Murali is a cheat

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

if this had been say.....Fernando then no one would be complaining. But because its Murali out come the bashers.

Exactly, thats the thing. Murali bashers/haters just want another reason to be "against" him playing the game.

[Mister Wright]

Originally Posted by cbuts

Do you play cricket?
You know 99.99% of the time whether it bounces or not. I cant see Murali not noticing that it hit the ground

It's something more like 70% give or take a few. Definitely not 99.99%

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Mister Wright

It's something more like 70% give or take a few. Definitely not 99.99%

I don't have a problem with the Murali catch, but do you really think it's only 70%? I think 99.99% is closer to the mark then 70%..

[Mister Wright]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

I don't have a problem with the Murali catch, but do you really think it's only 70%? I think 99.99% is closer to the mark then 70%..

Think about it...how often do those close catches occur? If you get 10 of them do you think you're sure almost every time that you've caught it? It would be more like 7 or 8 times out of 10, not 9.9 times out of ten.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Mister Wright

Think about it...how often do those close catches occur? If you get 10 of them do you think you're sure almost every time that you've caught it? It would be more like 7 or 8 times out of 10, not 9.9 times out of ten.

And if anything you (as a player) tend to err on the side of "I caught that" rather than the other way.

[JASON]

Murali is not a cheat, but I daresay he could've chosen to defer it to the umpire. But in his own mind he felt he had taken it. The replays are unclear and at best it was a doubtful catch, although I cannot say it was not taken, because if he had spilt it he would've struggled to get it under his other hand considering the speed with which it was hit.

I am surprised the umpires (who had a shocking day) failed to refer it for clarification.
(in fact even if they had referred it - no one would be any wiser judging by the inconclusive replays and may be the benefit would've gone to the batsman )

But its unfair to call Murali a cheat as in his mind he felt he had taken the catch (and who is to say he hasn't, as the replays are very unclear) .

[Mister Wright]

Originally Posted by Matt79

And if anything you (as a player) tend to err on the side of "I caught that" rather than the other way.

Depends what type of player you are...

[Matt79]

I don't mean that you claim the catch if you're not sure, I mean that in your own mind, if you make an error, its usually an error saying "I caught that".

[Davey]

So what? you guys got one of the worst LBW decisions i have ever seen

why are you complaining?

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Mister Wright

Think about it...how often do those close catches occur? If you get 10 of them do you think you're sure almost every time that you've caught it? It would be more like 7 or 8 times out of 10, not 9.9 times out of ten.

As a player I am sure at least 9 out of 10 rather then 7 out of 10, most definately. It's like nicks when your batting, you watch the ball, you know whether or not you caught it, especially in a catch like Muralis..

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by Davey

So what? you guys got one of the worst LBW decisions i have ever seen

why are you complaining?

Two actualy

Taylor got a shocker too, lets hope that if he umpires in the final he has a much better game.

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by JASON

Murali is not a cheat, but I daresay he could've chosen to defer it to the umpire. But in his own mind he felt he had taken it. The replays are unclear and at best it was a doubtful catch, although I cannot say it was not taken, because if he had spilt it he would've struggled to get it under his other hand considering the speed with which it was hit.

I am surprised the umpires (who had a shocking day) failed to refer it for clarification.
(in fact even if they had referred it - no one would be any wiser judging by the inconclusive replays and may be the benefit would've gone to the batsman )

But its unfair to call Murali a cheat as in his mind he felt he had taken the catch (and who is to say he hasn't, as the replays are very unclear) .

Good, balanced response. Congratulations on your team's win, Jason.

[JASON]

Originally Posted by Voltman

Good, balanced response. Congratulations on your team's win, Jason.

Thanks, Voltman. I daresay Oram's decision would've made a significant difference compared to the other shockers, given Oram is a player capable of making big scores at very high strike rates.

I am disappointed that Umpiring at such crucial games has become so poor .

NZ were also affected by Styris not being able to bowl and Macmillan not being able to bowl.

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by JASON

Thanks, Voltman. I daresay Oram's decision would've made a significant difference compared to the other shockers, given Oram is a player capable of making big scores at very high strike rates.

I am disappointed that Umpiring at such crucial games has become so poor .

NZ were also affected by Styris not being able to bowl and Macmillan not being able to bowl.

Yeah but it's disappointing the other big players in the team didnt step up. The newer boys bar Styris and Macka did most of the good stuff. Good on the new guys though, will be good in the future. Also well done to Sri Lanka, you guys deserved it. Go kill some Aussies or Saffies!

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by JASON

Thanks, Voltman. I daresay Oram's decision would've made a significant difference compared to the other shockers, given Oram is a player capable of making big scores at very high strike rates.

I am disappointed that Umpiring at such crucial games has become so poor .

NZ were also affected by Styris not being able to bowl and Macmillan not being able to bowl.

Yep, it's just typical for a NZ cricket team that the players always seem to pick up injuries at the worst possible times. There needs to be a deeper investigation into why our injury rate is so much higher than, say, Australia.