"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 possibleI 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?
correctBut they weren’t taking those things into account back then. It was just whether an umpire thought you chucked based on his observations.
Oh it is, I strongly doubt he was within the limit like the comms were trying to imply. But Amla is nothing compared to Ajmal in County Cricket just before he was banned. It was shocking.That looks throwy as hell to me tbh
Yeah I think everyone is talking past each other here. It's possible for both the following to be true and fine: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!!
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.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.
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"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.