Murali may pull out of Australian tour

[Richard]

now we know that some umpires will not call him merely because they may lose their jobs, the 'evidence' is looking pretty good for my position, yes?

If they're in danger of losing their jobs for calling him, I think that clearly shows the ICC position on him.

And it doesn't look good for your position.

This whole ridiculous ascertation is based on the assumption that Umpires know better than those who ICC have formed their judgement upon!
Believe it or not, it is certain that those who analysed Murali's action at UWA Physics Laboratory included zero international Umpires (for obvious reasons). And you have still to come-up with a reason why they should know better than these learned physicists. Best you've ever done is "people like to form their own jugements".
Well, I have, and I happen to come to the same conclusion as these learned physicians. And if someone disagrees, no matter how many, I simply comfort myself in the knowledge that they have analysed the matter in an inferior manner to those who have made the ultimately important judgement.

 

[Richard]

I have never said I hated the Aussie team. It's just their media has a long history of writing steaming piles of biased bull****, and writing crap just to wind up the opposition, so why should I believe anything they say?

"Young Man?" Is that supposed to make me feel my point is less important? Yes Murali's not got an amazing record in Australia, but with his new delivery and several years of almost constant success, if I was an Australian batsman I'd be pretty scared of facing him. Remember how well England played him a few years ago in Sri Lanka and then again in England? Well, we went to Sri Lanka feeling very confident and lost, mainly to do with his bowling, but also partly because Vaughan is just a useless captain.

Normally with me you can simply take silence as agreeance, but here I feel compelled to voice my "ditto this for me" vote.

 

[Armadillo]

Basically it strikes me that the only long-standing subcontinentals are anil and Vish

Ahem...... :rolleyes:

 

[PY]

You've been here a month.

:P:P:P

 

[Armadillo]

I've been here a few months I'll have you know.

 

[Richard]

Your ppd ratio isn't sufficient for a few months to add you to that group.

 

[PY]

I've been here a few months I'll have you know.

Look under your avatar, it tells you when you were registered. 40 days by my reckoning. :P .

Though you're still an integral part of CW if for nothing other than abusing Halsey.

 

[Armadillo]

Hey Halsey deserves that abuse, as if he hasn't abused me

 

[Kenny]

Actually Rik, 'young man' is just meant to mean you are a young man, er.......compared to me that is.
I didn't mean to trigger any inferiority complexes. Sorry.
Your age doesn't mean your opinion means any less then any others......but then you have certainly proved yourself in the past to be both someone who is extremely combative, and someone who doesn't have much respect for their elders.......

I see I have triggered a whole lot of pro-Murali, anti-Australian sentiment here - fair enough. I guess that's what message boards are all about.

This one is certainly the most anti-Australian one of the sport genre I visit though, certainly. But again, that's ok. The top team in any sport is always bound to engender some resentment and 'tall poppy' syndrome.........understandable.

The poll thing does make me laugh though - anyone who voted that Murali is a chucker, or that his action is illegal were just mistaken, and just changed their minds later - wish we could do that in our Federal election and get rids of warmonger Johhny Howard!! .......also someone asserted that the umpires don't really have the knowledge to **shock gasp** challenge the ICC's previous erroneous statement that his action is fine - that is presumably because everyone has come to the conclusion that the umpires mentioned MUST be Australian, therefore biased, racist, incapable etc etc........yeah right.

And to Richard, yes, absolutely, I think Neil's comment has everything to do with hating Australian cricket fans and the fact that his team hasn't beaten us for 16 years and not much to do with what you call 'unblinkered observation'......"drowning in face of evidence' certainly does not sound like unblinkered obeservation to me.........but then he probably is a big Nasser Hussein fan, even though Nasser, based on his reported (and very brave) outburst during the recent series obviously shares my (and many million other) cricket fans view on Murali and his 'bowling'.......I'm quite sure Neil, in his quieter moments, and when he doesn't feel under siege, would admit this, or something close to this, is true.

Say what you will - Murali is, and probably will remain the most controversial bowler in world cricket - not even you Aussie haters could dispute that!! (or maybe you could) and the reason most of you on this site support him is more to do with hating the Australian team and it's success and supporters than anything to do with the legality or otherwise of his diabloical bowling action.

