• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Is Murali a 'Chucker' ???

Is Murali a chucker?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 48.1%
  • No

    Votes: 14 51.9%

  • Total voters
    27

Simon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
ReallyCrazy said:
then why did you bring warne into the picture (or agreed w/ someone) saying he got his wickets fairly when all along the drug cheat was also cheating by chucking
it was agreeing with the fact that Murali is a cheat, Dravid and Ponting have taken more test wickets fairly than Murali has....
 

ReallyCrazy

Banned
broncoman said:
it was agreeing with the fact that Murali is a cheat, Dravid and Ponting have taken more test wickets fairly than Murali has....
im sure dravid and ponting have taken more test wickets fairly than warne has as well.
 

Scallywag

Banned
C_C said:
I can see some Aussie fans/media being anti-Murali because Murali is a better bowler than Warne and Murali is a threat to Warne's legacy.
Too bad though...Warne will finish second to him.... in practically every category- record against good teams, total wickets, average, 5-fers, 10-fers and strike rate.


to answer your original question, accoridng to the 15 degree proposal from the panel, Murali aint a chucker.
And if you discard that proposal, Murali is a chucker and so is everyone else.

Theres your first HIGHLIGHT SJS, a typical response that has to put Australian players down in an attempt to make Murali look better.

We can safetly say C C is anti-Australian.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Scallywag said:
That is a loaded question SJS.

Some Australians belive that Murali is a chucker and you like a lot of people for you own reasons call that anti-murali.

Anti-doosra or anti-chucking yes but anti-murali is just not stating the facts as they are.

Shoaib is a good example, just because he had a suspect action it doesnt mean that people were anti-Shoaib, they were anti-chucking.

Are the people now calling McGrath a chucker anti-McGrath or just anti-chucking.

But the real reason is freedom of the media in Australia.

Also I see more people putting crap on Australian players here than any other nations players which you will find me highlighting from now on so it becomes more clear.
First of all, I knew it would be seen as a loaded question so I clarified before hand.

Second, I have never expressed an opinion on this forum as to whether Murali chucks or no. You will be surprised at what I think :)

I agree that the response from those who are pulling McGrath etc into the chuckers band is emotional and they are clutching at a straw provided by the report in question.

But no. My question is very basic. It applies similarly to all emotive issues outside cricket too. The fact of the matter is that we tend to take our positions and then objectivity is the first casualty. We will find everything that supports OUR predetermined stance as objective and anything that opposes it as biased.

Either a bowler throws or he doesnt. Or , maybe, he is a borderline case. But in each circumstance, statsics should show, people by and large ageeing that he throws(if he clearly does) or a majority thinking he doesnt (if he clearly doesnt) or be equally divided beteen those who think one way or the other (in the third instance).

BUT

...when you find that the opinions, by and large, are varying by nationality (India vs Pakistan), (Sri Lanka vs Australia) or someother criteria which divides the 'viewers' into distinct groups with nothing to do with the point being debated, then one must come to the conclusion that emotions, other than objectivity, are playing an important role too.

This does not mean Australians are wrong, but why only Australians or why mainly Australians, why are the others not agreeing with the Australians in as many numbers ? This is what I am trying to point out.

The whole idea of my posting that post was to bring home to every one on the forum that their views(everyone not just Australians) ARE coloured and they must see that and therefore, avoid such issues if they cant be strong enough to be purely objective.
 
Last edited:

Scallywag

Banned
SJS said:
.

But no. My question is very basic. It applies similarly to all emotive issues outside cricket too. The fact of the matter is that we tend to take our positions and then objectivity is the first casualty. We will find everything that supports OUR predetermined stance as objective and anything that opposes it as biased.

Either a bowler throws or he doesnt. Or , maybe, he is a borderline case. But in each circumstance, statsics should show, people by and large ageeing that he throws(if he clearly does) or a majority thinking he doesnt (if he clearly doesnt) or be equally divided beteen those who think one way or the other (in the third instance).

BUT

...when you find that the opinions, by and large, are varying by nationality (India vs Pakistan), (Sri Lanka vs Australia) or someother criteria which divides the 'viewers' into distinct groups with nothing to do with the point being debated, then one must come to the conclusion that emotions, other than objectivity, are playing an important role too.

This does not mean Australians are wrong, but why only Australians or why mainly Australians, why are the others not agreeing with the Australians in as many numbers ? This is what I am trying to point out.

The whole idea of my posting that post was to bring home to every one on the forum that their views(everyone not just Australians) ARE coloured and they must see that and therefore, avoid such issues if they cant be strong enough to be purely objective.
Australia is the dominant cricket team and some people find this hard to accept, everything done by the Australians is scrutinised to death and most times little things added to fuel the story.
if Warne was caught speeding it would make headlines and All Australians would be classed as wreckless speeding drivers.
If S Waugh said NZ are hopeless then everybody would say Australians have no respect for NZ.

for a country of only 23mil we certainly are the focus of billions of asians and thats simply because we have the best cricket team.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
SJS said:
I agree that the response from those who are pulling McGrath etc into the chuckers band is emotional and they are clutching at a straw provided by the report in question.

