So the ICC evidence is finally in - and apparently even Glen McGrath chucks...

[Son Of Coco]

Is actually possible to bowl the doosra without actually chucking it to some degree?

I think it is. It's not the ball that's the problem. Although if 90% of bowlers now apparently chuck then .............no, no it isn't hahaha

 

[Son Of Coco]

I think you are splitting Hairs Your quote: "They'd have to be stupid" to call Murali again is spot-on. Hair was just ahead of his time - in being stupid, I mean.

Fair enough, so I'm fair in presuming that the ICC are now being extremely stupid in saying that everyone throws? Good to see you've almost discovered a new smilie apart from the 'wacko' one - now he's just along for moral support.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not convinced that he was being unfairly targeted when his action LOOKS suspect to the naked eye, and the tests showed he was over the existing limits..........if he was the 'victim' of anything IMO then perhaps it was from having a dodgey looking action as opposed to the rest of the bowlers.........

I think that hits the nail on the head.

 

[Langeveldt]

And Langeveldt, brother, you've always been one of my favourite CW posters but geez, this hatred of Murali is bordering on irrational.

Why thank you, I'm afraid you will have to get used to that though... Im usually very laid back, and I don't think I despise anything else as much.. I just laugh at Robbie P because he can't bowl.. Thats about it really...

 

[Slow Love™]

I'm not convinced that he was being unfairly targeted when his action LOOKS suspect to the naked eye, and the tests showed he was over the existing limits..........if he was the 'victim' of anything IMO then perhaps it was from having a dodgey looking action as opposed to the rest of the bowlers.........

Well, given that, as I said earlier, I don't think intent is required to be shown for this to be true, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - 'cause we seem to be talking at cross purposes.

To me, one question needs to be asked. Knowing what we know now, was it unfair or unjust that Murali was isolated like he was? To me, the answer is yes.

You and Marc on the other hand, seem to be more focussed on the issue of whether there was sinister collusion, or a deliberate campaign to "get" Murali. I don't think it's necessary for this to be true in order to come to the conclusion that his treatment was unfair in the end. Which is why I'm not willing to excoriate an official like Darrell Hair for doing his job (although, in my mind, there's no doubt that, as in many areas, the ICC completely failed to handle this issue properly).

I will say though, that in the face of this evidence, we could probably agree that those who continue to isolate Murali on this basis would almost certainly, using your understanding of the term, be targeting him unfairly.

 

[Richard]

I tell you something, this thing really does chuck (if you'll pardon the expression) the fat in the fryer - the fact is, chucking is nowhere near as black-and-white as most have always thought it was; rather 4294967296 shades of grey, or at least 65536.
Because the ideal that has been aspired to basically throughout the game's history has been found to be wholly unrealistic, we are going to have to create new ones. For some of the more stubborn, this is clearly going to be difficult to get into their heads.
Of course, the neatest way to do the thing would be to add bowling-arm braces to the list of compulsary clothing (not having to be used during fielding, obviously - being carried by each Umpire) but of course that would require a wholesale restructuring of the game's codes.
Not that a rule-change wouldn't.
This has the potential to be the biggest revelation, causing some of the biggest problems, in the game's history. Not least because some people are going to try to pretend it's not there.

 

[Langeveldt]

it would be interesting if they just abolished the law surrounding it.. After all, it is a batsmans game.. Do you think people would utilize different styles, or would the usual method of bowling previal? Personally over 22 yards, I can bowl far more quickly and accurately than i can throw a ball

 

[Richard]

I seriously think adding a brace would be about the only totally fair, neat way of doing it. The only problem would be the weight. Someone, I'm sure, could design a featherweight thing.
But this really is such a huge revelation - and as we can see by the (mostly Aussie - surprise-surprise ) "it's all pro-Murali-bias" (some idiots even bring race - with incorrect interpretations - "Murali is black" for instance - into it) we were not wrong to guess that some would have trouble accepting it (I wrote that comment without reading pages 2, 3 and 4, and I'm sure plenty of us more objective thinkers thought a similar thing upon first clapping eyes on the report.

 

[Richard]

My take on the main issues of this thread:
Darrell Hair was not wrong to call Murali in 1996 - but Ross Emerson was wrong to call him in 1999 (I don't actually think anyone has disputed that). I think JT has been rather OTT on that.
WHY ON EARTH DOES IT MATTER if the research was undertaken because of Murali? The fact is this research is a good thing for the game, because it has revealed that our thinkings for 150 years (at least) have been fundamentally flawed. If so, we should be damn greatful to Murali for instigating it.
And will the childish mostly-Aussie conspiracy theorists actually take a look at the facts? I doubt it.

 

[Richard]

Nothing personal, eh ? Let me guess - you are an 'objective' Aussie ?

No, a wannabe South African (to borrow Hakon's phrase).