 

[PY]

Hey Halsey deserves that abuse, as if he hasn't abused me

It wasn't a dig at you, don't worry. I'm glad you abuse him (in a joke way) because he gives the ginger one too much abuse. :P

 

[Richard]

Actually Rik, 'young man' is just meant to mean you are a young man, er.......compared to me that is.
I didn't mean to trigger any inferiority complexes. Sorry.
Your age doesn't mean your opinion means any less then any others......but then you have certainly proved yourself in the past to be both someone who is extremely combative, and someone who doesn't have much respect for their elders.......

You shouldn't have respect for someone just because they're older than you if you ask me - that's a very outdated theorem. You should, naturally, have respect for any fellow human-being, but no extra just because someone's older than you.

also someone asserted that the umpires don't really have the knowledge to **shock gasp** challenge the ICC's previous erroneous statement that his action is fine - that is presumably because everyone has come to the conclusion that the umpires mentioned MUST be Australian, therefore biased, racist, incapable etc etc........yeah right.

And to Richard, yes, absolutely, I think Neil's comment has everything to do with hating Australian cricket fans and the fact that his team hasn't beaten us for 16 years and not much to do with what you call 'unblinkered observation'......"drowning in face of evidence' certainly does not sound like unblinkered obeservation to me.........but then he probably is a big Nasser Hussein fan, even though Nasser, based on his reported (and very brave) outburst during the recent series obviously shares my (and many million other) cricket fans view on Murali and his 'bowling'.......I'm quite sure Neil, in his quieter moments, and when he doesn't feel under siege, would admit this, or something close to this, is true.

Say what you will - Murali is, and probably will remain the most controversial bowler in world cricket - not even you Aussie haters could dispute that!! (or maybe you could) and the reason most of you on this site support him is more to do with hating the Australian team and it's success and supporters than anything to do with the legality or otherwise of his diabloical bowling action.

This is total crap, certainly as far as myself is concerned. I hate any opinion that Murali's bowling action is diabolical - simply because it's so ridiculously ill-informed. I've berated fellow Englishmen about it too.
Well, if you think that about Neil, that's up to you - I think that's just another ill-informed opinion. I think James an excellent judge of character, from what I know of this site, and I don't think he'd have made someone so blinkered a moderator. Also, having read of Neil what I have, I don't see someone who would let jealousy get in the way of unblinkered observation. And having met him personally too, of course.
I certainly am a big Nasser Hussain fan, I think he's a superb batsman ... but that doesn't change the fact that if he believes Murali's action is illegal, I disagree very strongly with him and I think he's ill-informed. Not, of course, that we know for certain that he does think that.
As for the Umpires, whether Australian or not, I still think they have insufficient evidence for their challenge to ICC's statement to be automatically classified as justified, regardless of their numbers.
Umpires aren't the ultimate judge on the game, you know. Believe it or not, science does have more authority in the minds of the sane. Fortunately, that includes ICC and they place more weight on the scientific assessment than they do on any number of erroneous claims, no matter how high the status of these complainants.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'm glad you abuse him (in a joke way) because he gives the ginger one too much abuse. :P

Ahem.

I thought we abused him in equal measure.

And besides, everyone abuses him. :P :saint:

 

[Tom Halsey]

Though you're still an integral part of CW if for nothing other than abusing Halsey.

Just because he abuses me doesn't mean he is an integral part of CW...:P

 

[Richard]

Don't you just hate it when silly, irreverant disputes cloud the boards?:!( :saint:
Just joking.
Still, I don't really see how someone who abuses someone can be an integral part of something. Any fool can hurl abuse! The skill is directing the abuse in the right direction. :saint:

 

[PY]

It was all a joke. :saint:

I was frustrated at not being able to reply to Halsey's abuse at my maths skills. So I recruited someone to do it for me.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Who's slight on your Maths skills?

Although, whoever it was, I agree with them.

 

[PY]

And to Richard, yes, absolutely, I think Neil's comment has everything to do with hating Australian cricket fans and the fact that his team hasn't beaten us for 16 years and not much to do with what you call 'unblinkered observation'......"drowning in face of evidence' certainly does not sound like unblinkered obeservation to me.........

Hate is such a strong word, you're making it sound like a gangwar.

I think you'll find I said (and Neil agreed) that we find the attitude of some (a bit of emphasis on the some part) Australian journalists and fans to be rather rose-tinted when it comes to players being abused (or sledged depending on the case). I don't dislike Australia or the majority of the population. I think you'll find Neil is the same.

