*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

Blah, blah, blah

And I assume those same "contacts" have informed you of the secret cameras that were placed around the grounds in all test matches since 1908 with a view to recording flexion in bowlers' actions (despite this term not having been invented at the time). The resultant films were then sealed in a time capsule and are due to be released upon the sale of the first"Happy Meal" following the toss of the 2015 World Cup Final.

Feeling a little bit insecure are we ? Another bait ? If you bother reading up, you'd realise that i said that the multiple camera angles from test matches played around 1980(thereabouts) onwards are available(though erratic).
Or does your idiocy know no bounds ?


PS: Sorry but if Baghdad university can obtain anthrax through US university contacts, obtaining a non-classified document from the other side of the planet is a piece of cake between two universities.

 

[Ikki]

Feeling a little bit insecure are we ? Another bait ? If you bother reading up, you'd realise that i said that the multiple camera angles from test matches played around 1980(thereabouts) onwards are available(though erratic).
Or does your idiocy know no bounds ?


PS: Sorry but if Baghdad university can obtain anthrax through US university contacts, obtaining a non-classified document from the other side of the planet is a piece of cake between two universities.

I know I know... Warne is the greatest... I agree with you.

 

[C_C]

I know I know... Warne is the greatest... I agree with you.

Hey dude- thats your opinion....something i dont share....and despite saying 'lets agree to disagree', you keep bringing that up....you heading right for the list of trolls as far as i am concerned.

 

[Ikki]

Hey dude- thats your opinion....something i dont share....and despite saying 'lets agree to disagree', you keep bringing that up....you heading right for the list of trolls as far as i am concerned.

Look at you . One sentence like that ruffles you up so badly. I purposely say that because I know you cannot hack it. You're biased, and if you think you're thinking clearly and with statistics on your side you're being naive. Even numbers can be abused to prove a point. So far, they say Warne is ahead of Murali. Whether you want to hack that or not is your problem. Why you care so much as to what others think...is ALSO your problem. But hey...you must have a lot of problems...probably shared through the Universities.

 

[C_C]

Look at you . One sentence like that ruffles you up so badly. I purposely say that because I know you cannot hack it.

Ruffles ? Look dude- i dont give two hoots about you - do not mistake apathetic bluntness to be 'ruffled'. I dont have a problem being blunt, especially when you are directing a post towards me. You've stated that 'Warne is better, we all agree close this thread' crap atleast thrice on this thread now.... i woulnt care to immagine what kind of a perverse mind takes pleasure in being a troller and such an obvious baiter.( unfrotunately so frickin many baiters dont know when they have the fish or when the fish has them)

You're biased, and if you think you're thinking clearly and with statistics on your side you're being naive. Even numbers can be abused to prove a point. So far, they say Warne is ahead of Murali. Whether you want to hack that or not is your problem. Why you care so much as to what others think...is ALSO your problem. But hey...you must have a lot of problems...probably shared through the Universities.

Look- hold the mirror to your face and then talk. You accuse me of 'caring oh so much' about this, when you've been commenting on it for the last 20 pages ? Talk about astounding hypocrasy.

And as far as being biassed- that is a matter of perspective. In my perspective you are biassed. And yes, numbers can be abused to prove a point. So can opinions formed through media. Different people put different emphasis on various discernable factors. However, a debate is pointless unless you are consistent with your own system(whatever the f*CK that is).

 

[Ikki]

Ruffles ? Look dude- i dont give two hoots about you - do not mistake apathetic bluntness to be 'ruffled'. I dont have a problem being blunt, especially when you are directing a post towards me. You've stated that 'Warne is better, we all agree close this thread' crap atleast thrice on this thread now.... i woulnt care to immagine what kind of a perverse mind takes pleasure in being a troller and such an obvious baiter.( unfrotunately so frickin many baiters dont know when they have the fish or when the fish has them)

Well with those statements I was being facetious but I was serious about the closing of the thread. On the point of being baited....well you have been...and like the fish that has control...is usually ending up on the barbecue.

