interested to find out. I've pointed the way. If not, feel free to call me a liar. I have zero problems with that either.

Click to expand...

Let me get this straight.....

For the last three months, you have been quoting results from a 'secret' paper - results that were available to Muttiah Muralitharan on or before 13 November 2004, and yet these very same results were not available to Tim May who actually sat on the ICC panel?

Just you, and Muttiah Muralitharan? And it might be available to me if I contact the University of Western Australia and ask them nicely?

There isn't a journalist in the world that wouldn't be prepared to get down on his hands and knees and kiss feet in order to plead with his paper's owner to fork out a couple of million, because this is absolute dynamite.

I bet that you still maintain that you have a shred of credibility left.