• 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.

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bowling in a match situation when you're trying to get the other guy out is different to bowling under lab conditions. I believe Murali's action is clean, but thinking the test conditions are the same as a real match is a bad argument.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If you're wondering why I seem so passionate on this topic I was a decent bowler as a young teenager, then grew a few feet in a year, my flexibility went to **** and struggled to bowl without throwing it. Pretty **** thing to go through gradually and there's always been a massive stigma about chuckers. I took up wicket-keeping just so I wouldn't have to bowl.

Worked out well for me in the end though. I stopped keeping after a few years because I'm a big guy and it didn't suit me so played most my career as a specialist bat that just sits in the slips while the bowlers did all the hard work . . . dodged a bullet maybe
 

Blenkinsop

U19 Cricketer
I'm curious about where you're seeing all these chuckers in club cricket. Round our way, finger-spin is very out of fashion with young players. They are all either legspinners or seam bowlers, and the seamers have all been coached to have the same ECB-approved front-on action.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm curious about where you're seeing all these chuckers in club cricket. Round our way, finger-spin is very out of fashion with young players. They are all either legspinners or seam bowlers, and the seamers have all been coached to have the same ECB-approved front-on action.
There's usually at least 3 or 4 well-known blatant chuckers in most comps here. Front-line bowlers that have been doing it for years and everyone has accepted is just part of the game. Then there will be the occasional part-timers and lower grade bowlers with dodgy actions. More than a few of them are seam bowlers.
Australian cricketers and posters are particularly passionate about it because Murali was Warne's main rival. You don't see other countries' players/posters anywhere near this triggered about Murali's action. It is indisputable.
Just not true mate, but you've expressed this half a dozen times in the past so I know I'm not convincing you otherwise
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The only fair way to manage chucking is to put sensors on everyone's arms while they're playing and analyse the arm bend in real time.
100% truth. Can't see it happening though. Potentially some kind of camera-based imaging analysis could work, given they can do it for hawk-eye surely it's not too much of a stretch for this. But likely prohibitively expensive. (And chuckers could just wear long-sleeves and ruin it anyway)

I thought a strike system could fix one small part of the issue. To put a limit on how many times you can be reported and "fix" your action. Narine shouldn't be still bowling in top-level cricket
 

StephenZA

Hall of Fame Member
The only fair way to manage chucking is to put sensors on everyone's arms while they're playing and analyse the arm bend in real time.
When they tested Murali they looked at the speed of rotation. It is impossible to know for absolute certainty, like most things in science, but as long as the off field rotation speed was the same as the on field rotation speed it was highly unlikely that he was adjusting during testing and then going back to his normal delivery on the field. Particularly with a 'natural' taught mechanical motion based on repetition. It was the simplest way to have a constant, repeatable check... even though not perfect.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm curious about where you're seeing all these chuckers in club cricket. Round our way, finger-spin is very out of fashion with young players. They are all either legspinners or seam bowlers, and the seamers have all been coached to have the same ECB-approved front-on action.
The same trends exist here, yet there's still enough chuckers. As for the modern chest on action, can't think of a more horrible misapplication of biomechanics than that.
 

Xix2565

International Debutant
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.
Pressure isn't suddenly an excuse for radical differences in bowling actions where one is illegal and the other isn't. And this is still based on the presumption that things will be so different in certain situations when the goal of all bowlers is to have repeatable actions that they can carry out whenever they want to be it in practice, in a study or in an actual match. AKA there kind of needs to be more evidence to show that this is a big enough factor to discard scientifically tested data for your words alone.

Yeah I keep seeing you say this without anything approaching evidence so I'm not sure why I should suddenly take you as some divine arbiter whose word is the truth and nothing but the truth regarding this. Do people try to cheat the system, sure but I have no reason to believe that was being done when Murali was being tested and when other bowling actions were checked during that period. Not really interested in dealing with your strawman that's ultimately being brought up as an excuse to be a hypocrite regarding this whole mess (something I've noted down already while people try to ignore it).
 

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
When they tested Murali they looked at the speed of rotation. It is impossible to know for absolute certainty, like most things in science, but as long as the off field rotation speed was the same as the on field rotation speed it was highly unlikely that he was adjusting during testing and then going back to his normal delivery on the field. Particularly with a 'natural' taught mechanical motion based on repetition. It was the simplest way to have a constant, repeatable check... even though not perfect.
Oh I'm not saying he was radically changing his action, I'm saying that there's going to naturally be differences between lab experiments and "in the wild". I don't actually think it's that big a deal or will change the outcome, but it's some sort of confounder that can't really be overcome.
 

