The biggest spinner of the cricket ball?

[Daemon]

MacGill was kidnapped or something recently wasn’t he?

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, was a bizarre thing. He gave an interview about it recently. All sorts of rumours about it, suggested OLMC/ drug involvement somehow. I'll try to find a link to the interview

Edit: https://7news.com.au/spotlight/i-th...idnap-ordeal-which-left-him-broken--c-7203345

Not sure if it's geoblocked but I think the full interview is on Seven's app. Just be aware they're a woeful network

 

[ImpatientLime]

Swann was the absolute worst 'lad lad lad banter banter' bullyboy dickhead. his masterclass was also quite boring except for him talking about how totally unconventional his grip and choice of finger to spin the ball at 1:55 below.

he did get some mad drift, dip and spin.

 

[Starfighter]

Travis Head

 

[Blenkinsop]

Not excusing Swann's dickheadedeness but his autobiography is quite revealing and sad. His brother Alec was the golden boy who could do no wrong in his father's eyes, Graeme was always the disappointment. Some of the anecdotes about his childhood are heartbreaking.

 

[honestbharani]

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?

What debate? Its proven Murali does not.

 

[honestbharani]

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

You know who else believed in this bull**** ? Ikki.

 

[Burgey]

You know he was referring to what the test was when WG Grace played, right?

 

[Line and Length]

@honestbharani

You're like a dog with a bone on this issue.

There are two facts, the first you are unhappy with, the second you believe negates the first.

Fact 1. Umpire Hair called Murali under the Laws of cricket as they stood at the time. Just because he had expressed an earlier concern does not prove his actions were premeditated. He called what he saw at the time (be it an optical illusion or otherwise).

Fact 2. Subsequent testing, scientific studies and a revision of the relevant rule has cleared Murali of any 'throwing accusations".

Both facts are indisputable and independent of each other and no amount of debate can change these two historic facts.

I, long ago, accepted these two facts and have accepted that Murali's achievements have been perfectly legal.

I have no respect for those who wish to dispute, distort or deny these factual aspects of cricketing history.

Idiotic claims that past greats were 'chuckers' is an attempt to distort this history and fails to recognise that players in the past (Meckiff for example) were called under the 'old' rules while others (Lock for example) modified their action to satisfy the rules of the day.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What debate? Its proven Murali does not.

Show us the study. The parameters & controls in place to ensure it was even a relevant measure to in-game bowling.

It may be the best we can do, but no test that takes place outside a live match environment has any scientific veracity. Nothing even to do with Murali, dozens of bowlers have done it and do it even now, with more accurate testing. Throw all you want in a game, get reported, go to "testing", change your action, get cleared, right back to throwing in a game.

Until we can accurately measure this, every ball, in every game, live, nothing is "proven"

I have no respect for those who wish to dispute, distort or deny these factual aspects of cricketing history.

Idiotic claims that past greats were 'chuckers' is an attempt to distort this history and fails to recognise that players in the past (Meckiff for example) were called under the 'old' rules while others (Lock for example) modified their action to satisfy the rules of the day.

You rang

 

[Xix2565]

It may be the best we can do, but no test that takes place outside a live match environment has any scientific veracity. Nothing even to do with Murali, dozens of bowlers have done it and do it even now, with more accurate testing. Throw all you want in a game, get reported, go to "testing", change your action, get cleared, right back to throwing in a game

What a load of horse****. Sorry but dismissing studies linked in the thread earlier to post bull**** on how X situation is not scientific enough and acting like people who chucked and get caught keep getting away with it is some holy truth is being idiotic.

 

[Migara]

Show us the study. The parameters & controls in place to ensure it was even a relevant measure to in-game bowling.

It may be the best we can do, but no test that takes place outside a live match environment has any scientific veracity. Nothing even to do with Murali, dozens of bowlers have done it and do it even now, with more accurate testing. Throw all you want in a game, get reported, go to "testing", change your action, get cleared, right back to throwing in a game.

Until we can accurately measure this, every ball, in every game, live, nothing is "proven"

You rang

Oh, here comes.

First, to show whether Murali throws you have to establish the fact that others do not. The fact was established every other bowler extends it, so Murali was a norm, not an exception.

The on field testing is a two way business. As long as you show the ones with dodgy actions go above 15 degrees, you have to show ones with classical actions stay safe of 15 degrees too. Any one with a classic action can blatantly throw the odd delivery and still go un-noticed on reputation of the stock ball.

Until we prove this, every ball in every game, live, nothin is proven, even if you have the smoothest of actions.

 

[StephenZA]

Show us the study. The parameters & controls in place to ensure it was even a relevant measure to in-game bowling.

It may be the best we can do, but no test that takes place outside a live match environment has any scientific veracity. Nothing even to do with Murali, dozens of bowlers have done it and do it even now, with more accurate testing. Throw all you want in a game, get reported, go to "testing", change your action, get cleared, right back to throwing in a game.

Thanks Gilchrist...