Look- hold the mirror to your face and then talk. You accuse me of 'caring oh so much' about this, when you've been commenting on it for the last 20 pages ? Talk about astounding hypocrasy.

KaZoH0liC - 129 posts and counting

C_C - 4,029 posts and counting

Posts/Day - You also lead that count.

This wasn't my point.What was my point pertains to all these childish reactions of yours. Taking things to racism/culture, and ironically, through that definition you showed your own colours. What was your substantiating evidence again?

i've come across appoaching 50 or beyond it are singularly racist. I've also been privvy to private conversations ( not by will-sometimes its hard NOT to overhear what a buncha people are chatting on the other side of a one-way glass window) and its singularly racist.

And as far as being biassed- that is a matter of perspective. In my perspective you are biassed. And yes, numbers can be abused to prove a point. So can opinions formed through media. Different people put different emphasis on various discernable factors. However, a debate is pointless unless you are consistent with your own system(whatever the f*CK that is).

That's cool...have your perspective and let me have mine. I didn't label you with plenty of personas just because you didn't agree with me(if I had said anything it was in retaliation). Yet you have done so with your posts.

 

[marc71178]

% of tolerance is secondary. Primary factor is your error limit. If your error limit is 1 degree, 2-3 degrees is very close. If your accuracy is 10 km, 15 km is bloody close.

15km against 10km is relatively close, especially 2-3 degrees against 1 degree (which is at least double the tolerance, so not close.

 

[marc71178]

Before the early 70s, a maximum of 1 camera angle was used in cricket broadcasts.

But you're forgetting the 14 other cameras at the grounds which C_C knows of...

 

[C_C]

15km against 10km is relatively close, especially 2-3 degrees against 1 degree (which is at least double the tolerance, so not close.

What ?

Dude... any scientifically collected data is measured against the error range primarily.
If your equipment can accurately measure upto one degree, then two-three degree difference is damn close. what 2-3 degrees is, as % to 15 degrees is absolutely irrelevant without consideration to the accuracy of the test- for your measurements go up by 6.66% everytime a measurement value changes.
What you are arguing is not the scientific norm simply because varience is irrelevant without accuracy within that varience.


PS: With respect to 'tolerance limits', double the tolerance limit is almost nothing. When bridges are made, double the tolerance limit is considered unsatisfactory. So are in most applications. From engineering practice, you need to be atleast 5x above the tolerance limit for the system to work consistently in different conditions.
Same rule is applied to construction actually ( maybe not in all construction but definately in critical construction, such as bridges, hospitals, runways, etc.)

 

[C_C]

Well with those statements I was being facetious but I was serious about the closing of the thread. On the point of being baited....well you have been...and like the fish that has control...is usually ending up on the barbecue.

Or like a ******** fisherman, you keep getting thrown off your boat and keep denying it....just another perspective.

KaZoH0liC - 129 posts and counting

C_C - 4,029 posts and counting

Posts/Day - You also lead that count.

This wasn't my point.What was my point pertains to all these childish reactions of yours. Taking things to racism/culture, and ironically, through that definition you showed your own colours. What was your substantiating evidence again?

Racism ? I gave an example of my personal experiences. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that not every single Aussie beyond the age of 50 is a racist- i made a notation that my experience is such and social fits the bill ( from what he potrays here, from my perspective) quite accurately. You'd also notice(perhaps if you took off your nationalistic blinkers) that i refrained calling him one until he decieded to call me one.

As per post counts- you've made substantial amount of posts on this thread and if you seek to engage in purely comparative nature, you'd realise that most of my posts have been explanations of my perspective- something you've not provided at all- all you've provided is your perspective and criticism of other perspectives without an iota of contribution backing up your perspective.

That's cool...have your perspective and let me have mine. I didn't label you with plenty of personas just because you didn't agree with me(if I had said anything it was in retaliation). Yet you have done so with your posts.

