Why do Aussies hate murili?

[C_C]

[Well this thread has certainly got the sweeping generalisation meter going off the scale. Why even the very thread topic kicks off with one.

I am actually not generalising or even presenting a first person opinion- I am just informing the person i quoted (and others with similar sentiments) the only logical option left in forming the conclusion. Ie, if his/her idea on 'most' of the aussie fans is true, then 'most' of these Aussie fans would be the least educated and most pigheaded in matters of cricket amongst all cricket fans.
Besides, 'contemplation' is not the same as 'acceptance'.

It was his attitude in declaring that he would never tour Australia again because the fans didn't show him respect that coloured my opinion. At the time, I saw that as a sign of a player who saw himself as being bigger than the game and more important than his team. So the crowds called 'No ball' when he bowled? Please...he is a professional sports person. What the crowds say to him should be irrelevant. Crowds say all sorts of things (I've heard some doozies). And calling 'No ball' is NOT rascist. Rascism doesn't even enter into it. If he was being racially abused, then it might be different but I don't believe he ever complained about that (not that it may not have occurred - we seem to be breeding a redneck element in Australia at the moment).

As a personal policy, if the matter is not criminal, i cannot criticise someone for acting in a way i'd have in similar circumstances.
In my perspective, cricket (as is any form of sport) is entertainment first and foremost.
Ie, the players are playing to entertain- that objective by itself may encompass winning and agression but by itself is singularly the most important reason for existance of sports as an international franchise. As far as i am concerned, the audience-be it at a theatre or an opera or in a stadium- each and every one of them,regardless of their rank or position in society- is priviledged to see the masters perform. If the public does not have appreciation(an early warning for potential pedantics: i am not speaking in terms of 1 or 2 or even a dozen fans-but entire sections of the stadium) then the master owes it to himself/herself and the art itself not to perform.
I dont think you will see Barishnikov ballet in a chorus of boos or Pavarotti sing over hootings. They'd stomp off the stage and quite rightly so.
The audience must always realise its position- below that of the master and not on the same level- if they were, then they belong in the spotlight with the masters. And if they arnt, they should feel previledged enough to have the opportunity to see a master perform in person. Not only do i not disagree with Murali's 'i shall not tour OZ again' comments, i fully endorse them.
Amidst ultra-commercialisation of sports and blind wooing of the public for the cash revenue they collectively bring, the elavated position of the performers and the extremely priviledged and 'something to be grateful for' station of the audience has been forgotten.

 

[C_C]

[What about, and I'm just throwing this into the mix here (and it has no statistical evidence to back it up), the fact that it's harder to bowl leg spin than off spin? It's possible that this doesn't matter once you've developed it to the stage Warne had I suppose. It was interesting to see Lara say that Warne was always at you and you never felt in, whereas he felt Murali dropped off if things weren't going his way.
/QUOTE]

Well if we are to judge a craft by whats 'harder', then all leftie batsmen would instantly lose a few points over all rightie batsmen- since most bowlers in international cricket are righties and its significantly harder for a rightie to bowl to a leftie batsman.
But no matter- i think the hardest ball to bowl in international cricket is the doosra.
Besides, i think Lara's comments (not to be invalidated- mind you) must be seen with view of the fact that he is a leftie batsman and to him, Warne slanting it across the body and bowling directly into the rough outside his offstump (footmarks of most rightie bowlers = outside leftie's offstump) would be a harder thing to deal with than Murali bowling it mostly away from the rough.
Besides, i think every player-no matter how great- have their own sets of strengths and weaknesses- and i can see a particular player finding another 'particularly hard' to play but that fact having very little in correlation to their individual greatness. Ofcourse, as i said- Warne is a great and if he were playing in any other era, he'd be, singularly, the best spinner of his era by a light-year.

 

[pasag]

I dont like to contemplate the idea(primarily out of reverence for the more enlightened aussie posters here- you dont seem to be one of them) that the Aussie cricketing public in general, is singularly the most uneducated and boneheaded in matters of cricket but prevalence of such opinions leaves me no other choice.

