• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The biggest spinner of the cricket ball?

Not open for further replies.


International Regular
We can keep up the accusations of racism and ethno-nationalism though, amirite?
**** off with this "who, me?" ****, you disingenuous prick. You've been bagging other teams and places retreading racist tropes for ****ing years, and it hasn't gone unnoticed. Line and Length has called it out before, HB has called it out and now I'm calling it out. And when you trade in that line of posting, don't be so surprised when you get accused of it in threads like this.

Never mind though, it's all bit of fun amirite. Just stupid beta Asiatics being too sensitive to a bit of harmless sledging. You know what we're like don't ya? I suppose we'll need an Australian poster to correct our view of where the line is.


Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah, can this **** fest of a thread mods........was a dire topic 20 yrs ago and it's not ageing well.


International Captain
Is that not a problem? If it isn't considered to be one (that greats of the past were likely to be chucking by the old laws before the update and so shouldn't generally be given much credit for their abilities and records like how people disparage Murali's) then why is Murali one? - basically my point, but for some reason people don't get it.

AKA generally people can stop being hypocrites regarding this and consistently bringing up one player only.

If people still don't get this then there's really no hope for their mental faculties.
Except it seems to me, unless I’m completely off base, which is possible, 90% of the people who make posts about Murali and his action on here are literally just making a joke and not genuinely having a go at him. Especially with Burgey and TJB you can definitely see from their posting history here not to take much of their overly negative posts here seriously, they’re literally usually just trying to get a laugh out of people. Sadly though a lot of people can’t take those jokes and now we’ve had what was a decent thread about an interesting topic derailed and ruined.


Whatever it takes!!!
JFC HB, that's so piss poor. Look I'm firmly in the camp of Murali being a deadset legend of our game and it does wind me up that his legacy is still tarnished.......just because I don't give a **** about 5, 10 or 15 degrees extension, I just don't think it's important for a spinner (and I know I'm in the minority here) cricket is richer for having Murali play the game.

But playing the race card cos someone sees it different to you is dire in the extreme.

Mate, if you can't see the blatant racist tropes of his posts, what s dire is whatever color tinted glasses you wear.


Whatever it takes!!!
Hair and other umpires felt it diplomatic to report their concerns to the ICC and the ICC in turn passed their report on to the BCCSL who did nothing. Faced with this inaction, and concerned that batsmen might be dismissed by an unfair delivery, Hair acted accordingly. You keep bringing up "studies of action or science" and yet you fail to mention that those studies and science only arose after Murali was called for what was deemed/perceived/ruled (call it what you will) to have an unfair action under the Laws of Cricket at that time.
The fact that Murali's action has since been cleared and legitimised is only because of subsequent studies and science. Without Hair acting as he did, this may not have happened.
You missed the part where i have already addressed this. The fact that Hair felt he was doing the right thing or that he was legally allowed to call a no ball does not mean anything given it was so blatantly predetermined.. Did he try to ask why others did not call it the same way, for instance?


Cricketer Of The Year
Wow, this was an entertaining read.

We as humans like a nice, blanketed reasoning that we can apply to situations. It saves mental effort. So I can see why the race thing would come up. It's lazy, though.

But why cannot it not be left that some of us - and I'll declare that I am one of these - believe Murali had an unfair advantage through flexion in his elbow (as quite possibly did Shoaib) and that it has absolutely ****ing nothing to do with the pigment of their skin? And there are those, clearly from this thread it shows people of all races and creeds, who believe he bowled legitimately and was unfairly (but not in a racist way) labelled a chucker? I don't believe Darryl Hair was a racist, he simply had a belief that someone was acting outside the rules and was the sort of personality who had no issue expressing this, while others were not so forthright.

Look, we've seen people like Kane Williamson have their actions banned, and it caused no stir. Johan Botha a slight stir, but nothing over the top. Other bowlers from the sub-continent and West Indies etc, not much stir. Murali had the perfect storm of being the most successful spinner of all time, coming from a nation on the up, being dark skinned, being called by an Australian, having Ranatunga as a captain etc that just blew the whole thing up. Then it became something it isn't, and particularly on here, which is racism.

Shady Slim

International Coach
Hey guys Burgey doesn't do bad thing because his designated simp said so
have you ever considered that it might feel a bit rich to cast the racist die at burger of all people when we have proper eugenicists and eugenicist adjacent people on the forum

as much as i love sledger i’d hardly say the posting in this thread is like what sledger said about pakistan


Hall of Fame Member
Neither does idiocy.

It's always interesting that chucking never comes up for other greats of the past who presumably all chucked to certain extents like McGrath and co did when tested beyond mild jokes that are never taken seriously, instead only popping up whenever Murali's name is brought up. Wonder why....
Nobody cares about the fact McGrath technically chucked under the old laws or whatever going by the degrees because his action looked perfectly fine

Muralis action looked ridiculous. We all know this. I can accept it was an illusion due to his unique shoulder and wrist joint rotation, to go with permanently bent arm that couldn't fully straighten, and legal, but come on, if you were a casual cricket fan watching him bowl the action would strike you as dodgy
Not open for further replies.