• 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.

SteveNZ

International Captain
Literally none of it explains "but he was a chucker and cheat, lololol" posting by the usual suspects in literally every thread that has nothing to do with bowling actions, like this one.

But sure, please lecture us more why the obvious fact is not, in fact, true.

Remember how no one raised an issue when discussing Ajmal or other folks regarding the same issue?
Yeah OK, so that's people on an internet forum trying to drum up vitriol and reaction because they have nothing better to do. Happens, right?

Is that racism, or is it baiting? I'd suggest it's baiting. They know it's an emotive topic so they play on it, and it's emotive because of the factors I mentioned.

Murali isn't a cheat, let's get that crystal clear. Ball tamperers are cheats. Murali never set out to bend his elbow and get an advantage. However myself, and others, believed he gained an advantage by that fact. Darryl Hair called it because he is not a conformist, which 95% of us are. We'd rather not call it and not face the scrutiny. His personality lent itself to happily copping it for what he believed in. He didn't do it because Murali was black, white, red or yellow. He did it because he watched footage and in person, and believed Murali was chucking.

The reason no one raised an issue with Ajmal might've been because of the baiting thing. Although on Pak Passion, I'm sure it happened.
 

SteveNZ

International Captain
Kyle Mills
This was a ridiculous throwaway comment by Ian Smith in an ODI one day, without much better to talk about obviously. I'd seen Kyle bowl day in, day out without even a second thought that he was chucking it.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This was a ridiculous throwaway comment by Ian Smith in an ODI one day, without much better to talk about obviously. I'd seen Kyle bowl day in, day out without even a second thought that he was chucking it.
I always thought his action looked dodgy as hell. Never slowed down the screen and really examined it though, might have been an optical illusion
 

SteveNZ

International Captain
I always thought his action looked dodgy as hell. Never slowed down the screen and really examined it though, might have been an optical illusion
OK, I'm probably biased. Maybe to do with the fact that his other-worldly gifts as a genuine great of the ODI game were not to do with pace, so I never gave it much thought. Or I think he's a god amongst men.
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Darryl Hair called it because he is not a conformist, which 95% of us are. We'd rather not call it and not face the scrutiny. His personality lent itself to happily copping it for what he believed in. He didn't do it because Murali was black, white, red or yellow. He did it because he watched footage and in person, and believed Murali was chucking.
The argument falls flat on the face when Hair is replaced by Emerson.

1. Called two leg breaks
2. Called three years later when Murali was cleared.

Now who let this clown officiate another match once (1) has happened? It was bleeding obvious he was premeditated, when he called two frikking leg breaks. When (2) happeend it was once again obvious he was not doing it alone. Whoever the administration should have kicked him out when (1) happened. It shows the administration also had a part to play. Extrapolating the situation, it is difficult to believe that Hair also was not premeditated for the call or was not under pressure to call.

Once again focusing only on Hair is a poor attempt, not to discuss the elephant in the room.
 

Line and Length

International Captain
The argument falls flat on the face when Hair is replaced by Emerson.

1. Called two leg breaks
2. Called three years later when Murali was cleared.

Now who let this clown officiate another match once (1) has happened? It was bleeding obvious he was premeditated, when he called two frikking leg breaks. When (2) happeend it was once again obvious he was not doing it alone. Whoever the administration should have kicked him out when (1) happened. It shows the administration also had a part to play. Extrapolating the situation, it is difficult to believe that Hair also was not premeditated for the call or was not under pressure to call.

Once again focusing only on Hair is a poor attempt, not to discuss the elephant in the room.
What's your point? Nobody has tried to condone Emerson. In fact quite the opposite. Go back and check Burgey's comments about him as an example. As for blaming the "administration", which administration? The ICC who reported umpires' (plural) concerns to the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka? Or the BBCSL who did absolutely nothing in response to that report.

The whole discussion about Murali being called and subsequently cleared has been done to death here and on other threads yet you want to make comments like "argument falls flat on the face" in response to StevenNZ's rational comment about what occurred.

The only elephant in this room is someone who wants to portray Murali as the victim of some sort of racist conspiracy conducted by a certain group of umpires. Such suggestions are ludicrous.
 

RossTaylorsBox

Hall of Fame Member
Genuine question: If Hair's motivation to call the no-ball wasn't actually to do with his action, then what's the alternative theory? Australians/Darrell Hair are just natural racists (very plausible imo)? Scared of Murali running through them? A publicity stunt?
 

Shady Slim

Cricketer Of The Year
The argument falls flat on the face when Hair is replaced by Emerson.

1. Called two leg breaks
2. Called three years later when Murali was cleared.

Now who let this clown officiate another match once (1) has happened? It was bleeding obvious he was premeditated, when he called two frikking leg breaks. When (2) happeend it was once again obvious he was not doing it alone. Whoever the administration should have kicked him out when (1) happened. It shows the administration also had a part to play. Extrapolating the situation, it is difficult to believe that Hair also was not premeditated for the call or was not under pressure to call.

Once again focusing only on Hair is a poor attempt, not to discuss the elephant in the room.
@SteveNZ: "there was no conspiracy on the part of darrell hair when he called murali for throwing it"

migara: takes on and thoroughly dismantles this argument by... writing about when emerson called him instead(?)
 

RossTaylorsBox

Hall of Fame Member
Apparently Hair stood in an ODI a few days earlier and didn't call him, which is making me lean more towards the conspiracy tbh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top