Martin Crowe attacks officials, chuckers & Bangladesh/Zimbabwe

[Lillian Thomson]

His presentation was played in full on Test Match Special during the Lunch Interval. He did at least try to explain his ideas in a fair amount of depth.
A fuller version of what he said can be found here and a complete version here

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's actually quite a good speech, in it's full format. Lots of good points raised, and the "controversial" bits were actually pretty few and far between. There's a few points here and there I'd disagree with (the two innings thing, the World Cup and the dismissal of Bangladesh, for instance), but it's a good read overall.

 

[Langeveldt]

Serious question Richard, and this doesn't have to turn into a Murali chucking debate.

I've read many times you defend Hansie Cronje and mention him still being a SA hero, or something along those lines. Yet you criticise Murali? The difference between someone who deliberaltely fixed matches compared to a player who tries his butt off, and no matter which way you look at his bowling action and whether he should be playing cricket, is doing so 'innocently.'

This isn't a Hansie bashing comment either, because I loved him as a player, was my favourite SA player before the match fixing came out.

Good question, i wouldn't say I had defended Hansie, what he did was wrong and he should never have played a game of international cricket ever again.. But what many people forget was that in his later years he had done more work to repay his debts than most do in a lifetime, and he did this while he was still being villified the world over, thats something I admire and why I defend him, but I don't think I've ever justified what he did or ever called for him to wear the national colours again..

I'm more angry with the games administrators and pen pushers than with Murali himself, who actually cannot help the way he bowls.. If he was less successful, say had five wickets at 50, wouldn't he have been banished to the wilds with Johan Botha and Shabbir Ahmed?

I've never had a problem with Murali the bloke, I admire his fight in adverse circumstances (much like Hansie), but what I absolutely hate is how this whole 15 degree flexion rule change seems to have come about because of him.. I resent the fact that one man seems to be bigger than the game of cricket, about how he is so dominant that he wins test match after test match for his country.. Okay he may be playing within the rules now, but I see it as akin to making the pitch 20 yards long so Dale Steyn can stop bowling his no-balls.. And I'm not even sure what the situation is with his doosra, but the whole system looks incredibly dodgy to me..

 

[Jono]

Good reply Richard, some good points raised. I also understand your stance further now.

Cheers.

 

[Legglancer]

ICC responds to Crowe's comments

Cricinfo staff

July 13, 2006

The ICC has responded to Martin Crowe's comments in his recent Spirit of Cricket Lecture at Lord's by saying that it is dealing with the issue of suspect bowling actions more effectively than ever. In his address, Crowe criticised the new 15-degree law and said that all bent arms should be banned.

However, the ICC says the current regulations, in place since March 2005, provide a scientific basis for judging a player's action while at the same time recognising the reality that almost all bowlers are likely to straighten their arm to some extent during delivery.

"The regulations are based on the views of an expert panel of former players including Angus Fraser, Michael Holding and Tony Lewis - the current Chairman of the MCC's Cricket Committee," said David Richardson, the ICC's General Manager - Cricket. "This group studied the research of prominent bio-mechanists Professor Bruce Elliot, Dr Paul Hurrion and Mr Marc Portus and the scientific evidence they were presented with was overwhelming.

"The facts are that some bowlers, even those never suspected of having flawed actions, were found likely to be straightening their arms by 11 or 12 degrees. And at the same time, some bowlers that may appear to be throwing may be hyper-extending or bowl with permanently bent elbows.

"Under a strict interpretation of the Law they were breaking the rules but if we ruled out every bowler that did that then there would be no bowlers left. The game needed to deal with that reality and the current regulations do just that.

Richardson added that the new laws have made the umpires' job easier and provide a scientific base for testing actons. "What they do is take the pressure off umpires because it is now no longer one person's view of whether or not a bowler has an illegal action. It is something that can be proved scientifically and the assessment is independent and not partisan.

"At the same time the umpire retains the right to call a bowler for throwing and the first judgment he makes is still based on his instincts after viewing an action with the naked eye," he added.

The regulations include a 15 degree level of tolerance in elbow extension for all bowlers during delivery, which was identified by the panel of experts as the point after which the bend is likely to become visible to the naked eye.

Five senior international bowlers have been reported under the new process - Harbhajan Singh of India, Pakistan's Shabbir Ahmed and Shoaib Malik, Jermaine Lawson of the West Indies and Johan Botha of South Africa.

Richardson also responded to Crowe's comments about the value of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in Test cricket. "Bangladesh has taken time to adjust to the demands of Test cricket but that mirrors the experience of every side that has stepped up to the top level.