Hahaha, welcome back.

 

[Son Of Coco]

As i said, i don't like to contemplate the idea that the majority of Aussie cricket fans are singularly uneducated and pigheaded about cricketing rules and biomechanical facts. But the abovementioned line leaves no other avenue for conclusion regarding the Aussie fans - for there is absolutely no wiggle room in this- it has been proven over and over that Murali does not chuck and if he chucks, so does McGrath,Warne, Lillee and every Aussie who's ever bowled a single ball at any level of cricket. I've explained this before patiently drawing on my understanding of sciences and seeing that reasoning or facts are not going to make an impact on the ones who arn't open to or well versed in them, i am not very inclined to try and educate people who arnt and refuse to be educated.

But if the majority of Aussies think Murali is a chucker, i am sorry to say, it reflects rather poorly on the understanding of the rules and biomechanics by these so-called 'majority of Aussies'.

While we are talking biomechanics, you might be able to explain this to me because it's something that has caught my interest for a while. When the ICC boldly declared a majority of bowlers to be chuckers, it was understood that hyperextension wasn't a part of what caused them to come to this conclusion. I looked on the ICC website however, and in relation to the tests they did at the Champion's Trophy in 04 they cited biomechanical forces at play during a bowler's action as the reason why the angle was increased to 15 degrees. I don't have a wide-ranging knowledge of the biomechanical forces involved in a bowling action, but I am a bowler and so have a bit of an idea of the motions you go through. Given the ball in your hand is a weight of some description I understand how hyperextension works during the process of delivering the ball (I think I do anyway), however my question regarding the ICC's findings is: If hyperextension isn't taken into account when assessing the degree of elbow bend when delivering the ball exactly which 'biomechanical forces' are at play causing a lot of players to be apparently "nearing the limit"?

To me it seems infeasible that any other forces could be at play causing the arm to travel in the opposite direction to the force being applied (i.e: the ball in the hand possibly causing the arm to straighten a little more due to the force exterted during the delivery), there's no possible way the arm could bend against this force to constitute a throw if it wasn't an intentional movement surely?

Another thought to do with this is: if they are saying hyperextension isn't being taken into acount, are they measuring the position of the arm pre-delivery at a relaxed position and then comparing it during delivery (and that might be hard to answer cause we may not know)? Surely, measuring it just prior to delivery and just after wouldn't give an accurate reading as hyperextension is already present throughout the process of delivering the ball once the bowler hits the crease.

The only sensible conclusion I could come to (and, as I said, I don't understand a greatdeal about biomechanics) is that maybe it relates to the arm releasing after the ball has been delivered due to the removal of the weight from the hand...however, I wouldn't think this would be a measurable part of the analysis as a throw would be measured as what happens up to the point of delivery, not anything past the point of the ball leaving the hand (obviously a dodgy action may be exaggerated from that point onwards, but I hope you get my point).

Anyway, that's basically why I find the ICC report on all bowler's actions confusing. Personally, I think it's taken common sense and brushed it aside, and made things even more difficult as the actions that are 'close to throwing' aren't what we were meant to be looking at when thinking of 'chucking' in the first place. It's easy to ask no questions and bandy about the every bowler chucks argument, but it makes no sense to me. As you can see from the questions though, I may just be another thick Australian fan

 

[Son Of Coco]

[What about, and I'm just throwing this into the mix here (and it has no statistical evidence to back it up), the fact that it's harder to bowl leg spin than off spin? It's possible that this doesn't matter once you've developed it to the stage Warne had I suppose. It was interesting to see Lara say that Warne was always at you and you never felt in, whereas he felt Murali dropped off if things weren't going his way.
/QUOTE]

Well if we are to judge a craft by whats 'harder', then all leftie batsmen would instantly lose a few points over all rightie batsmen- since most bowlers in international cricket are righties and its significantly harder for a rightie to bowl to a leftie batsman.
But no matter- i think the hardest ball to bowl in international cricket is the doosra.
Besides, i think Lara's comments (not to be invalidated- mind you) must be seen with view of the fact that he is a leftie batsman and to him, Warne slanting it across the body and bowling directly into the rough outside his offstump (footmarks of most rightie bowlers = outside leftie's offstump) would be a harder thing to deal with than Murali bowling it mostly away from the rough.
Besides, i think every player-no matter how great- have their own sets of strengths and weaknesses- and i can see a particular player finding another 'particularly hard' to play but that fact having very little in correlation to their individual greatness. Ofcourse, as i said- Warne is a great and if he were playing in any other era, he'd be, singularly, the best spinner of his era by a light-year.