 

[TheJediBrah]

What a load of horse****. Sorry but dismissing studies linked in the thread earlier to post bull**** on how X situation is not scientific enough and acting like people who chucked and get caught keep getting away with it is some holy truth is being idiotic.

I have no issue with someone being 100% certain in their own mind that Murali didn't throw it. Perfectly reasonable state to be in.

But this post is just stupid, even if it wasn't full of ad-hominen attacks. For a study to be scientifically valid in this context it needs to have sufficient evidence to accurately reflect match sitatuions. That's just common sense, not "horse****". And bowlers "who chucked and get caught keep getting away with it" absolutely happens, it's not "idiotic"

you're too emotoinally involved in this, you're not thinking straight

Oh, here comes.

First, to show whether Murali throws you have to establish the fact that others do not. The fact was established every other bowler extends it, so Murali was a norm, not an exception.

The on field testing is a two way business. As long as you show the ones with dodgy actions go above 15 degrees, you have to show ones with classical actions stay safe of 15 degrees too. Any one with a classic action can blatantly throw the odd delivery and still go un-noticed on reputation of the stock ball.

Until we prove this, every ball in every game, live, nothin is proven, even if you have the smoothest of actions.

I agree with all of this

 

[Shady Slim]

You know who else believed in this bull**** ? Ikki.

no uh before the mid 1990s or so the test for chucking was literally whether or not the umpire vibed that the guy was throwing it. it was not x degrees as to extension, bend, hyperextension, congenital defect, none of that factored - the test until the mid 1990s testing wave was done was solely whether the umpire thought the delivery was a throw - this is a fact

 

[Shady Slim]

@honestbharani

You're like a dog with a bone on this issue.

There are two facts, the first you are unhappy with, the second you believe negates the first.

Fact 1. Umpire Hair called Murali under the Laws of cricket as they stood at the time. Just because he had expressed an earlier concern does not prove his actions were premeditated. He called what he saw at the time (be it an optical illusion or otherwise).

Fact 2. Subsequent testing, scientific studies and a revision of the relevant rule has cleared Murali of any 'throwing accusations".

Both facts are indisputable and independent of each other and no amount of debate can change these two historic facts.

I, long ago, accepted these two facts and have accepted that Murali's achievements have been perfectly legal.

I have no respect for those who wish to dispute, distort or deny these factual aspects of cricketing history.

Idiotic claims that past greats were 'chuckers' is an attempt to distort this history and fails to recognise that players in the past (Meckiff for example) were called under the 'old' rules while others (Lock for example) modified their action to satisfy the rules of the day.

this is all true. this is the best post in the thread.

 

[Xix2565]

I have no issue with someone being 100% certain in their own mind that Murali didn't throw it. Perfectly reasonable state to be in.

But this post is just stupid, even if it wasn't full of ad-hominen attacks. For a study to be scientifically valid in this context it needs to have sufficient evidence to accurately reflect match sitatuions. That's just common sense, not "horse****". And bowlers "who chucked and get caught keep getting away with it" absolutely happens, it's not "idiotic"

you're too emotinally involved in this, you're not thinking straight

There is no real difference between actual matches and scientifically conducted testing with regards to bowling a cricket ball (and no, repeating it like an idiot isn't suddenly going to make it real). Unless you think all the people who carried them out and the ICC who adjusted things after seeing their evidence are all lying to make up a conspiracy, something that has no basis in reality, then you can kindly drop this point.

So yeah, it's still horse****, and you don't need to try and bend backwards to justify it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There is no real difference between actual matches and scientifically conducted testing with regards to bowling a cricket ball

lol wow

 

[Xix2565]

lol wow

What is the actual difference? How does one delivery (say an offspinner) bowled in a match differ from the same delivery bowled in practice or under study? How is scrutiny from umpires & later cameras different from when a bunch of people recording with cameras take notes in a study?

 

[TheJediBrah]

What is the actual difference? How does one delivery (say an offspinner) bowled in a match differ from the same delivery bowled in practice or under study? How is scrutiny from umpires & later cameras different from when a bunch of people recording with cameras take notes in a study?

Everything's different in a match situation. Training doesn't compare. You're really asking if being in the middle in front of thousands of fans in a pressure situation could be different from a little controlled testing? Especially if you're concerned about your bowling action. Even unconsiously it's likely to change. You'll focus entirely on your action in testing, in a game when you have to worry about bowling the right balls and a hundred other things it all breaks down.

Then there's the people that will just blatantly change their action in either scenario which does happen, it's not a fantasy. You can have guys there to try and make sure the bowler hasn't changed his action but that's about as foolproof as the condom that's been sitting in my wallet for 8 years. And which in-game delivery are they comparing the tested action to? They're not all the same.

None of this is aimed at Murali ftr, it's just a **** system, and it's gotten worse since he retired. More and more chuckers are getting reported and sent away then coming back. Aus domestic cricket has more than a few that just keep operating with no repercussions, and don't even get me started on club cricket. Sunil Narine has been doing it for a decade, the system is clearly broken.