......

The whole idea of my posting that post was to bring home to every one on the forum that their views(everyone not just Australians) ARE coloured and they must see that and therefore, avoid such issues if they cant be strong enough to be purely objective.
SJS, I disagree with you on the McGrath issue. I think it's a very valid point to raise - not to demonize McGrath in the slightest, but to illustrate that a bowler who nobody in their right mind would have called a chucker actually breaches the old tolerance levels. It firstly demonstrates that perhaps the previous tolerance levels were inadequate, but also asks "If McGrath is doing this, what makes Murali such a disgusting cheat?"

I'm an Aussie supporter who, up to now, has believed that Murali was doing something that everybody else wasn't, so what I've heard at this point (presuming it's not completely unrepresentative) has been a bit of an eye-opener. As to why Australians in particular (and I am certainly one) have such an issue with Murali, I would guess that it comes down to defensiveness about being from the country where he was called during that huge melodrama back in '96 and '99. And ego is a very powerful thing.

Much of what we've seen in some threads makes very little sense to me, but I would argue that there's not a complete lack of objectivity about this issue on these forums (on BOTH sides) - just that it was predictable that things would "get ugly" for some after some of the ramifications of this report became known.

I think somebody earlier (I can't remember who) already put it in the context of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's five stages of the loss process - only maybe we've skipped "bargaining" and gone straight from "denial" to "anger" and "despair". :)

Anyhow, your mileage may vary.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
Scallywag said:
for a country of only 23mil we certainly are the focus of billions of asians and thats simply because we have the best cricket team.
:wacko: :wacko: :huh: :huh:
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Slow Love™ said:
SJS, I disagree with you on the McGrath issue. I think it's a very valid point to raise - not to demonize McGrath in the slightest, but to illustrate that a bowler who nobody in their right mind would have called a chucker actually breaches the old tolerance levels. It firstly demonstrates that perhaps the previous tolerance levels were inadequate, but also asks "If McGrath is doing this, what makes Murali such a disgusting cheat?"

I'm an Aussie supporter who, up to now, has believed that Murali was doing something that everybody else wasn't, so what I've heard at this point (presuming it's not completely unrepresentative) has been a bit of an eye-opener. As to why Australians in particular (and I am certainly one) have such an issue with Murali, I would guess that it comes down to defensiveness about being from the country where he was called during that huge melodrama back in '96 and '99. And ego is a very powerful thing.

Much of what we've seen in some threads makes very little sense to me, but I would argue that there's not a complete lack of objectivity about this issue on these forums (on BOTH sides) - just that it was predictable that things would "get ugly" for some after some of the ramifications of this report became known.

I think somebody earlier (I can't remember who) already put it in the context of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's five stages of the loss process - only maybe we've skipped "bargaining" and gone straight from "denial" to "anger" and "despair". :)

Anyhow, your mileage may vary.
OK. Let me explain my personal point of view.

I am from the old school who believe that a bowler chucks if to the viewer (namely umpire from the square leg who was in the best position to judge) it appears so. Invariably, the batsman can tell. I believe the bowler can also tell.

By this thinking Murali was chucking till the authorities, in their wisdom, decided to change the definition. The moment they did that it became too complex and too technical to be resolved by an umpire on the field of play let alone fans sitting with their lap tops and posting on cricket forums.

By the old fashioned method, McGrath would have been a most unlikely candidate for chucking whereas Shoaib would have been very likely to be called around the world and Lee too would have been called at times. This was a simpler method and in its own way, without prescribing fancy, difficult-to-determine angles etc, did have a built in consistency in that, what could be 'visually seen as bending', that kind/extent of bending was chucking and could be called and would be called by alert umpires.

The moment this fancy criteria of varying limits and now a fixed limit (both impossible for an umpire to determine on the field of play) have come into being, we have moved into the realm of technicalities which had to end up in a ridiculous compromise which is what this present document looks like.

For more than a century, many bowlers have chucked, even by the old standard, and sometimes they got away with it since they did so once in a while. But those who trangressed more frequently got noticed, mostly by batsmen first and by umpires and it took vigilance AND GUTS since it was such a sensitive issue, on the parts of umpires to call these bowlers.

What should have been done is to strengthen the hands of these umpires and boost their 'guts' rather than curb them to an extent that no one is now going to call them on the ground which is the only place where it matters.
 
Last edited:

Cloete

International Captain
Dasa said:
Well India itself has a billion people...

On the murali subject. Yes, he chucks. Why? Because he starts off with a straightened arm and bends it....
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Scallywag said:
Australia is the dominant cricket team and some people find this hard to accept, everything done by the Australians is scrutinised to death and most times little things added to fuel the story.
if Warne was caught speeding it would make headlines and All Australians would be classed as wreckless speeding drivers.
If S Waugh said NZ are hopeless then everybody would say Australians have no respect for NZ.

for a country of only 23mil we certainly are the focus of billions of asians and thats simply because we have the best cricket team.
Thats just a lot of arrogant hot air. Australia is admired and people would like to emulate them. The Indian fans would love their cricketers to be like Australians.