 

[Son Of Coco]

My take on the main issues of this thread:
Darrell Hair was not wrong to call Murali in 1996 - but Ross Emerson was wrong to call him in 1999 (I don't actually think anyone has disputed that). I think JT has been rather OTT on that.
WHY ON EARTH DOES IT MATTER if the research was undertaken because of Murali? The fact is this research is a good thing for the game, because it has revealed that our thinkings for 150 years (at least) have been fundamentally flawed. If so, we should be damn greatful to Murali for instigating it.
And will the childish mostly-Aussie conspiracy theorists actually take a look at the facts? I doubt it.

I think you'll find a lot of us would be glad to have a good look at what was written, if we could find it anywhere. What is childish though is jumping in with all of the 'this was just done for Murali', 'Murali vindicated' rubbish without actually knowing what your talking about.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I seriously think adding a brace would be about the only totally fair, neat way of doing it. The only problem would be the weight. Someone, I'm sure, could design a featherweight thing.
But this really is such a huge revelation - and as we can see by the (mostly Aussie - surprise-surprise ) "it's all pro-Murali-bias" (some idiots even bring race - with incorrect interpretations - "Murali is black" for instance - into it) we were not wrong to guess that some would have trouble accepting it (I wrote that comment without reading pages 2, 3 and 4, and I'm sure plenty of us more objective thinkers thought a similar thing upon first clapping eyes on the report.

There's a lot of self-proclaimed objective thinkers on here Richard.......where did you see the complete version of the report? If you have, do you have a link or something because it would be interesting to see the findings in full?

 

[Slow Love™]

I think you'll find a lot of us would be glad to have a good look at what was written, if we could find it anywhere. What is childish though is jumping in with all of the 'this was just done for Murali', 'Murali vindicated' rubbish without actually knowing what your talking about.

I guess I'll have to accept that I'm one of these childish people you've alluded to, because I've certainly stated one of these opinions. I'm not sure we'll ever see the complete report though, largely because so many of these seem not to be publicly released. Maybe it'll turn up at rediff.com at some stage though.

In general, when this issue has been discussed in the past, we've mainly had access to press articles leaked from sources that have seen the various reports, just like now - which I'd like to point out has been MORE than enough for many to make conclusions on these issues in the past (and this includes you), either critical of Murali or in his favor.

If what we've read is absolute garbage in terms of what the actual report says, fair enough, I'll change my tune, but I would say that having the respected ex-players commissioned as part of the observational team (ie, Holding, Fraser) directly comment on some of the substance of the report has to carry some credibility. Unless these guys are complete idiots and totally misunderstood what they spent months studying, their opinions ought to count for something. While it would be good to see the entire report, I don't see how interpreting the results we've heard about (including material published at the ICC's website) as vindicating Murali's stance that he was one of many that were violating the guidelines makes anybody "childish".

In conclusion, bite me, beeyatch.

 

[vic_orthdox]

someone in this thread mentioned ross emerson, didn't they? found this link on the cricinfo website:

Ross Emerson turns away from cricket

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/NOV/101643_AUS_14NOV2004.html

 

[Son Of Coco]

I guess I'll have to accept that I'm one of these childish people you've alluded to, because I've certainly stated one of these opinions. I'm not sure we'll ever see the complete report though, largely because so many of these seem not to be publicly released. Maybe it'll turn up at rediff.com at some stage though.

In general, when this issue has been discussed in the past, we've mainly had access to press articles leaked from sources that have seen the various reports, just like now - which I'd like to point out has been MORE than enough for many to make conclusions on these issues in the past (and this includes you), either critical of Murali or in his favor.

If what we've read is absolute garbage in terms of what the actual report says, fair enough, I'll change my tune, but I would say that having the respected ex-players commissioned as part of the observational team (ie, Holding, Fraser) directly comment on some of the substance of the report has to carry some credibility. Unless these guys are complete idiots and totally misunderstood what they spent months studying, their opinions ought to count for something. While it would be good to see the entire report, I don't see how interpreting the results we've heard about (including material published at the ICC's website) as vindicating Murali's stance that he was one of many that were violating the guidelines makes anybody "childish".

In conclusion, bite me, beeyatch.

Whoops, well that post certainly got a reaction from you! haha And no, you weren't one of the people I intended to refer to so I guess I may have been a bit general in my comments.

I'm not doubting Holding etc's word on the findings but simply was trying to say that the small amount (I presume the report holds more info than what we've seen anyway) of info we've been privy to seems to have lead to a bit of soapbox mounting in both directions - obviously the feeling of not having a complete grasp of what they are on about leads to people making their own conclusions and pushing them as fact.

I'm not sure what you're referring to re: jumping to conclusions in the past, but I'll admit to be rather fervently against Murali to begin with, after the results from his testing etc I'm more along the same lines as your good self - so the matter was never really concluded!

