• 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.

Wisden on Murali's Action

OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The problem with Ajmal was that even though his action always looked suspect, and was cleared in a test, his action seemed to slowly deteriorate into an even more suspicious looking kink. If it had remained the same through his whole career, it would've aroused less suspicion. But because it seemed to gradually get worse with time, it seemed obvious there was something wrong.
 
Pratters

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Migara said:
Which means nothing. I need parameters and numbers, so I could measure it and objectively decide which is which. Other crap, I don't care.
Click to expand...
I disagree it means nothing. I can do my best to put forward parameters and possible parameters according to my understanding. That's beside the point as the basic is there to understand. I don't think you want to accept any thing else though than the fifteen degree law.
 
Last edited:
Pratters

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Not every thing in the article I agree with, but this, I do (let's talk about flex, Samiuddin):

Middleton sent me another paper, published in Sports Biomechanics, which questions the entire basis of how illegal actions are measured. Rene Ferdinand and Uwe Kersting argue that the speed of the extension rather than the degree is more important in determining whether an action is illegal. "Even if it is accepted that most bowlers who throw violate the current 15-degree limit," the report said, "this study has shown there are bowlers who can achieve throw-like actions while remaining within this limit… If it is decided that these actions do not conform to aesthetic requirements of a cricket bowl, then further measures such as elbow-extension angular velocity through release and absolute elbow angle may need to be considered."

What should also be clear is that the current law should not be accepted blindly by cricket fans as the final word on the topic. There are loopholes in it clearly. I do like that it forms a basis to eradicate many chuckers, mind.
 
Last edited:
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Pratters said:
Not every thing in the article I agree with, but this, I do (let's talk about flex, Samiuddin):

Middleton sent me another paper, published in Sports Biomechanics, which questions the entire basis of how illegal actions are measured. Rene Ferdinand and Uwe Kersting argue that the speed of the extension rather than the degree is more important in determining whether an action is illegal. "Even if it is accepted that most bowlers who throw violate the current 15-degree limit," the report said, "this study has shown there are bowlers who can achieve throw-like actions while remaining within this limit… If it is decided that these actions do not conform to aesthetic requirements of a cricket bowl, then further measures such as elbow-extension angular velocity through release and absolute elbow angle may need to be considered."

What should also be clear is that the current law should not be accepted blindly by cricket fans as the final word on the topic. There are loopholes in it clearly. I do like that it forms a basis to eradicate many chuckers, mind.
Click to expand...
This study had a grand total of 28 subjects IIRC. Hardly any statistical power. Then once again, it was found a considerable overlap between normal and dodgy actions despite dodgy actions having higher angular velocities at the elbow. And this was looking at a host of parameters till one matches your criteria type of business. (Which is not science). i would love to see if a bowler has 30 degree extension and very low angular velocity at elbow to see how he is classified.

Once more it brings to the main topic. What is the parameter, and what is the level.
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Pratters said:
I disagree it means nothing. I can do my best to put forward parameters and possible parameters according to my understanding. That's beside the point as the basic is there to understand. I don't think you want to accept any thing else though than the fifteen degree law.
Click to expand...
What I want is a fair assessment of bowling actions, objectively. Not to go out to find parameters which are abnormal in a selected set of bowling actions.
 
Pratters

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Migara said:
This study had a grand total of 28 subjects IIRC. Hardly any statistical power. Then once again, it was found a considerable overlap between normal and dodgy actions despite dodgy actions having higher angular velocities at the elbow. And this was looking at a host of parameters till one matches your criteria type of business. (Which is not science). i would love to see if a bowler has 30 degree extension and very low angular velocity at elbow to see how he is classified.

Once more it brings to the main topic. What is the parameter, and what is the level.
Click to expand...
Science is that using elbow, shoulder and wrist will provide more for a ball than just shoulder and wrist. I fail to understand how you can't see that the fifteen degree law is giving room for some 'chucker's as per the old law and about the velocity aspect. You are just refusing to see it my friend.
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Pratters said:
Science is that using elbow, shoulder and wrist will provide more for a ball than just shoulder and wrist. I fail to understand how you can't see that the fifteen degree law is giving room for some 'chucker's as per the old law and about the velocity aspect. You are just refusing to see it my friend.
Click to expand...
I do agree that it will have better results. but the issue with it is that all these are "theories". None of them had been tested robustly to have a working model. Once again if these cannot answer the two questions of "parameter" and "magnitude" then it has no application in finding out who are the chuckers. I am dealing with the existing data and technology, not with a technology which is not developed yet.
 
indiaholic

indiaholic

International Captain
Just to chime in with something about the video analysis done during the Champion's trophy to arrive at McGrath's flexion, it was not human beings looking at footage. The setup was that 2 cameras were used to view the bowling arm from two different angles.. Software exists that can convert two dimensional video to a 3d model of the movement.. So am not saying it is wholly accurate or anything just stating that it is not going to be as innacuarte as us looking at videos.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
The other fact the geniuses are caring to ignore here is that Murali's flexion was also measured using the same software and it was almost the same as it was measured in the lab. These are scientists and technicians as well as former cricketers who all knew what they were doing. It was an ICC mandated test, FFS. Not some drivel by armchair experts claiming to understand bowling technique without even bowling at any decent level.


And FWIW, it is just about impossible to "bowl" a cricket ball at the speeds they do in FC or international cricket with the revs they put on the ball and the flight and the dip (for spinners) as well as the swing and drift without flexing the elbow (either straightening the bent arm or bending the straight arm).
 
Pratters

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
duffer said:
When I was young and this was going on I used to think there was a serious racial element to the whole thing. Not sure how I feel about it now tbh.
Click to expand...
True. During that time, any topic which came was looked at with a subcontinent v rest mentality as well. We need to talk about chucking and bowling from technical points as this is a deep topic with lot of technical layers to it.
 
Anil

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
holy crap...are we still on about this?! for a moment i was wondering if i went back in time!
 
S

spit

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
TheJediBrah said:
I'm probably as big a fan of Murali as they come, but even I'm not going to claim he was perfect or that his action was perfectly "legal". It was never actually "proven" either way if you look into it and just watching him live, or even slow the screen down and look at whichever angles you like, get your protractors out if you want, he obviously straightened his arm more than 30 degrees every delivery. That and it's literally a physical impossibility to bowl a doosra within current rules.

Personally I don't think it matters, he still did what no one else could do. If you went up to to every bowler and said "you are allowed to thrown the ball when you bowl", none of them would have been as good as Murali, or even come close probably.

I share equal contempt for those who say "he was a cheater so his achievements don't matter" as I do for those who kid themselves into thinking he didn't straighten his arm.

He made the game more interesting to watch and that's what really matters.
Click to expand...
There, it's done. Take a print out and head over to your nearest ICC commissioner's office to submit your plea for the ex post facto invalidation of all his wickets.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top