• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I disagree with your assertion that the tests can't be scientifically valid though. You're never going to get perfect experiments when it comes to human behaviour. The lab stuff is probably "good enough".

I looked at the Lloyd paper out of my own interest and they say the same thing as I did about those limitations. Couldn't find anything about the matching stuff, only about Bruce Yardley being brought in to verify that the bowling action was close to a game one. Maybe they did matching in some other analysis?
"Good enough" isn't beyond reasonable doubt. My main issue here has nothing to do with Murali anyway. It's ongoing right now. I think these discussions would go so much better if everyone could somehow just forget about Murali and how emotional it makes them but I'm not sure that's possible
 

Shady Slim

Cricketer Of The Year
But they weren’t taking those things into account back then. It was just whether an umpire thought you chucked based on his observations.
correct

why do i have to reskin the same sentence over and over again. before they went through the big science, testing, and degrees of flexion boom, whether or not a bowler chucked was solely based on if the umpire, subjectively, based on a vibes criteria, thought he or she threw the ****in ball. sometimes when you mash potatoes you get mash potatoes, this is not difficult!!
 

RossTaylorsBox

Hall of Fame Member
correct

why do i have to reskin the same sentence over and over again. before they went through the big science, testing, and degrees of flexion boom, whether or not a bowler chucked was solely based on if the umpire, subjectively, based on a vibes criteria, thought he or she threw the ****in ball. sometimes when you mash potatoes you get mash potatoes, this is not difficult!!
Yeah I think everyone is talking past each other here. It's possible for both the following to be true and fine:

- Hair called Murali based on his own judgement which at the time was the only way to call chucking.
- Hair was proven wrong by subsequent scientific testing

You could make an argument that the entire affair turned out well for everyone: Murali got to keep his records, cricket now had a formal test to deal with chucking, and people are still having online meltdowns about it 30 years later.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
OK but surely this is just an approximation otherwise you would just use game footage to make the decision in the first place. My argument isn't that the system can be easily cheated, it's a counter-argument to behaviours in the lab and in the wild being the same.
Fair enough but the original point that brought about the discussion was TJB suggesting it can easily be cheated, which, as usual, is just bollocks.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Fair enough but the original point that brought about the discussion was TJB suggesting it can easily be cheated, which, as usual, is just bollocks.
round we go again. It's not bullocks, that the system is very easily cheated is common sense and widely accepted by most people in this thread. It's happening right now. Narine has been "bowling" for a decade. You're just refusing to believe anything that might be perceived as not being in 100% support of "MuRaLi pRoVeD"

I've said this 3 times already in this thread. You need to forget ****ing Murali because the second his name comes up your minds all clamp shut and thoughtful discussion flies out the window
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top