Refer to the emboldened text please and substantiate the comment by producing the figures.honestbharani said:Really.. I hope you know that his doosra's flex is now at 10 degrees. His EARLIER flex was 14 degrees. And even if it was still 14 degrees, I still don't see how it is done to benefit Murali alone. They simply used the 15 degree limit, because it encompassed ALL current bowlers. They coudl have kept it as 13 and I could argue that it was done to benefit McGrath and they could have kept it as 12 and I could argue it was done to benefit Gillespie and to put an end to McGrath. This point of yours is easily the worst you have made.
My source is The Hindu. We are subscribed to it and we get it delivered at my house every morning. I don't remember exactly when or anything. Murali made a similar comment and the fact that neither McGrath nor Gillespie actually said anything aboutluckyeddie said:Refer to the emboldened text please and substantiate the comment by producing the figures.
NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
it does, but one can only hope that with the flow of money increasing from the game, it will be channelised properly and things can get better. What I don't approve of is saying that the old law was better simply because things were simpler at that time. When it has been proven that the old laws were WRONG, plain and simple, why keep discussing it. Discussing about the present law could be enforced in a better way would be more fruitful, IMHO.social said:Current law obviously improves the accuracy of assessment.
Unfortunately, (and to be honest, without unlimited funding and/or the likelihood of further mistakes being made, I dont have a better alternative) it delays the assessment of bowlers until it is too late.
Could you please explain to me in the simplest terms you can manage (because obviously I am being very stupid here) just whose case I am jumping on?honestbharani said:There was a report on one of the best and most trusted newspapers in India that agreed that McGrath has a flex of around 13 degrees. Heck, even he hasn't disagreed with any of this. I don't see why you have to jump on this case for him.
Here's Murali's statement:honestbharani said:My source is The Hindu. We are subscribed to it and we get it delivered at my house every morning. I don't remember exactly when or anything. Murali made a similar comment and the fact that neither McGrath nor Gillespie actually said anything about
a. The reference that they chuck too
b. the degrees
make me believe that those figures were reasonably accurate.
Like I said, I don't remember exactly where I read it. I am pretty sure it was "The Hindu" though, since that is what I depend on the most for "accurate and unbiased" news. Anyways, people have mentioned the degree stuff of Gillespie and McGrath before and they never refuted it. If it was so false, I think they would have refuted it immediately. That's why I think it is true.luckyeddie said:Here's Murali's statement:
"Some bowlers from Australia, McGrath and everybody, they are all about 12, 13 degrees," said Muralitharan.
And The source it came from.
I'm really sorry if it comes across as though I feel that I'm debating with a bunch of children, but I am citing all my sources and not just sticking rigidly to a pre-defined viewpoint. The frustration I feel at the moment with people who refuse to do likewise is more than a little substantial.
Edit:
It is possible, of course, that I really AM on everyone's ignore list.
Cobblers, and by continuing to say so, you betray yourself us as coming from a pre-conceived standpoint.honestbharani said:Like I said, I don't remember exactly where I read it. I am pretty sure it was "The Hindu" though, since that is what I depend on the most for "accurate and unbiased" news. Anyways, people have mentioned the degree stuff of Gillespie and McGrath before and they never refuted it. If it was so false, I think they would have refuted it immediately. That's why I think it is true.
I meant an article in The HIndu newspaper. That is not the one.luckyeddie said:
I'm really glad you pointed me to The Hindu - because this article on their website pretty well lays the matter to rest.honestbharani said:I meant an article in The HIndu newspaper. That is not the one.
I am reluctant to share that data openly because i am not sure i have the authority to do so. The data i came across was through a biomechanist friend of mine who thought this whole chucking episode ( he is canuck- cricket is an obscure sport to him) to be hillarious. However, when data is shared through official channels in universities, it is often done in good faith- ie, do not publicise the data rashly without paying due attention to copyright, consent of the right-holder(s), etc. etc.I said a week ago that your (C_C's) attitude over the whole affair was "It's a secret" - and once more, you seem to confirm that supposition. Why is it so hard to obtain these specific figures that you are so fond of quoting, and why are you so keen to protect your source?
You seem to be in possession of facts that don't appear to be in the public domain, yet you are unwilling to share them. Even in a court of law, if something is used as evidence for the defence, it has to be made available to the prosecution or it can't be used.
'Often' is the catchphrase here. Remember that.KaZoH0lic said:A fish outwitting a human. Doesn't happen often...especially with the advent of dynamite .
