Murali: I will continue to bowl the doosra

[age_master]

Put it this way - if the Libs win the next election, my wife and I are fleeing to New Zealand.

we should probably get back on topic....


btw Mark Latham would do far worse to the Australian economy than GWB to the US..... (if people wanna discuss Aussie politics though someone should create a thread in the OT forum)


if Murali bowls his doosra in a test match how long do people think he should be banned for.... surley anything less than a year would just make the ICC look even weaker..

 

[luckyeddie]

...and the drama continues

SL seeks Indian help to defend Murali

This pathetic nonsense ought to stop forthwith.

I suppose deals will be done in exchange for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the list of test-playing nations, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[JASON]

Mural: I will continue to bowl the doosra

This pathetic nonsense ought to stop forthwith.

I suppose deals will be done in exchange for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the list of test-playing nations, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Agreed. This is way over the top!! I thought initially he was only responding to John Howard's comments, but now he's really getting carried away. I hope he doesn't take this to the United Nations !!

 

[Kenny]

I tell you, he thinks he is bigger than the game right now - I hope all the apologists are happy at the mess we have now.

 

[luckyeddie]

I tell you, he thinks he is bigger than the game right now - I hope all the apologists are happy at the mess we have now.

Sorry, but until Doosragate, there was nothing which could be done.
The fact that he was cleared in the past said it all.

That sounds far too much like my mum when I was a kid... "Now look what you've done. I hope you're happy now." A bit like "I voted for Kodos".

 

[Neil Pickup]

A bit like "I voted for Kodos"

 

[anzac]

Its funny. Everyone is willing to accept the Uni of WA verdict on the doosra as proving he is a chucker, whilst not accepting the 96 and 99 verdicts clearing the legality of his other deliveries. Talk about bias!

I still hope Murali keeps making a stink about all this. The ICC in banning the doosra only want to sweep the whole issue under the carpet - not just Murali, but the chucking issue as a whole.

The Laws regarding this need to be looked at again, and perhaps overhauled.

The doosra may be a perfectly legitimate, and revolutionary, delivery especially if modification is possible.

The whole chucking issue needs to be investigated as Bruce Elliott and Daryl Foster have suggested.

Simply banning the doosra just puts the issue away for another day.

Murali would be justified in believing that he is being unfairly victimized.
And who could reasonably hold otherwise?

sorry for bastardising the quote but I wanted to address a few points.........

* so far as I am aware from reading the links to articles re his prior testing posted earlier in this thread - Murali was called re his general bowling action in '96, but my understanding is that his '99 call was re his wrong-un, which is what the Doosra is - so that would mean that the '99 & 2004 reports are for the same type of delivery - it was cleared in '99 by the same lab that has now found it to be illegal - and they hinted at this (by saying that they had some concerns regarding his current action) even b4 the testing if I have
read the articles correctly.........

*my understanding is that the ICC is NOT talking about banning the delivery as such, just that his delivery action for that type of delivery has been found to be outside the limits of the laws...........the delivery as such is not in question just the way he bowls it................

*the ICC have also stated that tolerance levels etc regarding "chucking" were / are on their agenda & they had already planned to conduct more testing during the ICC Trophey later in the year - because this had already been on the agenda they have decided not to either change the rules now because of Murali, and not to instigate the testing any earlier than already planned & where they will have access to many more bowlers at the same time..........

*hence there is no 'victimisation' / bias...............well not to reasonable thinking anyway..........

 

[anzac]

What I don't understand is why are people making such a big deal about Murali now? Whether he chucks or not is somewhat irrelevant now, since he's already taken 520-odd wickets. Surely, it's a bit late to be complaining now, it's not like you can remove those wickets from test records.

because:
*he gained the record during the series v ZIM during the 1st Test, in which he took wickets using an illegal delivery action - and then had the gall to bitch about people not giving him enough kudos for doing so!!!!!!;

*he defied both the ICC & SLCB in continuing to use the delivery knowing full well that his action was still outside the legal limits;

*his supporters attacked Broad's credibility prior to the testing - something that the SLCB belatedly issued a statement condemming;

*he then claimed that 'no one told' him to stop using the delivery, and was initially supported in this by the SLCB until the ICC issued further statements to the contrary re the test results and their subsequent reports to both Murali's camp & the SLCB;

*his credibility is absolutley shot as a result of his own comments / actions re the above, as he did not use the delivery at all during the 2nd test, which coincided with him being able to be called again re the action & face a potential ban of 12 mnths - this backdown (even if he is now complying with the directions not to use the delivery) now makes him look like a cheat in using it during the 1st phase when he could not be called / reported, and / or as a coward for not using it after making such a big song and dance about being treated unfairly etc;

*his recent comments re possibly / probably not touring to AUS as a result of Howard's comments, and his (Murali's) assertions that Howard didn't know the facts, are another example of spoilt brat behaviour & attacking the credibility of the messenger in an effort to red herring the message - i.e. Howard referred to the Test results re his (Murali's) action being found to be illegal - how is that NOT knowing the facts - anything else re tolerance levels needing to be adjusted is opinion & speculation and IRRELEVANT to the test results as the laws of the game currently stand & his obligations as a player !!!