Perhaps if you had paid more attention, you'd realise that your quotes are irrelevant because they were not directed at you.
As per labelling someone- it is a whole lot easier and faster to call somoene an idiot if you think he/she is an idiot, rather than get the same intention across through 1000 words.

 

[C_C]

But you're forgetting the 14 other cameras at the grounds which C_C knows of...

Yes. you do need 14 other cameras to map a 3-d motion accurately for 2-d projection.

 

[luckyeddie]

Contact UWA in any official capacity. i think they will oblige you.

I'm coming at this whole dumb issue from a completely neutral position - I draw my own conclusions afterwards.

For the umpteenth time, I am not working for or against Murali, but I find carrying out any dialogue with some people in this argument on either side to be tedious in the extreme.

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.

I wondered whether you were quoting directly from the report issued by Bruce Elliott et al in April 2004 (I'm not aware that there has been any subsequent testing of Muralitharan since then) - and this didn't contain any references (or so it seemed) to Glenn McGrath.

If the information that forms the basis of your comparison was in this report, don't you think that papers such as The Hindu would have been all over it at the end of April 2004? It's only natural, because at that stage the limit for a fast bowler was 10%, was it not? Therefore McGrath would have been branded a 'chucker' at the time, and not just a year and a half later when the 'Murali v Warne' thread was started on these boards. Stands to reason, doesn't it? On reflection, what's reason got to do with it?

Just after The Hindu article was published, McGrath's name appears in an article by Mukal Kesavan called Degrees of Guilt (June 2004, syndicated) where he uses a strange choice of words: I have thought for some time now that the bounce Glenn McGrath extracts from just short of a good length owes something to a straightening arm and I was delighted to find support for this view in a recent article by Simon Hughes in The Daily Telegraph. Here's the quote: "Courtney Walsh was never called for chucking and neither was Glenn McGrath. Yet McGrath gets some of his pace from a hyperextension of the elbow which varies in extent"

Everything now points to Simon Hughes as the source...

November 2004, just after the publication of the new tolerances, he said in the Daily Telegraph "Those working in television, watching in super slow-motion, soon realised there were obvious amounts of bend or whip in some bowlers' actions – Glenn McGrath was one who raised eyebrows, Andrew Hall another. But we were loath to highlight it knowing it would become a contentious issue and possibly jeopardise the player's career." (note no figures)

But the one that started it off was in April 2004 when he said "....Yet McGrath gets some of his pace from a hyper-extension of the elbow which varies in extent. Shoaib Akhtar is a similar case. In fact most fast bowlers flex their elbow slightly at some point in delivery. I would go so far as to say virtually all of them inadvertently 'throw' the odd ball. If Law 24.3 was applied ultra-rigorously, there would not be many fast bowlers still playing.

As it is, there has to be a bit of leeway, in the same way that a batsman, hit on the pad apparently in front of the stumps, is often given the benefit of doubt.

If the Muralitharan issue only underlines the super- ficiality of television cameras then so be it. It's all we've got. Until someone invents a 3D version, the doubters better put up or shut up.. (note - no figures again).

Two conclusions:

1. The damned figures don't exist anywhere other than in C_C's imagination.
2. Despite that, I am now utterly convinced that the tolerances applied are no more and no less than good sense.

Now I really, REALLY am finished with the whle issue (unless somene produces these figures - or at least produces a valid reference that I can use to drive the UWA research library service)

 

[GotSpin]

Ruffles ? Look dude- i dont give two hoots about you - do not mistake apathetic bluntness to be 'ruffled'. I dont have a problem being blunt, especially when you are directing a post towards me. You've stated that 'Warne is better, we all agree close this thread' crap atleast thrice on this thread now.... i woulnt care to immagine what kind of a perverse mind takes pleasure in being a troller and such an obvious baiter.( unfrotunately so frickin many baiters dont know when they have the fish or when the fish has them)



Look- hold the mirror to your face and then talk. You accuse me of 'caring oh so much' about this, when you've been commenting on it for the last 20 pages ? Talk about astounding hypocrasy.