Personally, I'd say it's the flipper, but then no one seems to have mastered the art of bowling the doosra legally yet. I guess you could also say it's harder to get a guy out when you pitch a lot of deliveries outside their legs...so this could be endless! haha

 

[Matt79]

While we are talking biomechanics, you might be able to explain this to me because it's something that has caught my interest for a while. When the ICC boldly declared a majority of bowlers to be chuckers, it was understood that hyperextension wasn't a part of what caused them to come to this conclusion. I looked on the ICC website however, and in relation to the tests they did at the Champion's Trophy in 04 they cited biomechanical forces at play during a bowler's action as the reason why the angle was increased to 15 degrees. I don't have a wide-ranging knowledge of the biomechanical forces involved in a bowling action, but I am a bowler and so have a bit of an idea of the motions you go through. Given the ball in your hand is a weight of some description I understand how hyperextension works during the process of delivering the ball (I think I do anyway), however my question regarding the ICC's findings is: If hyperextension isn't taken into account when assessing the degree of elbow bend when delivering the ball exactly which 'biomechanical forces' are at play causing a lot of players to be apparently "nearing the limit"?

To me it seems infeasible that any other forces could be at play causing the arm to travel in the opposite direction to the force being applied (i.e: the ball in the hand possibly causing the arm to straighten a little more due to the force exterted during the delivery), there's no possible way the arm could bend against this force to constitute a throw if it wasn't an intentional movement surely?

Another thought to do with this is: if they are saying hyperextension isn't being taken into acount, are they measuring the position of the arm pre-delivery at a relaxed position and then comparing it during delivery (and that might be hard to answer cause we may not know)? Surely, measuring it just prior to delivery and just after wouldn't give an accurate reading as hyperextension is already present throughout the process of delivering the ball once the bowler hits the crease.

The only sensible conclusion I could come to (and, as I said, I don't understand a greatdeal about biomechanics) is that maybe it relates to the arm releasing after the ball has been delivered due to the removal of the weight from the hand...however, I wouldn't think this would be a measurable part of the analysis as a throw would be measured as what happens up to the point of delivery, not anything past the point of the ball leaving the hand (obviously a dodgy action may be exaggerated from that point onwards, but I hope you get my point).

Anyway, that's basically why I find the ICC report on all bowler's actions confusing. Personally, I think it's taken common sense and brushed it aside, and made things even more difficult as the actions that are 'close to throwing' aren't what we were meant to be looking at when thinking of 'chucking' in the first place. It's easy to ask no questions and bandy about the every bowler chucks argument, but it makes no sense to me. As you can see from the questions though, I may just be another thick Australian fan

Just stop it you boneheaded, ignorant, racist!!!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Just stop it you boneheaded, ignorant, racist!!!

Dammit...I thought I'd blindsided you all by posting paragraphs!

 

[C_C]

If hyperextension isn't taken into account when assessing the degree of elbow bend when delivering the ball exactly which 'biomechanical forces' are at play causing a lot of players to be apparently "nearing the limit"?