 

[anzac]

But that's the problem, the rest of his action has been cleared as legal, and until people accept that fact then this argument will not go away.

If he bowls the Doosra again then I hope he is reported for it, but if he doesn't then there is no case to answer...

I can accept that his general action has been cleared, and that he can continue to bowl the Doosra if he is able to bring his action within the legal limits...........

what I can NOT accept is the way he cries foul everytime, immediately 'red herrings' the issue/s and continually seeks to vindicate himself while attacking the credibility of anyone who does not share his view, let alone the open act of defiance in continuing to use the delivery with an illegal action to gain the record, and then the backdown as soon as he can be reported again.............

IMO the issues regarding his behaviour & actions during this 1st Phase are of greater significance than the bloody delivery action that started it off.........he has done nothing as befits a world record holder and has done nothing to enhance the game during this phase.........to the extent that his behaviour has been the exact opposite & has opened the door to further allegations / criticism regarding 'cheating' and 'cowardice'.............which perhaps could not be done previously without any justification - he has provided the current ammunition by his own words & actions..........

 

[kasra]

sorry for bastardising the quote but I wanted to address a few points.........

* so far as I am aware from reading the links to articles re his prior testing posted earlier in this thread - Murali was called re his general bowling action in '96, but my understanding is that his '99 call was re his wrong-un, which is what the Doosra is - so that would mean that the '99 & 2004 reports are for the same type of delivery - it was cleared in '99 by the same lab that has now found it to be illegal - and they hinted at this (by saying that they had some concerns regarding his current action) even b4 the testing if I have
read the articles correctly.........

Well, you understood wrong mate! How can Murali be called for a wrong-un in 1999 when he first started bowling the wrong-un in 2001??

As for his credibility, he's got plenty of it mate! He is the ultimate sportsman! A fair cricketer! Even his opponents would say so. (with the exception of the foul-mouthed Nasser Hussein)

It is his critics who have no credibility as they keep moving the goal posts or making illogical arguments to criticise him like the journo Patrick Smith in the Australian (re-produced in the Cricinfo's "Best of Web". That article quailifies as the "Worst of Web")

It is time for the Australian public (I have given up on the Australian media) to accept that Murali's off spin and top spin are perfectly legal! But I doubt that will happen. Now who has the credibility problem mate?

 

[anzac]

Well, you understood wrong mate! How can Murali be called for a wrong-un in 1999 when he first started bowling the wrong-un in 2001??

As for his credibility, he's got plenty of it mate! He is the ultimate sportsman! A fair cricketer! Even his opponents would say so. (with the exception of the foul-mouthed Nasser Hussein)

It is his critics who have no credibility as they keep moving the goal posts or making illogical arguments to criticise him like the journo Patrick Smith in the Australian (re-produced in the Cricinfo's "Best of Web". That article quailifies as the "Worst of Web")

It is time for the Australian public (I have given up on the Australian media) to accept that Murali's off spin and top spin are perfectly legal! But I doubt that will happen. Now who has the credibility problem mate?

ok fair point to #1 - I got the impression he was called for trying to bowl a wrong-un, although perhaps in Leg spin action - I'm still not sure if it was for this or for his general action as an Offie - but I'm pretty sure it was for a specific type of delivery rather than his general action (perhaps a top spinner???) - I do know that he continued to be no balled when subsequently bowling Leggies in orthodox Leg spin action - so perhaps my bad as they say..........

also it appears that the current testers were involved in the '96 tests & not the '99 ones.............

so far as the rest of your points are concerned haven't read the article so I can not comment on the contents.............

but the rest of your arguement sounds a bit like a rant & chooses to ignore the recent events...........as I have said (along with other critics & supporters alike), the legality of his other deliveries is not in issue - the Doosra action is. The goal posts have not been moved against him regarding flex tolerances - they had been set & agreed upon by everyone well b4 this came up. The impression I get is they were very much set up as a result of the findings from his previous testing in relation to his physical abnormalities, in an effort to try to make the 'chucking' issue clearer & easier to adjudicate. Other spin bowlers have been tested & no one until now has questioned the tolerance levels, let alone called for their immeditate change.