If S Waugh said NZ are hopeless I would not say he has no respect for NZ, I would say, he should shut up and concentrate on playing cricket or whatever else his job is. If his job was commenting on the game and he kept talking such stuff ONLY of the opponents of AUSTRALIA, and I felt it was too much, I would just stop reading his column. Nothing more nothing less. What has respect for NZ got anything to do with it ? If one person said something on this forum, how does he become 'everybody' ?

What you write about Warne's speeding resulting in remarks about Australians being reckless drivers is silly. It never happens like that. Again, just because people get into an argument on a net forum and it gets personal doesnt mean you can genralise as if it is Australia versus rest of the world. It is childish at the bare minimum.
 

masterblaster

International Captain
I think you'll find Indian fans living in India adore the Australian's and their cricket, I know as an Indian fan I certainly admire them, Sudeep, Anil and the other prominent Indian supporters do as well. I wish a few people wouldn't think it was Us (India/Subcontinent) vs Them (The Rest of the World) in International Cricket.

There is no divide, so why are people trying to make on out of every issue (Umpiring, Murali, ICC Administration etc. etc.)
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
SJS said:
OK. Let me explain my personal point of view.

I am from the old school who believe that a bowler chucks if to the viewer (namely umpire from the square leg who was in the best position to judge) it appears so. Invariably, the batsman can tell. I believe the bowler can also tell.

By this thinking Murali was chucking till the authorities, in their wisdom, decided to change the definition. The moment they did that it became too complex and too technical to be resolved by an umpire on the field of play let alone fans sitting with their lap tops and posting on cricket forums.

By the old fashioned method, McGrath would have been a most unlikely candidate for chucking whereas Shoaib would have been very likely to be called around the world and Lee too would have been called at times. This was a simpler method and in its own way, without prescribing fancy, difficult-to-determine angles etc, did have a built in consistency in that, what could be 'visually seen as bending', that kind/extent of bending was chucking and could be called and would be called by alert umpires.

The moment this fancy criteria of varying limits and now a fixed limit (both impossible for an umpire to determine on the field of play) have come into being, we have moved into the realm of technicalities which had to end up in a ridiculous compromise which is what this present document looks like.

For more than a century, many bowlers have chucked, even by the old standard, and sometimes they got away with it since they did so once in a while. But those who trangressed more frequently got noticed, mostly by batsmen first and by umpires and it took vigilance AND GUTS since it was such a sensitive issue, on the parts of umpires to call these bowlers.

What should have been done is to strengthen the hands of these umpires and boost their 'guts' rather than curb them to an extent that no one is now going to call them on the ground which is the only place where it matters.
I've supported the umpires' right to call Murali for chucking under the old system, because I think that at the time, it was a reasonable thing for them to do.

But, to me, science has shown us that these decisions are made too arbitrarily. I realise that there was much attention on Murali already, but given (according to the info being released) that the difference in degrees of straightening between he and other bowlers seems to be low, and the amount of straightening visible to the eye is 15 degrees and above, I think we can be assured that the fuss over Murali has pretty much come down to the visual impact of his bent elbow, more so than a perceptible straightening of his arm.

I don't believe that the chucking controversy is the biggest issue of importance facing cricket today (even if it spawns the most controversy), but these are decisions that can end people's careers (I wonder what Ian Meckiff might have to say about recent events) - and livelihoods in some countries. I don't think they should be decided by arbitrary calls and different umpires' judgements, IF the technology is available to give us a clearer picture of the truth. Otherwise, it's comparable to matters of faith and tradition such as the earth being flat. It worked fine for hundreds of years, but that didn't mean it was right.
 

JASON

Cricketer Of The Year
I don't see the point in voting on this poll and giving it credibility that it doesn't deserve! :D
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Scallywag said:
Australia is the dominant cricket team and some people find this hard to accept
Yet you can't accept that Murali is the dominant bowler - I believe that's called hypocracy.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Cloete said:
On the murali subject. Yes, he chucks. Why? Because he starts off with a straightened arm and bends it....
And that shows exactly how ignorant you are.

He doesn't start with a straightened arm one bit (because his arm physically cannot be straight)

Also, that is the complete opposite of what the TV Test he took last summer showed (when his arm ended up nearer straight at the end of the action then at the start of it)
 

Scallywag

Banned
marc71178 said:
Unfortunately we can't safely say what you are (on this forum) as there's a naughty word filter.

Is that why you get so frustrated marc, cant say what you want, or is your vocabulary restricted to words people say to you.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
Cloete said:
On the murali subject. Yes, he chucks. Why? Because he starts off with a straightened arm and bends it....
Yeah, I have to agree with Marc, it's amazing that you would say this. What's he doing, bicep curls? If more people were acquainted with what actually constituted a throw, perhaps we wouldn't be getting so many clueless comments along these lines.

I can't see how you can be so defiant about the ramifications about the recent report when you don't appear to know what chucking actually is.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
C_C said:
hey dude....if you can turn on your mental cpu, you would realise that Warne chucks too(according to the ICC findings)...

Oh and another thing..... Murali definately didnt take no illegal pill !
:D
I think you'll find Warne wasn't tested...
 

Top