First off, i'd like to declare that my area of knowledge in science is not in biomedical fields.However, i do know several people in biomedical fields (my younger brother being one of them) and from the way i understand it, there are two factors at play here : the real actual 'bendings' and the illusions.
The wrist joint, the elbow joint and the shoulder joint all have different ranges of motion, they are different kinds of joints and moreover, they are not all set at the same angle to each other, nor are they in the same 'plane' mathematically speaking (ie, your elbow is at a different level, so is the wrist, so is the shoulder). Often, bowlers and pitchers and various other professionals who use their arms a lot develop excess flexibility in the joints simply as a means of body's way of reducing stress and minimising the chances of stress fractures.
Thus, these three joints, all different to each other, with different extension levels and at different planes, can work together to produce an illusion of a 'bent arm' etc. This (along with his birth defect) is illustrated from the 'back-on' and 'side on' pictures of Murali in his bowling stride. At one slide it looks like the arm is straight, at another, it is bent. This is the optical illusion resulting from the joint dynamics. Given that Murali's joints are even more unique (i am told his wrists are crazy-flexible) this only accentuates the effect.

In terms of actual flexion, i am told that in the bowling motion (ie, weight in front of the arm and in your palm-the ball, arm going in the bowling action and hurling the ball), it is literally impossible to maintain a ****ed wrist and a straight elbow. If you force your arm to do so, you will rip off the muscles from the underside of your forearm. For it is impossible to maintain a ****ed wrist, ramrod straight elbow and impart force from your arm(the force required to launch the ball instead of just letting it go and see it drop down) without doing serious muscle damage.
Considering that all bowlers bowl with ****ed wrists (the definition of ****ed being 'raised' from the horizontal straight line formed with the wrist and elbow) to varying levels - just holding the ball in your hand and comming over your head in bowling style is enough to produce a '****ing effect' - automatically means that inevitably, the elbow *must* have some bend to it - either hyperextension or unconcious 'bending' (ie, chucking).

This is the reason why almost all bowlers have some flexion to their elbow regardless of how much they try to keep a 'ramrod straight' elbow while delivering the ball.
There are a few exceptions ofcourse- Sarwan i think was the only one singled out to have negligible/non-existant flexion- but then again, there are exception cases to every rule in the universe.

Now, since it was found that 99% of bowlers - both present and past- have some 'chucking' in their actions, the rule had to be modified to stay relevant. For if it still retained the absolutist 'if any bend = chuck' nature, it'd soon become irrelevant. Therefore, the rule needed some 'tolerance level' to be specified, above which it'd be considered a genuine chuck, below which it'd be considered a function of the biomechanics and thus unavoidable. As far as i am aware, the 15 degree rule was set because almost all bowlers were hovering around the 10-13/14 degree range at the point of delivery and 15 degrees made sense to institute.

I hope this was insightful.

 

[The Baconator]

Thought it would be interesting when C_C saw this thread.

 

[The Sean]

Spot on. Warne is an alltime great bowler and would probably be the primier spinner, without question, in any other era. He just had the misfortune of having his playing career coincide with one who's an even more brilliant spinner. It would be similar if Kapil, Imran, Botham, Hadlee, etc. had their playing careers coincide with Sobers or if Tendulkar/Lara were born around the same time as Bradman. This is the luck of the draw. Nothing more.

I always enjoy reading your posts C_C - I admire the thought and passion in every post, even if I frequently disagree with your opinion or the way you might put it across. I do have an issue with what you've said here though, not because I want to get into a debate over who's the better spinner (I think one or two people might have already debated that one, somewhere...) but because of the assumption you use that everyone agrees that Murali is superior to Warne and that Warne is unlucky to be no.2 in Murali's generation.

The raw statistics speak out boldly in favour of Murali - that Murali's out-and-out numbers are better than Warne's is an unequivocal fact. However, here on CW alone support is split almost 50/50 between the two, and I hope it's not too controversial to say that there is probably a geographical influence to a lot of that support. So it's not as though the opinion is anywhere close to unanimous either way even on here.

Furthermore - whenever players/commentators/writers/"experts" sit down to pick their All-Time XIs, or put together a ranking of the greatest cricketers, whether it be Benaud, ESPN, Wisden, the new Armstrong Top 100 book, or any of the other multitude of publications, they invariably rank Warne ahead of Murali.