Similarly any talk of bans being imposed has nothing to do with him as a bowler in general, but specifically for the continued use of a delivery with an illegal action - which he has conveniently stopped using now that he can be called again re his delivery action.

So far as his credibility & being the ultimate sportsman & fair cricketer goes consider this - he exploited the rules during the 1st Phase to continue to knowingly use the illegal action to bowl the Doosra, and as a result obtained wickets using the action which enabled him to obtain the World Record as Highest Test Wicket Taker - not very sportsman like in my mind as previously I had thought he had enough skills as a conventional Offie to enable him to do so without embroilling the record in controversy - if he thought that the record would shield him from any such criticism (as implied by his PM among others), then they are very much mistaken or have warped views about what constitutes fair & sportsmanlike behaviour.............

I hope this answers your last question as to who has the credibility problem -if not then that's the way of the world & your perogative - you'll just have to excuse me if I decide to stand by my recent posts re his credibility, behaviour & potential to be called a liar, cheat & coward................

 

[kasra]

so far as the rest of your points are concerned haven't read the article so I can not comment on the contents.............

but the rest of your arguement sounds a bit like a rant & chooses to ignore the recent events...........as I have said (along with other critics & supporters alike), the legality of his other deliveries is not in issue - the Doosra action is. The goal posts have not been moved against him regarding flex tolerances - they had been set & agreed upon by everyone well b4 this came up. The impression I get is they were very much set up as a result of the findings from his previous testing in relation to his physical abnormalities, in an effort to try to make the 'chucking' issue clearer & easier to adjudicate. Other spin bowlers have been tested & no one until now has questioned the tolerance levels, let alone called for their immeditate change.

Similarly any talk of bans being imposed has nothing to do with him as a bowler in general, but specifically for the continued use of a delivery with an illegal action - which he has conveniently stopped using now that he can be called again re his delivery action.

So far as his credibility & being the ultimate sportsman & fair cricketer goes consider this - he exploited the rules during the 1st Phase to continue to knowingly use the illegal action to bowl the Doosra, and as a result obtained wickets using the action which enabled him to obtain the World Record as Highest Test Wicket Taker - not very sportsman like in my mind as previously I had thought he had enough skills as a conventional Offie to enable him to do so without embroilling the record in controversy - if he thought that the record would shield him from any such criticism (as implied by his PM among others), then they are very much mistaken or have warped views about what constitutes fair & sportsmanlike behaviour.............

I hope this answers your last question as to who has the credibility problem -if not then that's the way of the world & your perogative - you'll just have to excuse me if I decide to stand by my recent posts re his credibility, behaviour & potential to be called a liar, cheat & coward................

Liar, cheat and coward??? and yet the best criticism you can come up with is that he, in your words "exploited" phase 1 of the reporting rules??? what a load of illogical rubbish! What he did was perfectly within the rules.

Also, how do you explain the 8 year hounding of Murali by your countrymen when the first time he did something unsporty (in your opinion) was in the first test against Zimbabwe just this month. Thank you for confirming that all the attacks on Murali until now by Australia was based on their own prejudices and had nothing to with any real evidence of throwing. So his first act of unsportmanship (not even illegality) was committed just this month. The cover is blown mate! .....and what the rest of can us see inside is sheer hypocrisy!

 

[PY]

I think I'm right in saying that Anzac is a New Zealander so that's a load of cobblers.

And to be fair, there are more countries than Australia who have a lot of critics of Murali. The rest about 'hounding' Murali is crap, people are allowed their opinions and I for one am getting bored of Murali throwing his toys out of the pram every time something doesn't go his way.

For the record, I have no problems with Murali (or his normal action which has got the majority of his wickets) himself, just his supporters who bitch all the time. I think he is a world-class bowler and deserves the record.

However, I did lose a lot of respect for him when he continued to bowl the doosra when he knew it was banned, it was like sticking two fingers up at the ICC.

Then again, I wouldn't mind sticking two fingers at ICC as they are useless.

 

[Kenny]

A fair cricketer! Even his opponents would say so. (with the exception of the foul-mouthed Nasser Hussein)

You seriously think Nasser is the only one of his opponents who think he is a chucker?
I would very much doubt it.......Nasser just happened to use it as a sledge.

 

[Sudeep]

This controversial statement each after the other is getting too much.