And as far as being biassed- that is a matter of perspective. In my perspective you are biassed. And yes, numbers can be abused to prove a point. So can opinions formed through media. Different people put different emphasis on various discernable factors. However, a debate is pointless unless you are consistent with your own system(whatever the f*CK that is).

Fire up C_C Fire up *clap clap*

 

[Ikki]

Or like a ******** fisherman, you keep getting thrown off your boat and keep denying it....just another perspective.

A fish outwitting a human. Doesn't happen often...especially with the advent of dynamite .

Racism ? I gave an example of my personal experiences. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that not every single Aussie beyond the age of 50 is a racist- i made a notation that my experience is such and social fits the bill ( from what he potrays here, from my perspective) quite accurately. You'd also notice(perhaps if you took off your nationalistic blinkers) that i refrained calling him one until he decieded to call me one.

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.

As per post counts- you've made substantial amount of posts on this thread and if you seek to engage in purely comparative nature, you'd realise that most of my posts have been explanations of my perspective- something you've not provided at all- all you've provided is your perspective and criticism of other perspectives without an iota of contribution backing up your perspective.

Was that the point? Or was your behaviour and take on every point against your view? Take it easy....

Perhaps if you had paid more attention, you'd realise that your quotes are irrelevant because they were not directed at you.
As per labelling someone- it is a whole lot easier and faster to call somoene an idiot if you think he/she is an idiot, rather than get the same intention across through 1000 words.

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.

 

[social]

I'm coming at this whole dumb issue from a completely neutral position - I draw my own conclusions afterwards.

For the umpteenth time, I am not working for or against Murali, but I find carrying out any dialogue with some people in this argument on either side to be tedious in the extreme.

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.

I wondered whether you were quoting directly from the report issued by Bruce Elliott et al in April 2004 (I'm not aware that there has been any subsequent testing of Muralitharan since then) - and this didn't contain any references (or so it seemed) to Glenn McGrath.

If the information that forms the basis of your comparison was in this report, don't you think that papers such as The Hindu would have been all over it at the end of April 2004? It's only natural, because at that stage the limit for a fast bowler was 10%, was it not? Therefore McGrath would have been branded a 'chucker' at the time, and not just a year and a half later when the 'Murali v Warne' thread was started on these boards. Stands to reason, doesn't it? On reflection, what's reason got to do with it?

Just after The Hindu article was published, McGrath's name appears in an article by Mukal Kesavan called Degrees of Guilt (June 2004, syndicated) where he uses a strange choice of words: I have thought for some time now that the bounce Glenn McGrath extracts from just short of a good length owes something to a straightening arm and I was delighted to find support for this view in a recent article by Simon Hughes in The Daily Telegraph. Here's the quote: "Courtney Walsh was never called for chucking and neither was Glenn McGrath. Yet McGrath gets some of his pace from a hyperextension of the elbow which varies in extent"

Everything now points to Simon Hughes as the source...

November 2004, just after the publication of the new tolerances, he said in the Daily Telegraph "Those working in television, watching in super slow-motion, soon realised there were obvious amounts of bend or whip in some bowlers' actions – Glenn McGrath was one who raised eyebrows, Andrew Hall another. But we were loath to highlight it knowing it would become a contentious issue and possibly jeopardise the player's career." (note no figures)

But the one that started it off was in April 2004 when he said "....Yet McGrath gets some of his pace from a hyper-extension of the elbow which varies in extent. Shoaib Akhtar is a similar case. In fact most fast bowlers flex their elbow slightly at some point in delivery. I would go so far as to say virtually all of them inadvertently 'throw' the odd ball. If Law 24.3 was applied ultra-rigorously, there would not be many fast bowlers still playing.

As it is, there has to be a bit of leeway, in the same way that a batsman, hit on the pad apparently in front of the stumps, is often given the benefit of doubt.