"Bangladesh is a cricket-crazy country and has shown encouraging signs of development and, given time, we fully expect it to become more and more competitive at Test level. Zimbabwe has already stepped back from its Test commitments to allow itself time to regroup and we are keen to help it in that process in any way we can."

© Cricinfo

 

[BoyBrumby]

...and isn't that unfair on bowlers who are equally as innocent, yet look perhaps a bit dodgy? Why discriminate on the basis of how the action looks when bowling since it has little to no bearing on the actual result.

Shabbir Ahmed and Johan Botha were both banned, and it seems evident now that the new 'chucking' laws have driven the various cricket boards to address the problem at a lower level. It seems that these new laws have prompted more rigorous and regular testing which helps to eliminate the problem before it reaches international cricekt. The problem I see with your argument here is that you're judging the laws without even giving them a chance to work.

See what I've written above. With time, the new laws are likely to result in the problem becoming much less significant. Another problem I see with your argument is that you're basically rewarding those with 'classical' actions over others. What if a bowler should learn to perhaps add pace with a 'chuck' while making it indetectable to the on-field umpires. This is something that could very well happen, but with the old laws, such a bowler would continue to get away with cheating while other bowlers would be vilified for having an unorthodox action while bowling honestly.

The fact is the old laws were inherently unfair, and without giving the new laws any time to have a significant effect people seem ready to write them off. If anyone can come up with a system that isn't unfair on certain types of bowlers and can be detected by the on-field umpires, then there would be no problem. However, that isn't the case now and I cannot see the logic in continuing with old methods which have been scientifically proven to be unfair.

Well, aside from all the issues concerning the fact that the new law can only be implemented retrospectively, one of the other problems with it is that is still discriminates against bowlers with dodgy looking actions. Who is it that makes the initial report? Umpires using the dear, hopelessly flawed human eye. The one factor connecting those reported under the new regime is the iffy appearance of their actions.

Transgressors who exceed the tolerance limits but whose action appear quote-unquote classical can continue to chuck as ever they could.

Until our sport develops the technology to allow officialdom to ascertain during the course of a game who is exceeding the fifteen degrees the law is asinine. Returning the determination to standing umpires won't work either; only an exceptionally brave or foolish man would ever make such a call in the current climate.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Until our sport develops the technology to allow officialdom to ascertain during the course of a game who is exceeding the fifteen degrees the law is asinine. Returning the determination to standing umpires won't work either; only an exceptionally brave or foolish man would ever make such a call in the current climate.

You might be right there, but then I think we're really talking about the borderline Murali-type cases there. The Murali issue was always going to be a convoluted one, because of his birth defect, and also because of the disgraceful captain he had at the time. If, say, Botha had been called in Australia last summer, I doubt there would have been much backlash really, because nobody who complained would have a leg to stand on, as it was quite obvious he was chucking the ball. He played one game, got reported, played the rest of the VB series, got tested and then banned. Same goes for Shabbir, incidentally. I doubt any umpire would call a questionable case in the current climate (like the Lee, Shoaib, Harbhajan type reports), but with proper encouragement and support form the ICC, I think they might call the obvious cases and reduce the instances of farcical "after the fact" bannings.

I have no problem with an umpire who is not sure asking for lab testing after the game, in theory, but really I don't think you can use that as the justification to ban someone, because it isn't in an actual cricket match.

 

[Legglancer]

You might be right there, but then I think we're really talking about the borderline Murali-type cases there. The Murali issue was always going to be a convoluted one, because of his birth defect, and also because of the disgraceful captain he had at the time. If, say, Botha had been called in Australia last summer, I doubt there would have been much backlash really, because nobody who complained would have a leg to stand on, as it was quite obvious he was chucking the ball. He played one game, got reported, played the rest of the VB series, got tested and then banned. Same goes for Shabbir, incidentally. I doubt any umpire would call a questionable case in the current climate (like the Lee, Shoaib, Harbhajan type reports), but with proper encouragement and support form the ICC, I think they might call the obvious cases and reduce the instances of farcical "after the fact" bannings.

I have no problem with an umpire who is not sure asking for lab testing after the game, in theory, but really I don't think you can use that as the justification to ban someone, because it isn't in an actual cricket match.

No .... Thanks to Arjuna, at least the world does not have to rely on the inherantly flawed perceptions of umpires however biased/unbiased they might be. If not for him standing up for his player, cricket would have lost one of its most brilliant exponents.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You might be right there, but then I think we're really talking about the borderline Murali-type cases there. The Murali issue was always going to be a convoluted one, because of his birth defect, and also because of the disgraceful captain he had at the time. If, say, Botha had been called in Australia last summer, I doubt there would have been much backlash really, because nobody who complained would have a leg to stand on, as it was quite obvious he was chucking the ball. He played one game, got reported, played the rest of the VB series, got tested and then banned. Same goes for Shabbir, incidentally. I doubt any umpire would call a questionable case in the current climate (like the Lee, Shoaib, Harbhajan type reports), but with proper encouragement and support form the ICC, I think they might call the obvious cases and reduce the instances of farcical "after the fact" bannings.

