The biggest spinner of the cricket ball?

[RossTaylorsBox]

Does the @mods button work yet? Think this thread should probably be locked by now...

Try @cummies

 

[honestbharani]

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.

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?

 

[shortpitched713]

This feature was cool asf,

View attachment 32227

I always found Revolutions per Minute to be a ****ing hilarious measure. Like how many ****ing deliveries would you have to bowl before it added up to an actual minute of elapsed time. A rather large amount for mine.

Surely the standard should be Revs per Second.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

That's because if they do revs per second it becomes easier to tell that the numbers are all made up.

 

[Starfighter]

Channel 9 actually did do RPS counts for some balls during the 11/12 Australia India series (aka the greatest test series of all time), calling it 'rotator'. The novelty quickly wore off and it was rarely seen after the first test.

 

[Xix2565]

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.

I'm not sure "it's a joke" is supposed to be much of a defence for being an idiot, but sure, it's a joke then. Is it supposed to make me less critical of actually posting **** jokes then?

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

It doesn't matter though? Once you know what happened why bring it up? Why isn't anyone else being discussed like this? Why is there no real debate (an actual one, not where people dismiss it and move on) over whether the various old fast bowlers I mentioned are total frauds for chucking in a weaker era? Can't just be looks "dodgy" forever you know.

 

[Shady Slim]

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?

maybe i'm just dense (well we all know that), but is this not because it's widely acknowledged by everyone with more than four brain cells that ajmal threw it while the murali thing is seen as "conjectural", and so there's naturally debate about whether he threw it?

 

[Xix2565]

Murali's bowling was actually tested and cleared up to be fine. So unless you guys are the equivalent of Fox News in USA debating facts like they're opinions and unverifiable then I'm not sure what else is there to be had banging your head over this.

 

[Shady Slim]

It doesn't matter though? Once you know what happened why bring it up? Why isn't anyone else being discussed like this? Why is there no real debate (an actual one, not where people dismiss it and move on) over whether the various old fast bowlers I mentioned are total frauds for chucking in a weaker era? Can't just be looks "dodgy" forever you know.

nobody cares if WG Grace threw it because when he played the test for chucking was "based on the umpire's vibe does he look like he's throwing it", degree thresholds were only brought in near around the turn of the century, are you just being this thick on purpose or

 

[Xix2565]

nobody cares if WG Grace threw it because when he played the test for chucking was "based on the umpire's vibe does he look like he's throwing it", degree thresholds were only brought in near around the turn of the century, are you just being this thick on purpose or

I'm actually wondering if you are incapable of reading or not.

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.

There, the bolded just for you since you needed assistance to understand.

 

[Burgey]

Channel 9 actually did do RPS counts for some balls during the 11/12 Australia India series (aka the greatest test series of all time), calling it 'rotator'. The novelty quickly wore off and it was rarely seen after the first test.

Unfortunate epithet tbh.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Why isn't anyone else being discussed like this? Why is there no real debate (an actual one, not where people dismiss it and move on) over whether the various old fast bowlers I mentioned are total frauds for chucking in a weaker era?

You can literally post a thread about this very topic in less than a minute.

 

[Daemon]

Xi jp vs racists - very entertaining keep going fellas

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

jp

Thought you could avoid the slur filter huh

 

[Shady Slim]

I'm actually wondering if you are incapable of reading or not.




There, the bolded just for you since you needed assistance to understand.

you've failed to establish why people should care about the greats of old throwing bc when they were playing they weren't throwing per the metrics that were used at the time

and if you want to talk about it, like rtb said you can make your own thread ?

 

[Xix2565]

you've failed to establish why people should care about the greats of old throwing bc when they were playing they weren't throwing per the metrics that were used at the time

and if you want to talk about it, like rtb said you can make your own thread ?

Actually it was still throwing, just that no one could tell because human eye sight isn't good enough. And it still doesn't explain why people like you care about bringing this up about Murali alone, rather than questioning all the greats of years past pre ICC update who were chucking but were ignored since no one could tell without technology.

It's amusing to see all the loopholes being jumped to avoid reading and understanding my point that hypocrisy regarding this should stop.

 

[subshakerz]

Should have anticipated the thread will head in this direction. Not intended though.

The RPS measure sounds incredible. Would have loved to see Warne or MacGill measured on that.

 

[Shady Slim]

Actually it was still throwing, just that no one could tell because human eye sight isn't good enough. And it still doesn't explain why people like you care about bringing this up about Murali alone, rather than questioning all the greats of years past pre ICC update who were chucking but were ignored since no one could tell without technology.

It's amusing to see all the loopholes being jumped to avoid reading and understanding my point that hypocrisy regarding this should stop.

no it wasn't because the test for throwing was whether the umpire with his human eye vibed it as throw

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Should have anticipated the thread will head in this direction. Not intended though.

The RPS measure sounds incredible. Would have loved to see Warne or MacGill measured on that.

Warne would have got 28, McGill 37.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Warne would have got 28, McGill 37.

STDs per year? MacGill the dark horse