• 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.

Line and Length

International Captain
This is wrong. Hair called on what he saw, but what he saw was an illusion. Even at that point every bowler was extending their elbows more than zero degrees, barring Sarwan. Technically not calling every other bowler by Hair is also wrong judgement. You can argue any way you like, it is not a secret that the worries umpires and players were either Australian, New Zealand or English. Indian, Pakistani, South African or West Indian umpires had no issues with Murali's action. Very simple observation.
Source?
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hair called on what he saw, but what he saw was an illusion.
You've literally described every aspect of umpiring in cricket which isn't the subject of technological input. Look how many more lbws bowlers get these days since DRS. It doesn't mean the umpires in the pre-DRS era were doing the wrong thing or not properly applying the laws as they applied then.

If you're an umpire in 1995 you don't stand there and go "I think this is not out, but I could be seeing things because they'll invent a new system in about ten years which will track the path of the ball and I could be wrong so I'll change my mind." It's the same with these decisions. How's a bloke to know, before there's a stack of analysis done into bowling actions or even talk of doing it, that what he's seeing is "an illusion?" He applies the rules as they were and calls it accordingly.

15 degrees is roughly the point at which the straightening becomes discernible to the naked eye. Two or three degrees isn't. So you're suggesting in your post that Hair should not only have been calling other bowlers for things which, firstly, no one at that point in time knew were actually occurring because no one had tested them, and secondly, which he couldn't see even if he had been aware of their existence.

1656564754369.png
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This is wrong. Hair called on what he saw, but what he saw was an illusion. Even at that point every bowler was extending their elbows more than zero degrees, barring Sarwan. Technically not calling every other bowler by Hair is also wrong judgement. You can argue any way you like, it is not a secret that the worries umpires and players were either Australian, New Zealand or English. Indian, Pakistani, South African or West Indian umpires had no issues with Murali's action. Very simple observation.
I knew it must have been a race thing. Damn racists
 

Xix2565

International 12th Man
Best ball tamperers were England 05. Easily.

It's not different at all. Discussion is about biggest turners of the cricket ball and the blight on cricket which is chucking, particularly at lower levels where people have worked out they can game the system after watching Murali (and others tbf) at test level. Perfectly acceptable topic of conversation.
Nah, it's a settled matter now, so trying to link noobs to Test cricketers is still reaching hard for that sweet copium.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
It's easy to claim that Daryl Hair had "pre-determined that he was gonna call" Murali without examining the all the facts.

Firstly, a number of umpires, including Hair, had previously raised concerns about Muralitharan's action with the ICC, with those reports forwarded to the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka (BCCSL, now Sri Lanka Cricket). Those reports apparently fell on deaf ears.
As Hair said in an interview in 2020, "You try your best to say that it had to stop, or had to change."
The BCCSL must take responsibility for what followed as they failed to act on the reports forwarded by the ICC.

According to the rules of the day and the observations of several umpires, Murali was a 'chucker' and the authorities were failing to act. This left Hair with a dilemma. He said, "You understand it's a drastic step to take but when you feel like nothing is going to change, if six or seven wickets fall and you know those balls were illegal, in my mind I wouldn't have been doing my job."

The subsequent modification of the rules defining a legal delivery, and the testing of Murali may have legitimised his action but, at the time he was 'called', his action was illegal by the letter of the law in place and Hair had no option. To use your quote, " You can cry till the cows come home but it wont change that fact."
Lots of issues here. A number of umpires is an interesting way to put it, given no one actually felt they had enough evidence to call him on the field except Hair. And the fact that Hair basically gave an ultimatum and said he will call someone indicates it was pre-determined and not based on what actually happened on the field, which is the unfair part. And yes, anyone can cry till the cows come home but it indeed wont change that fact.

And given what was figured out about bowling actions as a whole, it was very much a responsibility of the ICC to act on what was mentioned/reported than it was on the BCCSL. Its not BCCSL's fault the umpires AND the ICC had no idea of what hyperextension is and yet they were so eager to "define" what a "clean" bowling action was. Face it, it was a very obvious predisposition based on preconceived notions than actual studies of action or science.

And once again, it does not disprove the original goalpost that Burgey has so desperately tried to shift as far as this argument goes.
 

Line and Length

International Captain
Lots of issues here. A number of umpires is an interesting way to put it, given no one actually felt they had enough evidence to call him on the field except Hair. And the fact that Hair basically gave an ultimatum and said he will call someone indicates it was pre-determined and not based on what actually happened on the field, which is the unfair part. And yes, anyone can cry till the cows come home but it indeed wont change that fact.

And given what was figured out about bowling actions as a whole, it was very much a responsibility of the ICC to act on what was mentioned/reported than it was on the BCCSL. Its not BCCSL's fault the umpires AND the ICC had no idea of what hyperextension is and yet they were so eager to "define" what a "clean" bowling action was. Face it, it was a very obvious predisposition based on preconceived notions than actual studies of action or science.

And once again, it does not disprove the original goalpost that Burgey has so desperately tried to shift as far as this argument goes.
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.
 

Adders

Cricketer Of The Year
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.
 

Xix2565

International 12th Man
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....
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Probably because his was by far the most prominent and significant case, and led to analysis of the whole thing and a change to the laws after he was called, a somewhat significant difference between his case and the others you've mentioned who weren't.

But you know, yeah, it's gotta be race based.

You've proven your point. Idiocy knows no race..
 

Xix2565

International 12th Man
Still not an excuse to keep bringing it up when no one seriously talks about the likes of Lillee/Marshall/Kapil/Botham/etc as chuckers, but it's nice to know old men also lose general reading comprehension whenever they see anything that proves them wrong.
 

Adders

Cricketer Of The Year
This topic just will never have a decent discussion......ever. For once I don't think Burgey is even really winding you guys up. He's not mentioned a thing about Murali post being cleared, only talked about up to that point and defended Hairs position. I'm normally the first to jump in the pro Murali camp......but you guys are getting all bent out out of shape over a big pile of nothing afaic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top