As far as the 'childish' comments go, I was referring to the whole matter being used as a an excuse to fire up the whole debate again one way or another when, as i said, everything is not yet clear as to what's going to happen from here etc. I was talking about comments being made a day after the findings were first reported on, so possibly should have made that a bit clearer...........sometimes you type things and presume that everyone else will know what you're talking about. If you've presumed you're the target of the 'childish' remark then I must be a 'conspiracy-theorist' according to Richard.

 

[anzac]

Well, given that, as I said earlier, I don't think intent is required to be shown for this to be true, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - 'cause we seem to be talking at cross purposes.

To me, one question needs to be asked. Knowing what we know now, was it unfair or unjust that Murali was isolated like he was? To me, the answer is yes.

You and Marc on the other hand, seem to be more focussed on the issue of whether there was sinister collusion, or a deliberate campaign to "get" Murali. I don't think it's necessary for this to be true in order to come to the conclusion that his treatment was unfair in the end. Which is why I'm not willing to excoriate an official like Darrell Hair for doing his job (although, in my mind, there's no doubt that, as in many areas, the ICC completely failed to handle this issue properly).

I will say though, that in the face of this evidence, we could probably agree that those who continue to isolate Murali on this basis would almost certainly, using your understanding of the term, be targeting him unfairly.

buddy we agree on just about everything - bar the 'unjust treatment' - for mind he has had the MOST dodgy looking bowling action in the game (as opposed to THE strangest from 'frog in a blender') - as a consequence it would be wrong if his action was NOT subject to some scruitiny and repeatedly so, as I can not accept the arguement that once 'exhonorated' then a player should not be scrutinised again..........

this would become doubly so because of his success - not because of any jealousy, but to ensure that the cream of the crop ARE beyond reproach.........

the closest analogy I can think of would be blood testing in the Olympics for the medalists, and that's about my overall take on it all.............so I admit to having trouble recognising him as being unfairly / unjustly treated...........

I do agree that the ICC have been totally inept in their handling of the Murali issue/s (amongst others), even to the parcity of information regarding the testing.............

as I said earlier I can accept the reports re current bowlers at face value, but I have issues regarding such a sweeping statement regarding retired bowlers, as they have not been the subject of the same testing, and no matter how good their models are there is still a certain element of doubt...............

it is this statement regarding the bonafides of retired bowlers that IMO opens the door for the conspiracy theorists to refute the report as a whole..........

bottom line IMO they have f***ed up BIIG time by including any statement / testing of retired bowlers as this is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the current laws, players & situation.............

 

[honestbharani]

no it doesn't - it's a matter of perception.............

to the naked eye Murali's action looked suspect - even one of the people who had tested him previously acknowledged as much...............

whereas the real shocker is that those bowlers across the board who were thought to have silky smooth actions were also found to be over the limits - but only found to be under examination by high speed cameras filming at 10x the speed of TV images..............

which raises the question as to how did they test the former greats if the above is correct??????

But the point that you are missing is that Murali also is born with a physical deformity. His problem in his elbow is the exact opposite of Shoaib's. Shoaib has hyper extension and Murali's problem is its opposite. It looks more bent than it actually is. And it was proved by some tech whizs in Australia, not in Sri Lanka. Therefore, his degree of flexion is exaggerated to the naked eye while someone's like McGrath or Pollock's is not that clearly perceptable.

 

[honestbharani]

I just like to add in a word here to most of the debaters. Yes, this study was taken as a result of the controversy over Murali's action. They felt he chucked the ball beyond the permissible limits, he felt that others did the same and the results have shown that both parties were right and that is why this middle course of 15 degrees has been worked out. All the other stuff that you guys have been discussing about, quoting former players etc are all merely speculation at this point. And debating about speculative points is not as healthy as debating about facts.

 

[anzac]

But the point that you are missing is that Murali also is born with a physical deformity. His problem in his elbow is the exact opposite of Shoaib's. Shoaib has hyper extension and Murali's problem is its opposite. It looks more bent than it actually is. And it was proved by some tech whizs in Australia, not in Sri Lanka. Therefore, his degree of flexion is exaggerated to the naked eye while someone's like McGrath or Pollock's is not that clearly perceptable.

which endorses what I had said I think..............irrespective of the reasons as to why his action looks suspect..........

 

[Slow Love™]

Whoops, well that post certainly got a reaction from you! haha And no, you weren't one of the people I intended to refer to so I guess I may have been a bit general in my comments.

...........

As far as the 'childish' comments go, I was referring to the whole matter being used as a an excuse to fire up the whole debate again one way or another when, as i said, everything is not yet clear as to what's going to happen from here etc. I was talking about comments being made a day after the findings were first reported on, so possibly should have made that a bit clearer...........sometimes you type things and presume that everyone else will know what you're talking about. If you've presumed you're the target of the 'childish' remark then I must be a 'conspiracy-theorist' according to Richard.

I was just having a dig at you, mate, 'cause I said Murali was vindicated AND I made my comments about a day after the findings were first reported on.

My "bite me beeyatch" comment (and emoticon) was supposed to come across as childish - just a little self-mocking humor. No harm done.