Also if you'd been here a while ago, there was an element of sub-continental fans who came here and made some extremely biased statements and the forum as a whole was just as willing to argue with their statements as it is about Australian ones.

As regards to your comment about

......"drowning in face of evidence' certainly does not sound like unblinkered obeservation to me.........

, I'm fairly certain you would feel drowned under the length (several thousand pages) of the report made by the guys at UWA in which they reported what they had scientifically proven about Murali's action. You cannot ignore proven science with the results in front of you. It is as simple as that.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Like Pete and Rich said..

 

[age_master]

You shouldn't have respect for someone just because they're older than you if you ask me - that's a very outdated theorem. You should, naturally, have respect for any fellow human-being, but no extra just because someone's older than you.

while you should respect everyone equally (in theory), room must be left for those who have been around longer, experienced more and may have a more informed point about something, generally that is those older than you, instead of just marking their opinions as out dated.



i also dont think thats it is particularly appropriate (in this forum at least) to talk about your opinios of other posters, a) its OT and b) its unnecessary and could be offensive - so its best to just not post it

 

[Kenny]

Hate is such a strong word, you're making it sound like a gangwar.

I think you'll find I said (and Neil agreed) that we find the attitude of some (a bit of emphasis on the some part) Australian journalists and fans to be rather rose-tinted when it comes to players being abused (or sledged depending on the case). I don't dislike Australia or the majority of the population. I think you'll find Neil is the same.

Also if you'd been here a while ago, there was an element of sub-continental fans who came here and made some extremely biased statements and the forum as a whole was just as willing to argue with their statements as it is about Australian ones.

As regards to your comment about , I'm fairly certain you would feel drowned under the length (several thousand pages) of the report made by the guys at UWA in which they reported what they had scientifically proven about Murali's action. You cannot ignore proven science with the results in front of you. It is as simple as that.

Yes a lot of that is quite reasonable.......I do live in WA, and I have seen and read some of the analysis of his action undertaken by a team at UWA, as well as closely studying the sequential pictures. To me they are, at best, inconclusive.
Apart from the fact that it was done a while ago, and many people now feel his action is actually worse than it was a few years ago, there are 2 things to consider.
1) It was not done under match conditions, or when the bowler was fatigued.
2) There is no evidence to suggest that Murali bowled, or was asked to bowl, his full range of deliveries.

I mean, if you were him, and you were under scrutiny, would you actually bowl the deliveries that were most suspect? I think not.

In any event, the study centred largely on whether the guy can actually straighten his arm fully or not, and whether it does so whilst bowling - Dr.Frank Pyke, who led the study, is not an expert on bowling actions, his expertise centres more on biomechanics.......he is perhaps best known for helping Dennis Lillee's rehabilitation form a serious back injury in the 70's.

Any new investigation by the ICC into spinners in particular will be most welcome, and obviously must include further screening of Murali, preferably under match conditions.

The idea that this guy is 'untouchable' because of a study carried out a few years ago is plainly wrong, and to have umpires who would otherwise be reporting him except they fear for their jobs is rather a disturbing situation, to say the least.

And in relation to Neil, I'm sorry, but it seems clear to me that he has a clear and obvious dislike for Australian cricket.......that's fine, but it seems to translate into merely taking a contrary position to most things that are posted by Australians!!
Apart from that, he seems like a fine fellow!

What I can't get past is all you Murali-doesn't-chuck people are discounting entirely a poll on his action run on this very board, which showed categorically that those who believe his action is legal are very much in the minority! Of course these are only people's opinions!
Rik made a silly statement along the lines of "Well people have changed their minds since then" Of course anything is possible, but then the minority that voted that his action is legal may have also changed their minds!

I have no problem with anyone believing anything, but in this case I would like people to acknowledge that if this board is a microcosm of cricket supporters in general (and it is reasonable to assume so) , then those who believe his action are legal are very much in the minority!
Anyway, this argument can (and probably will) go on long after the bowler retires, (or is retired) it's clear that many millions of fans all over the world believe there is something wrong with his action, and there are probably an equal number who believe it is ok. In the end, cricket is probably the loser.
A similar result was achieved on another board BTW.

I have exhausted myself on this subject......