If the Muralitharan issue only underlines the super- ficiality of television cameras then so be it. It's all we've got. Until someone invents a 3D version, the doubters better put up or shut up.. (note - no figures again).

Two conclusions:

1. The damned figures don't exist anywhere other than in C_C's imagination.
2. Despite that, I am now utterly convinced that the tolerances applied are no more and no less than good sense.

Now I really, REALLY am finished with the whle issue (unless somene produces these figures - or at least produces a valid reference that I can use to drive the UWA research library service)

Data collected in match situations in the Champions Trophy of 2004 exist. Whether data was collected for McGrath specifically is anyone's guess.

Unfortunately, the ICC decreed that data collected from this tournament was not sufficiently accurate to definitively describe the amount of flexion in any bowler's action.

As such, to the best of my knowledge, the results were never published and certainly couldnt be used to mount a case for or against any individual bowler.

It's only use was in establishing a basis for the establishment of appropriate tolerance levels - later set at 15 degrees.

C_C might have access to the data collected from this event.

However, without seeing it, how will we know?

BTW, hyper-extension is specifically excluded by the new guidelines from scrutiny. As such, any degree to which the actions of McGrath, Shoaib, Lee, etc contain it is irrelevant.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, they proved the law was wrong. I never argued that...What I argued was that the definition was incorrect to begin with, so if you're arguing because of that the new laws have a case I cannot oblige. What I labelled as "cultural" was the assumption that was still held by coaches/players, despite the unconscious awareness of this incorrect definition.

This whole understanding I thought had been blurried, and in it's redefinition they've muddied the waters and people are finding 'fools gold' instead of the real thing. As it stands there will be more and more people with suspect actions.

Regarding Murali, however, I think the 'goalposts' have been put to his benefit and no-one elses.

ADD: This issue is not really the point I want to argue. While it holds it's merits, even without...Shane Warne is a better bowler for me, not just better....the greatest spinner of all time. There are many posts in here that allude to the reason...but they've been regurgitated so many times that this thread had lost it's purpose before it began. It was still fun though...

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.

 

[honestbharani]

Got no doubt that the guy is knowledgeable - he's a genius bowler.

However, the fact that it took until 2004 to make changes to a technique that had been a source of concern for years is a joke.

Up until that point, he'd obviously been surrounded either by people with no knowledge whatsoever or by "yes men."

Look, it is obvious that nationalistic sentiments did take over and hamper the process, not only from Murali's side but also from the other side. But the point is, the current law is NOT a bad one and I honestly don't think that it makes things worser than what it was earlier. It may be actually giving more headache to the decision makers now, but that is only because the old law was based on "false assumptions" and we are still having trouble adjusting to the reality regarding bowling actions.

 

[honestbharani]

I have spent four blooming hours over the last two days trying to substantiate these McGrath figures that have been so widely quoted.

I must have chased down 20 or so 'references' where they have been quoted on message boards, and I just can't find the reports.

They either lead to this report which just appears to be a knee-jerk reaction from Murali

or the The Two Minute Interview , neither of which seem to say anything of the sort.

I did find a report that seemed to be saying that Bruce Elliott considered Brett Lee's action to be illegal, but that was when the limite for everyone was 5%.

So, if you can help me in this quest, please do.

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.

 

[social]

Racism ? I gave an example of my personal experiences. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that not every single Aussie beyond the age of 50 is a racist- i made a notation that my experience is such and social fits the bill ( from what he potrays here, from my perspective) quite accurately. You'd also notice(perhaps if you took off your nationalistic blinkers) that i refrained calling him one until he decieded to call me one.
.

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.

 

[social]

Look, it is obvious that nationalistic sentiments did take over and hamper the process, not only from Murali's side but also from the other side. But the point is, the current law is NOT a bad one and I honestly don't think that it makes things worser than what it was earlier. It may be actually giving more headache to the decision makers now, but that is only because the old law was based on "false assumptions" and we are still having trouble adjusting to the reality regarding bowling actions.

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.