Xix2565

International Debutant
Oh I'm not saying he was radically changing his action, I'm saying that there's going to naturally be differences between lab experiments and "in the wild". I don't actually think it's that big a deal or will change the outcome, but it's some sort of confounder that can't really be overcome.
I mean that's fair, but TJB's talking about it like it automatically negates anything done when testing.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pressure isn't suddenly an excuse for radical differences in bowling actions where one is illegal and the other isn't.
Yes, it absolutely is.

And this is still based on the presumption that things will be so different in certain situations when the goal of all bowlers is to have repeatable actions that they can carry out whenever they want to be it in practice, in a study or in an actual match. AKA there kind of needs to be more evidence to show that this is a big enough factor to discard scientifically tested data for your words alone.
Bowlers actions change between deliveries all the time, even when bowling the same type of delivery, but especially when bowling different deliveries. A lot of bowlers have an effort ball or quicker ball that they chuck. Or start chucking looking for more spin.

Yeah I keep seeing you say this without anything approaching evidence so I'm not sure why I should suddenly take you as some divine arbiter whose word is the truth and nothing but the truth regarding this.
You want evidence that people's actions can change between balls, or in different environments? Really?
Do people try to cheat the system, sure but I have no reason to believe that was being done when Murali was being tested and when other bowling actions were checked during that period.
Ok?
Not really interested in dealing with your strawman that's ultimately being brought up as an excuse to be a hypocrite regarding this whole mess (something I've noted down already while people try to ignore it).
I don't think you know what a strawman is

You've shelved the ad-hominems which is a good start but if we're going to continue this discussion I think we need to just forget about Murali because it's clearly clouding your judgement. I'm trying to steer it away from there and you keep wanting to bring it back, but I don't see that there's anything more to add to that. As I said earlier:
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.
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.
I'm not trying to just **** on Murali. I think there are more chuckers than ever since he retired, and it's more of an issue than he ever was, even if it doesn't garner the same attention.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you're wondering why I seem so passionate on this topic I was a decent bowler as a young teenager, then grew a few feet in a year, my flexibility went to **** and struggled to bowl without throwing it. Pretty **** thing to go through gradually and there's always been a massive stigma about chuckers. I took up wicket-keeping just so I wouldn't have to bowl.

Worked out well for me in the end though. I stopped keeping after a few years because I'm a big guy and it didn't suit me so played most my career as a specialist bat that just sits in the slips while the bowlers did all the hard work . . . dodged a bullet maybe
Lol, except for the 'being decent' part - I was always crap - the same happened to me. When I try to put some pace on it my arm simply doesn't straighten through the bottom of the delivery swing. Having terrible base mechanics was the main factor, but I was never actually taught to bowl.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I mean that's fair, but TJB's talking about it like it automatically negates anything done when testing.
You don't have any experience in the scientific field do you? That's kind of literally what it means. You need to sufficiently control for confounding factors for your results to be significant
 

StephenZA

Hall of Fame Member
@TJB Are you saying the science is not good enough, or not being done well enough? Or is it not being done at all? Or are you complaining that you see players chucking and getting away with it?
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bowlers actions change between deliveries all the time, even when bowling the same type of delivery, but especially when bowling different deliveries. A lot of bowlers have an effort ball or quicker ball that they chuck. Or start chucking looking for more spin.
Interesting tidbit from the series where Murali was called, IIRC from the test prior. One of the commentators, I think it was Simon O'Donnell, pointed out that his action had deteriorated throughout the day presumably to fatigue, and stopped just short of outright calling it illegal on air.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Interesting tidbit from the series where Murali was called, IIRC from the test prior. One of the commentators, I think it was Simon O'Donnell, pointed out that his action had deteriorated throughout the day presumably to fatigue, and stopped just short of outright calling it illegal on air.
Fatigue will definitely do it. If I focus hard enough I can bowl with a legal action, but nowhere near as well as if I don't.
@TJB Are you saying the science is not good enough, or not being done well enough? Or is it not being done at all? Or are you complaining that you see players chucking and getting away with it?
Bit of everything. I admittedly have an anti-chucker bias, it gets to me more than it should, and more than things like ball-tampering. Anyone who has seen my complain every time Cameron Gannon, Arjun Nair or Chris Green bowl in Aus domestic cricket can attest to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top