As I said, the purpose of this message is not to start the debate again, or to say whether or not these rankings and polls are right or wrong, but to illustrate that, to a high percentage of the cricket loving world including most authorities who are asked to make these lists and rankings, Warne is rated higher - so I don't necessarily think he sits at home cursing his luck that he was born in Murali's generation. If anything, you could argue that Murali must feel like the unfortunate one at having statistically out-performed his main rival and yet still continually getting ranked no.2.

Just my thoughts mate.

 

[C_C]

Another point i forgot to mention :
Keep in mind that all these 'flexion/hyperextension' etc are measured with the joint and the bones in mind. Ie, when a biomechanist proclaims 'this is the angle of flexion', the sensors are measuring the angle between the bones of upper and lower arm with the elbow being the 'fulcrum'. However, when viewing the arm, the way an arm 'looks' to bend and the 'angle produced by the bones' can be considerably different- simply because other factors come into play, such as how long your arms are, how muscular your arms are, how flexible your muscles are etc ( you'd notice amongst gym-goers that those humongous biceped ones look like their elbows are 'bent' at rest but are still capable of complete range of motion). As such, how the 'arm looks' is highly ambiguous, not just because of the various joints moving in sync. and sometimes projecting an optical illusion but also because of the muscle cover, length and flexibility of the arms etc. also dictate how the arm 'appears'.
For eg, even if all factors were 'exactly the same', someone like McGrath, with his toothpick-like arms would look like a cleaner action than someone like Akhtar with his arm the size of most people's thighs and being a lot stubbier.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Lateral extension (abduction/adduction) also needs taking into account.

 

[Ikki]

As of 1st Jan, 2007:

Warne away: 73 mat,362wkts@25.50 b-b: 7/165 st/r:56.7 5-fers:20 10-fers: 5

Murali away: 49 mat 268wkts@24.89 b-b: 9/65 st/r: 57.9 5-fers:20 10-fers: 6

Any questions ?

As of now:

                     Mat   O      R     W    BBI    BBM    Ave   Econ   SR   5  10
Murali away:         49  2586.2  6671  268  9/65  16/220  24.89  2.57  57.9  20  6
Warne away:          76  3548    9575  389  7/94  12/246  24.61  2.69  54.7  22  6

Umm, hmm, no I don't think so.

]Irrelevant.
in absolute comparisons(ie,who's better away from home,strictly numbers-wise), it doesnt matter if Murali is vastly superior at home. If I, as a bowler, average 15 at home and 20 away and you average 22 at home and 23 away, i am better. End of story.

Haha, dude who are you fooling? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. It is absolutely STUPID to base a comparison between two greats simply on dry numbers.

I expect you to miss the larger picture as usual.
Let me break it down for you : Murali is more consistent than Warne. Murali doesnt have an excellent(let alone the world's best) pace attack to soften up the batting lineup before he even has a bowl ala Warne. Batsmen can afford to stone-wall him and often do. He is quite simply, much more accomplished-both in ODIs and Tests- against the side against whom all spinners are measured: India. He has more wickets, better average, better strike rate and the *only* thing that counts against him is the fact that his home pitches suit him a tad more.And frankly,if you were a bowler with a brain, you'd rather be a part of a better attack than get 2-3 extra pitches that suits you while doing all the donkey-***-lion's work. Okay, so murali doesnt 'whitewash' Warne in all the relevant criterias.

HAHAHA, the IRONY. No my little friend, it is you who is looking at ABSOLUTE stats and making sweeping generalisations. Murali has no support, and also no competition. As I showed you in the previous post, using Francis' eloquent rant, that you can bowl much below your level but bowl long enough to average it out, and in a lot of cases up your figures if you do so. Facts are that both have been shyte against India and, really, it's not even a real point FOR Murali.

And son, why do you think bowling in doctored pitches, and having most of your games at home, versus the worst opposition count against him? Because it bloats all those stats you just mentioned: S/R, average, wicket haul, etc.

However, anyone with a sense of neutrality and common sense can see that Murali is, easily i might add- the supreme spinner the world has ever seen.

LOL, I just wanted to make this part separate. You're something mate, I'm sure when your family members want to get high-spirited and have a laugh they ask you to talk about cricket. Thanks for mine .