Just saw a Murali interview, on his return home, saying ICC banned his 'doosra' as a result of pressure from England and Australia.

He went on to say that the 'white' countries are trying to hold back cricketers from the sub-continent.

While I do agree he has a right to speak and defend himself as I just said in the other thread on freedom of speech, this was completely unjustified and un-called for.

 

[JASON]

This controversial statement each after the other is getting too much.

Just saw a Murali interview, on his return home, saying ICC banned his 'doosra' as a result of pressure from England and Australia.

He went on to say that the 'white' countries are trying to hold back cricketers from the sub-continent.

While I do agree he has a right to speak and defend himself as I just said in the other thread on freedom of speech, this was completely unjustified and un-called for.

I just saw it myself. Agree with you whole heartedly. Time for him to accept the findings of the Biomechanical team and move on. To convert it into a white Anglo-saxon controversy is totally uncalled for. I wonder if he was playing to the audience that had turned up to greet him at the Airport. As I said so before, this issue is really getting carried away. Next thing you might see this being raised at the UN .
If he feels that he cannot accept the results of the Biomechanical experts from WA, he must ask his cricket board and have further tests regarding the 'Doosra' by another internationally accepted Biomechanical Instituition (Somewhere in the UK or United States) and see if their results concur with University of WA. Then he may have case to raise with the ICC. He must not play into the hands of Polititians in his country.

 

[Sudeep]

I just saw it myself. Agree with you whole heartedly. Time for him to accept the findings of the Biomechanical team and move on. To convert it into a white Anglo-saxon controversy is totally uncalled for. I wonder if he was playing to the audience that had turned up to greet him at the Airport. As I said so before, this issue is really getting carried away. Next thing you might see this being raised at the UN .
If he feels that he cannot accept the results of the Biomechanical experts from WA, he must ask his cricket board and have further tests regarding the 'Doosra' by another internationally accepted Biomechanical Instituition (Somewhere in the UK or United States) and see if their results concur with University of WA. Then he may have case to raise with the ICC. He must not play into the hands of Polititians in his country.

I completely agree with what Ponting and a few others have said. Testing just a few 'doosra' delieveries in a lab doesn't provide any evidence necessary for a decision.

Murali's action needs to be tested in match condition, over a period of time, if there should be any hope of resolving this controversy.

 

[JASON]

I completely agree with what Ponting and a few others have said. Testing just a few 'doosra' delieveries in a lab doesn't provide any evidence necessary for a decision.

Murali's action needs to be tested in match condition, over a period of time, if there should be any hope of resolving this controversy.

Unfortunately the technology is not there to be able to analyse in match conditions. However if it is available, I am all for it. They should not stop with Murali alone. They should analyse all the bowlers including the fast bowlers. Especially the ones who bowl their wicket taking faster ball . They could also keep an eye on those who were reported in the past as well (and others who got by without ever getting reported, despite considerable speculation) . I am sure there will be a lot of surprises .

I would also like them to develop technology so that bowlers of the past could be analysed as well. Especially some who bowled with unique actions in the past and got away and the Fast bowlers . Many of them may well turn out to be 'chuckers'.

 

[JASON]

This controversial statement each after the other is getting too much.

Just saw a Murali interview, on his return home, saying ICC banned his 'doosra' as a result of pressure from England and Australia.

He went on to say that the 'white' countries are trying to hold back cricketers from the sub-continent.

While I do agree he has a right to speak and defend himself as I just said in the other thread on freedom of speech, this was completely unjustified and un-called for.

I have just read the cricinfo article, which you mentioned. The exact words used are "The ban is because of pressure from Australia and England. There is no problem in Asia" . He has not said "White countries are trying to hold back cricketers from the subcontinent".

He is right about the pressure being from Australia (umpires calling hm for throwing) and England (Chris Broad).
Just seen another article on Bloomberg which confirms the words he used.(as above) (The article is titled: Murali,Cricket's Leading Bowler, Divides Players, Lawmakers. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100000081&sid=aUPKkHaAZ24&refer=australia
I have also read in 'the Age' an interview by Shane Warne, where he suggests Murali should develop a thick skin regarding the criticism. The title of this article is 'Murali :over-sensitive to criticism : Warne' by Chloe Saltau, Harare. (http://www.the age.com.au/articles/2004/05/21). (This may not be the exact link. But Anyone who finds the age on the net can find it).

I think Warne does have a valid point.

 

[Neil Pickup]

He went on to say that the 'white' countries are trying to hold back cricketers from the sub-continent.

If that's true then it's a) utter rubbish, b) racist, and c) far worse than Ebrahim's comments...