Expected Response !!Eclipse said:good for bradman.. but really just because he was the greatest batsman of all time does not make everyting he says correct..
Totally agree, and I'm a recent convert to the argument that Murali ain't doing anything worse than just about everybody else in the game - so I'm firmly in Murali's corner to the extent that the debate still exists.Beleg said:It may be the expected response but what Eclipse says is correct. Don Bradman may be the greatest batsman of all time but he isn't a UWA biomechanics expert and hence for me, and I am sure thousands of others, his opinion is pretty subjective and carries much less weight then a certified expert's.
From what I understand, Murali was absolutely borderline (pre-doosra), on a level of straightening imperceptible to the human eye. The thing that's changed everything is that we now know that nearly every bowler in the game is actually violating the established guidelines (which are actually looser than they used to be, even before the upcoming amendments).honestbharani said:But in this instance, wasn't he right?
He also played cricket at a time when batting and bowling was done in a different fashion to modern day and when there was close to none of the scrutiny over bowling actions.honestbharani said:You can always argue that Bradman's judgement of players was not the greatest, but certainly, I think he would know quite a bit about legal and illegal actions, if not because he was a great cricketer, atleast because he has seen so much cricket over the years and would obviously have seen a quirky action or two, in his time.
Murali supporters have said again and again that scientific evidence has proven that his action is ok (something I agree with by the way) and his action is an optical illusion that can't be correctly judged as legal or otherwise by the naked eye...........and now Don Bradman comes out and says he thought it was ok that's held up us being proof!? Did the Don have a degree in biomechanics that the rest of us don't know about? If you're being realistic with your argument for Murali then you can't hold out for scientific evidence to be taken as the sole indicator of his innocence and then go "Oh, and by the way.....Don said it was ok".JASON said:Good on the Don for atleast supporting Murali 'from his grave' as it were !!
I doubt that this would placate the many who are steadfast in their belief that he 'chucks' !!
Murali and his many millions of supporters (of which I am proud to be one) can atleast gain some satisfaction from the fact that at least the game's greatest had no doubts about Murali !!
Beleg said:It may be the expected response but what Eclipse says is correct. Don Bradman may be the greatest batsman of all time but he isn't a UWA biomechanics expert and hence for me, and I am sure thousands of others, his opinion is pretty subjective and carries much less weight then a certified expert's.
What are you on about man ?Son Of Coco said:Murali supporters have said again and again that scientific evidence has proven that his action is ok (something I agree with by the way) and his action is an optical illusion that can't be correctly judged as legal or otherwise by the naked eye...........and now Don Bradman comes out and says he thought it was ok that's held up us being proof!? Did the Don have a degree in biomechanics that the rest of us don't know about? If you're being realistic with your argument for Murali then you can't hold out for scientific evidence to be taken as the sole indicator of his innocence and then go "Oh, and by the way.....Don said it was ok".
If the shoe was on the other foot and the anti-Murali supporter's beliefs were upheld by a quote from the Don would you be saying "Oh, the Don said it was a chuck, so it must be"? I don't think so.