 

[Son Of Coco]

First off, i'd like to declare that my area of knowledge in science is not in biomedical fields.However, i do know several people in biomedical fields (my younger brother being one of them) and from the way i understand it, there are two factors at play here : the real actual 'bendings' and the illusions.
The wrist joint, the elbow joint and the shoulder joint all have different ranges of motion, they are different kinds of joints and moreover, they are not all set at the same angle to each other, nor are they in the same 'plane' mathematically speaking (ie, your elbow is at a different level, so is the wrist, so is the shoulder). Often, bowlers and pitchers and various other professionals who use their arms a lot develop excess flexibility in the joints simply as a means of body's way of reducing stress and minimising the chances of stress fractures.
Thus, these three joints, all different to each other, with different extension levels and at different planes, can work together to produce an illusion of a 'bent arm' etc. This (along with his birth defect) is illustrated from the 'back-on' and 'side on' pictures of Murali in his bowling stride. At one slide it looks like the arm is straight, at another, it is bent. This is the optical illusion resulting from the joint dynamics. Given that Murali's joints are even more unique (i am told his wrists are crazy-flexible) this only accentuates the effect.

In terms of actual flexion, i am told that in the bowling motion (ie, weight in front of the arm and in your palm-the ball, arm going in the bowling action and hurling the ball), it is literally impossible to maintain a ****ed wrist and a straight elbow. If you force your arm to do so, you will rip off the muscles from the underside of your forearm. For it is impossible to maintain a ****ed wrist, ramrod straight elbow and impart force from your arm(the force required to launch the ball instead of just letting it go and see it drop down) without doing serious muscle damage.
Considering that all bowlers bowl with ****ed wrists (the definition of ****ed being 'raised' from the horizontal straight line formed with the wrist and elbow) to varying levels - just holding the ball in your hand and comming over your head in bowling style is enough to produce a '****ing effect' - automatically means that inevitably, the elbow *must* have some bend to it - either hyperextension or unconcious 'bending' (ie, chucking).

This is the reason why almost all bowlers have some flexion to their elbow regardless of how much they try to keep a 'ramrod straight' elbow while delivering the ball.
There are a few exceptions ofcourse- Sarwan i think was the only one singled out to have negligible/non-existant flexion- but then again, there are exception cases to every rule in the universe.

Now, since it was found that 99% of bowlers - both present and past- have some 'chucking' in their actions, the rule had to be modified to stay relevant. For if it still retained the absolutist 'if any bend = chuck' nature, it'd soon become irrelevant. Therefore, the rule needed some 'tolerance level' to be specified, above which it'd be considered a genuine chuck, below which it'd be considered a function of the biomechanics and thus unavoidable. As far as i am aware, the 15 degree rule was set because almost all bowlers were hovering around the 10-13/14 degree range at the point of delivery and 15 degrees made sense to institute.

I hope this was insightful.

I understand it's impossible to keep a joint perfectly straight in this scenario, hence the hyperextension involved. but the ICC maintained hyperextension wasn't taken into account when they declared most players present at the Champion's trophy 'threw'...so I have always wondered exactly what they're talking about. Surely hyperextension is the most common bending during a bowling action (at least, it makes the most sense to me that that would be the case)...and as far as I'm concerned it's never constituted throwing.

I understand the illusions and all that with Murali...I was referring more to the sweeping statement made by the ICC with regards to a lot of other bowlers.

Another thing with the 'past and present' thing. How is it that it was ok to test bowlers actions from the past looking at old footage, yet we can't test in real-time on current footage? It seemed to be ok for a two week period and then discarded.

 

[brockley]

Doesn't matter why we don't like him,question more like is will he tour australia in october or will he whimp out.

 

[C_C]

I understand it's impossible to keep a joint perfectly straight in this scenario, hence the hyperextension involved.

No, not necessary that hyerextension is involved. Hyperextension is when the joint bends 'backwards' and the angle is more than 180 degrees ( ala Akhtar). But not everybody has hyperextension and if you are conciously or subconciously bending your elbow inwards, its not hyperextension.