Simple lesson in English. Lets see if you can differentiate between the two:That is RACISM...that was just a snippet of your banter. He didn't call you a racist till you posted that bullcrap. Of course he is going to call you a racist when you initially instigated it.
What is hypocritical, not consistant reasoning, is how you can label Australians as such. Yet when you come to back Murali, there are references to Steve Waugh and Sir Don Bradman and even someone who was against Murali but changed sides due to scientific evidence, in Dean Jones.
So are they or aren't they? If culturally we're fed nationalistic pride and BS why are there professionals that side towards Murali? Even labelled here by some "The Don Bradman of bowling". No mate...you're a disgrace....you'll take this argument to the sewage and back just to save face, even referencing the Nazi regime.
The point is, when you make a claim, you have an obligation- not only out of common decency but also out of the spirit of sharing knowledge- to explain that claim....something you have not done even remotely. You havnt even defined your claim clearly.Was that the point? Or was your behaviour and take on every point against your view? Take it easy....
Pompous inclination of intelligence ? Find me a single post where i referred to myself as 'intelligent'. I merely stated the obvious - i know more about this field than you do, given that it is close to my field of specialisation and it isnt for you. If you are a chef, i am not gonna argue with you on how to make veal cordon bleu. And if you are not a student of science, don't argue about what is a valid scientific supposition/test condition and what arnt. Not only is that minimum decency- it is also a profound lack of humility. You wouldnt see me arguing with someone about their field of expertise, when it isnt mine. I dont go around telling former FC cricketers ( supposedly) on how to bat/bowl or field. Not my field of specialisation. They however, shout shut their collective traps on what is and what isnt a conclusive scientific test, what is an acceptable margin of error and what isnt. For it is not their speciality. Too much to ask from people who have maximus head swellimus syndrome ?HAHA...so if you called Australians racist, that isn't supposed to warrant a reaction...just because it wasn't directed at me? I am not of Australian nationality, however, the last thing I would do is stand by and let you rubbish this country.....just because you overhead some people talking... For someone with the pompous inclination of intelligence...you really talk a lot of non-sense.
I'm sorry, but you must think that I was born yesterday.C_C said:I am reluctant to share that data openly because i am not sure i have the authority to do so. The data i came across was through a biomechanist friend of mine who thought this whole chucking episode ( he is canuck- cricket is an obscure sport to him) to be hillarious. However, when data is shared through official channels in universities, it is often done in good faith- ie, do not publicise the data rashly without paying due attention to copyright, consent of the right-holder(s), etc. etc.
However, i did outline the way I got hold of the data and suggested that you(and anyone else who is interested) try the same.
social said:Sorry, not 50
BTW, given that your exposure to Aussies is apparently limited to a few passing by a ticket window in Toronto, I'd respectfully suggest that that is hardly a meaningful sample from a statistical stand-point.
Finally, you wouldnt find yourself being labelled a racist if you'd refrain from using racial connotations as a last resort in virtually all your arguments on any topic.
Well i am sure if there is an obscure discussion over superstring theory in some physics messageboard, people post their entire research works there for everyone's benifit.luckyeddie said:I'm sorry, but you must think that I was born yesterday.
Australian Cricketers' Association chief executive, Tim May, responded: 'I sat on that (ICC) committee and I don't know where those figures (quoted by Muralitharan) came from. (But) there has been a lot of speculation around Murali. So I have sympathy for him.'C_C said:Well i am sure if there is an obscure discussion over superstring theory in some physics messageboard, people post their entire research works there for everyone's benifit.
I guess I was born yesterday.
You are entitled to your opinion. I have no problems with that. However, feel free to ignore the channel i've indicated for obtaining the said information.When given the choice between believing him (for the information volunteered and the reasons stated) and you (despite the hilarity of your rather pompous pontificating on the ethics of academia), it's close but I think I know where my vote goes.
Let me get this straight.....C_C said:You are entitled to your opinion. I have no problems with that. However, feel free to ignore the channel i've indicated for obtaining the said information.
PS: Sod the ethics of academia. My primary concern is not jeopardising my own academic progress simply because i shared something not in pubic domain over the internet. Would give gullibility a whole new meaning. Sorry. Not gonna spoon-feed ya.Especially not at the risk of my own neck. Go find out for yourself if you are really interested to find out. I've pointed the way. If not, feel free to call me a liar. I have zero problems with that either.