I have no problem with an umpire who is not sure asking for lab testing after the game, in theory, but really I don't think you can use that as the justification to ban someone, because it isn't in an actual cricket match.

I don't think there are any current international captains with Ranatunga-esque levels of belligerence, but if (for argument's sake) Fat Gray had objected & took SA off we would have had another Mexican stand-off with one side having to back down for the game to be allowed to be completed.

One of the primary principles of sporting contest should be the even application of the rules by officials &, unfortunately, I think the current (poisonous) climate would make that impossible.

 

[silentstriker]

he great thing with the LBW is that it is in the expert opinion of the umpire that the decision is made. With LBWs, no one ever knows exactly what would have happened and this is a beauty of cricket. No other sport allows this unique situation and I believe it must be retained.

So basically he is defending LBW technology because they get it wrong from time to time?

"Oh, its awesome that a match is decided based on a wrong decision by the umpire. It's beautiful."

 

[steds]

I don't think there are any current international captains with Ranatunga-esque levels of belligerence, but if (for argument's sake) Fat Gray had objected & took SA off we would have had another Mexican stand-off

And then the press would slaughter him and we'd have a fallen angel on our hands.

 

[BoyBrumby]

And then the press would slaughter him and we'd have a fallen angel on our hands.

I'm sure The Leaders of The Free World would pull out all The Stops to prevent that. Any Day Now. I've Great Expectations.

 

[JASON]

Martin Crowe is a frustrated guy (with balding hair line) who has involvement with a Hair Treatment company for people who are balding called Advanced Hair Studios. Shane Warne is now the icon of this establishment in commercials in NZ ,and I suspect in Australia and England as well .

So there is a link to Martin's sudden interests in Cricket's chucking issues .

Besides there's a great desire for Martin [and for that matter a Crowe family trait (c.f Russell Crowe )] of wanting to be more Australian than the Aussies and taking a cheap shot at something like this is Martin's chance to stardom from a chap who most would have ignored otherwise !!

* A bit like Winston Peters in NZ taking a cheap shot at Immigration of Asians before an election to win some extra votes*

There is a tendency for some to want to be embraced by the Aussies (as one of them )and for Martin this is his cheap shot to get this acclaim.

Hope he achieved what he wanted !!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What's the connection between "wanting to be an aussie" and commenting on chucking? You've lost me.

 

[JASON]

What's the connection between "wanting to be an aussie" and commenting on chucking? You've lost me.

His attacking of Murali in expectation of being endeared by the Aussies and the Aussie media requires no further explanation .

 

[honestbharani]

I think what we should do is create a cast of McGraths' arm when he's bowling, and make everyone wear that cast when they're bowling. And then you bring back the old rules, so that everyone will be chucking in a 'flawlessly classical' manner..

u mean everyone will straighten up to 11 or 12 or 13 degrees? because that is what McGrath's flex was.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, aside from all the issues concerning the fact that the new law can only be implemented retrospectively, one of the other problems with it is that is still discriminates against bowlers with dodgy looking actions. Who is it that makes the initial report? Umpires using the dear, hopelessly flawed human eye. The one factor connecting those reported under the new regime is the iffy appearance of their actions.

Transgressors who exceed the tolerance limits but whose action appear quote-unquote classical can continue to chuck as ever they could.

Until our sport develops the technology to allow officialdom to ascertain during the course of a game who is exceeding the fifteen degrees the law is asinine. Returning the determination to standing umpires won't work either; only an exceptionally brave or foolish man would ever make such a call in the current climate.

Maybe in a few years time, we can have the technology to measure the flex within a few mins of the ball being bowled and maybe the ref and the third ump can then take over?


But honestly, going back to the old rules would be stupid to say the least. They have been PROVEN to be wrong and unfair.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

His attacking of Murali in expectation of being endeared by the Aussies and the Aussie media requires no further explanation .

Do you actually believe the things that you write on here?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Apropos Crowe's speech, a poll from The Guardian. The question asked was:

Are the ICC too lenient over suspect bowling actions?

Result here:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/poll/0,,1818917,00.html

 

[silentstriker]

u mean everyone will straighten up to 11 or 12 or 13 degrees? because that is what McGrath's flex was.

Yes, he was a chucker all throughout the 90's when the old rules were in place.