Another thing with the 'past and present' thing. How is it that it was ok to test bowlers actions from the past looking at old footage, yet we can't test in real-time on current footage? It seemed to be ok for a two week period and then discarded.

This is all about how much 'error' is present in the observation. In viewing old time footages, the 'error factor' in measuring the angle of chuck is much higher than current measurements in the nets or in laboratories. However, it must be noted that in cases of old timers (such as lillee, holding, etc) they are not trying to determine how much they are chucking. Ie, what their angle of bend is. What they are trying to measure is if there is any bend at all. Therefore, the role of the error factor is reduced significantly, since we are not searching for a raw number with the oldies but merely trying to establish the fact that they too had 'some' bend in their arms for the purposes of laying the groundwork in proving that this 'all chuck' is not a modern phenomenon but a phenomenon as old as cricket itself.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, not necessary that hyerextension is involved. Hyperextension is when the joint bends 'backwards' and the angle is more than 180 degrees ( ala Akhtar). But not everybody has hyperextension and if you are conciously or subconciously bending your elbow inwards, its not hyperextension.




This is all about how much 'error' is present in the observation. In viewing old time footages, the 'error factor' in measuring the angle of chuck is much higher than current measurements in the nets or in laboratories. However, it must be noted that in cases of old timers (such as lillee, holding, etc) they are not trying to determine how much they are chucking. Ie, what their angle of bend is. What they are trying to measure is if there is any bend at all. Therefore, the role of the error factor is reduced significantly, since we are not searching for a raw number with the oldies but merely trying to establish the fact that they too had 'some' bend in their arms for the purposes of laying the groundwork in proving that this 'all chuck' is not a modern phenomenon but a phenomenon as old as cricket itself.

Ok, I find it hard to believe you can subconsciously bend you elbow inwards, but I see what you're saying. I find it hard to see how an arm could be subconsciously bend against the forces applied to it during the action, but can see how it could be a delberate action that would ultimately result in straightening throughout the action as it would seem almost physically impossible to start with a bend and keep it bent (unless you have a defect) and still be effective. When I say deliberate I refer to an action that's come about due to poor coaching/no coaching etc.

As far as the video analysis goes...all players tested were found to have a bend in their arm that wasn't hyperextension then were they?

 

[luffy]

Another point i forgot to mention :
Keep in mind that all these 'flexion/hyperextension' etc are measured with the joint and the bones in mind. Ie, when a biomechanist proclaims 'this is the angle of flexion', the sensors are measuring the angle between the bones of upper and lower arm with the elbow being the 'fulcrum'. However, when viewing the arm, the way an arm 'looks' to bend and the 'angle produced by the bones' can be considerably different- simply because other factors come into play, such as how long your arms are, how muscular your arms are, how flexible your muscles are etc ( you'd notice amongst gym-goers that those humongous biceped ones look like their elbows are 'bent' at rest but are still capable of complete range of motion). As such, how the 'arm looks' is highly ambiguous, not just because of the various joints moving in sync. and sometimes projecting an optical illusion but also because of the muscle cover, length and flexibility of the arms etc. also dictate how the arm 'appears'.
For eg, even if all factors were 'exactly the same', someone like McGrath, with his toothpick-like arms would look like a cleaner action than someone like Akhtar with his arm the size of most people's thighs and being a lot stubbier.

God damn are you a scientific physiotherapists thingy person?

 

[C_C]

As of now:


Code:
Mat O R W BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
Murali away: 49 2586.2 6671 268 9/65 16/220 24.89 2.57 57.9 20 6
Warne away: 76 3548 9575 389 7/94 12/246 24.61 2.69 54.7 22 6Umm, hmm, no I don't think so.

False.
Away tests do not include 'neutral' venues. In terms of away record, the definition used is not 'away from my home' but 'in the home of the opposition'.Kindly modify your stats as thus and you shall find that it is identical to the ones i presented.

Haha, dude who are you fooling? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. It is absolutely STUPID to base a comparison between two greats simply on dry numbers.

Yet again, false.
As i said and demonstrated through example, my home record is irrelevant to the discussion when comparing away records alone, as you've done.

Murali has no support, and also no competition. As I showed you in the previous post, using Francis' eloquent rant, that you can bowl much below your level but bowl long enough to average it out, and in a lot of cases up your figures if you do so.

And that 'rant' is inaccurate. Not just logically but factually. As i explained, operating as a part of a better bowling unit sees one take less wickets but concede less runs and thus end up with better averages. This is the reason Warne averages less when McGrath is present (and his wicket/match ratio also drops) but when McGrath is absent, Warne's average too bloats up but he also takes more wickets. The similar pattern is also noticed amongst the four prong of the WI pace quartet- when Holding was operating before the rise fo Garner and Marshall, he took more wickets but his average was also higher.This pattern is true for most bowlers because, as i explained, when you are the lone gunman, the batsmen can afford to play you out and even though you take more wickets/match, you leak a lot more runs- ie, the difference between 3-33 and 6-90. You can work out the average if it isnt too hard for you.

And son, why do you think bowling in doctored pitches, and having most of your games at home, versus the worst opposition count against him? Because it bloats all those stats you just mentioned: S/R, average, wicket haul, etc.

First, dont 'son' me- i doubt you have the required age pre-requisite or the knowhow to take that tone with me. Second, as i mentioned, Murali is Warne's equal even when you deduct the two 'substandard' teams. But the fact that he does it without the backup of bowlers anywhere in the same zone as McGrath + Gillespie + Fleming + Lee and having humongous runs on the board is sufficient enough for me to rate him comfortably ahead. You may whine about his 'home factor' but as is demonstrated through stats, his away performance is on-par with Warne's. And that is an area where Warne has a *huge* advantage- having bowlers like McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Fleming, etc. to scythe through the opposition and expose the soft underbelly consistetly for Warne- or atleast far far more often than what Murali gets. As i said, just about the *only* factor in Murali's favour is the home-pitch factor. Everything else is in Warne's favour and Murali still is ahead/equal. If you do just as fine as me while sporting half a dozen more handicaps, yuo are comfortably better. Its just *that* simple that apparently is lost on your jingoistic brain. He is not just ahead statistically- the bulk of the intangiables and 'non-statistiscal factors' point towards murali being the superior spinner.

Besides, i am done talking to you on this - your allergy to reasoning and lack of a cricketing brain ( or concealed under the aussie flag) is painfully obvious to me. Over and out.

 

[C_C]

Ok, I find it hard to believe you can subconsciously bend you elbow inwards, but I see what you're saying. I find it hard to see how an arm could be subconsciously bend against the forces applied to it during the action, but can see how it could be a delberate action that would ultimately result in straightening throughout the action as it would seem almost physically impossible to start with a bend and keep it bent (unless you have a defect) and still be effective. When I say deliberate I refer to an action that's come about due to poor coaching/no coaching etc.

As far as the video analysis goes...all players tested were found to have a bend in their arm that wasn't hyperextension then were they?

I dont think i am explaining it well. What i mean is, for a person to **** their wrist ( as i said before, even if your wrist is slightly 'raised' as it always is for bowlers about to deliver the ball), keep a straight elbow and impart force while the arm is turning over (torquing) is literally impossible- unless you are truely a one-in-a-million case with crazy flexible hands or something. Just ****ing your wrist while having your arm straight will produce an tension in the underside of your arm- if you are holding a ball, it will be more pronounced. If you are trying to throw it (with a stationary arm-ie, just ****ed and straight elbow, the arm isnt going in circles at your side ala bowling action) it will produce an even greater tension- you can feel all this if you just pick up a ball and do it. Now, while you are torquing your arm (turning it over rapidly) and trying to do this all at once, your elbow WILL bend normally (forgive me for confusing you by saying 'in' and 'out') just so that your arm muscles dont rip itself apart.

And this is the 'normal elbow-bending' effect that is produced naturally while delivering the ball.