Muralitharan a burglar,a thief and a dacoit : Bedi

[Richard]

P.S. Pardon the capitalised words, needed to get the point across.

Oh, BTW, I find bold text does that better than CAPS, seems a bit aggressive.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually, that is EXACTLY it. If it was something that ALL players had it would not be 'ABNORMAL' nor would it be an 'ADVANTAGE' because EVERYONE has it, or even if SOME players had it.

So if you could somehow prove that Viv Richards possessed hand eye coordination that was far in excess of what anyone else measured and thus very few if any people could match that advantage, that would disqualify him? That would certainly be something quite abnormal.

What if someone was born with a mutation in his muscles that allowed for abnormal arm speed. That would mean he is disqualified from being a fast bowler?

Or a sprinter that had like 99% fast twitch fibers in his muscles? He would be a human anomaly (and certainly would cause scientists to study him very closely), and it would certainly be a physical deformity (though you couldn't see it), and it would give him a natural advantage when sprinting (and a disadvantage when doing long distance). That would mean he is disqualified?

So this is a standard bell curve that you can overlay for any ability. Let's say this represents a unique ability such as hand eye coordination.

The vast majority of us would fall in between within 1SD of the mean (meaning 70% of the population is clustered around the middle where the curve is the highest). Between 1SD and 2SD are probably some good athletes fall, like club and some county cricketers. +2SD and above are the natural athletes, and most FC batsman would fall at the top 2% of the population.

The further you go right, the less chance you have of finding other people like you. Most batsmen at the Test level are probably well above 1%. Let's say a genetic freak (like Richards) comes along that is so far right, that he falls like .00000005% of the population. That means there is likely not one other person in the world who was lucky enough to be born with this 'deformity'. At what point in this curve do you say 'This is too much of an advantage?'

 

[Ikki]

Oh, BTW, I find bold text does that better than CAPS, seems a bit aggressive.

Okay, I'm just too lazy to highlight and use the tag.

So if you could somehow prove that Viv Richards possessed hand eye coordination that was far in excess of what anyone else measured and thus very few if any people could match that advantage, that would disqualify him? That would certainly be something quite abnormal.

What if someone was born with a mutation in his muscles that allowed for abnormal arm speed. That would mean he is disqualified from being a fast bowler?

Or a sprinter that had like 99% fast twitch fibers? He would be a human anomaly, and it would certainly be a physical deformity (though you couldn't see it), and it would give him a natural advantage. That's not OK?

Well, if you can prove something then that'd be a start. He's just a very good cricketer. I mean, you can be a very good cricketer and not because you are deformed: Bradman.

I see your point in the sprinter example but I have a grey feeling about it. Not all black and white. Don't think that because I am replying in this fashion I am totally okay with the thesis.

Running is a discipline where you're enabling yourself further - with that advantage - and by that you are not disabling someone else. See, if Murali is being helped so much of because of his deformity, that means all batsmen that oppose him will be disabled from playing their natural game. They have to deal with Murali and their figures will drop, so will the opposition's success in total.

But a sprinter runs against himself as much as the opposition. The runner with the amazing amount of twitch fibers will always win, okay, but it doesn't stop his fellow runners from running as fast as THEY can. See? Big difference. And then when you acknowledge that X runner is this good because of it, then those that come 2nd, 3rd and on will compare themselves that don't have that many twitch fibers.

To clarify: If a sprinter is running in the 100m in 9.9 seconds, he isn't going to be slower because the guy next to him is running it in 8 seconds. But Murali's advantage works to disadvantage his opposition. Hence, it goes a step further than just being 'unfair'.

 

[Langeveldt]

Interesting stuff.. I'm very anti-Murali and believe that every one of his wickets has been a fraud, but the simple fact of the matter is the ICC have cleared him to play international cricket, so you can't go public with comments like Bedi has because Murali is apparently playing 100% within the rules.. I'm actually with Murali on this one, and hope he goes to town on Bedi and wins..

 

[silentstriker]

Well, if you can prove something then that'd be a start. He's just a very good cricketer. I mean, you can be a very good cricketer and not because you are deformed: Bradman.

Why? I bet Bradman did have some physical differences compared to other athletes that helped him become superior. And I certainly think guys who rely on 'eye shots' like Richards or Dhoni (I will never use the two in the same sentence again, I promise) have an abnormal physical attribute that is shared by few or any on the planet.

 

[Richard]

Well, if you can prove something then that'd be a start. He's just a very good cricketer. I mean, you can be a very good cricketer and not because you are deformed: Bradman.

I'm with Dasa very much here...

as for the crap about normalcy, you're entering very dangerous territory...look at it from the opposite angle, someone who is abnormally deficient in an area shouldn't be allowed to do something? Do you realise what you're actually saying?

What does it matter whether something's because of a deformity? What is so wrong with a deformity? Murali is a very good cricketer because of a deformity; Bradman was because he took something everyone requires to unapproached levels...

What's the difference? Nothing IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

But a sprinter runs against himself as much as the opposition. The runner with the amazing amount of twitch fibers will always win, okay, but it doesn't stop his fellow runners from running as fast as THEY can. See? Big difference. And then when you acknowledge that X runner is this good because of it, then those that come 2nd, 3rd and on will compare themselves that don't. If a sprinter is running in the 100m in 9.9 seconds, he isn't going to be slower because the guy next to him is running it in 8 seconds. But Murali's advantage combines to a disadvantage of his opposition. Hence, it goes a step further than just being 'unfair'.

So if I am a Tennis player with 100% fast twich fibers in my arm and chest, which enables me to serve at 180mph and second serve at 140mph, I should be disqualified because that's certainly a physical deformity thats an advantage to me and disadvantage to my opponent.

 

[Ikki]

as for the crap about normalcy, you're entering very dangerous territory...look at it from the opposite angle, someone who is abnormally deficient in an area shouldn't be allowed to do something? Do you realise what you're actually saying?

You added more so I'll reply to that:

Actually, yes. If you are extremely deficient in something you aren't considered in the normal competitions. That is why there are such things like: The Special Olympics or the Paralympics. It does not make it fairer for those with deficiencies to have to compete with those that have none. Your argument is preposterous, really.

 

[Ikki]

So if I am a Tennis player with 100% fast twich fibers in my arm and chest, which enables me to serve at 180mph and second serve at 140mph, I should be disqualified because that's certainly a physical deformity thats an advantage to me and disadvantage to my opponent.

Yeah, with that reasoning they should be. How much harder are they going to hit EVERY ball. Not just the serve.

To my understanding such a player is not just going to be a bit better, but he will be murdering his opponents. Why even have a tournament?

 

[Richard]

I see your point in the sprinter example but I have a grey feeling about it. Not all black and white. Don't think that because I am replying in this fashion I am totally okay with the thesis.

Running is a discipline where you're enabling yourself further - with that advantage - and by that you are not disabling someone else. See, if Murali is being helped so much of because of his deformity, that means all batsmen that oppose him will be disabled from playing their natural game. They have to deal with Murali and their figures will drop, so will the opposition's success in total.

But a sprinter runs against himself as much as the opposition. The runner with the amazing amount of twitch fibers will always win, okay, but it doesn't stop his fellow runners from running as fast as THEY can. See? Big difference. And then when you acknowledge that X runner is this good because of it, then those that come 2nd, 3rd and on will compare themselves that don't have that many twitch fibers.

To clarify: If a sprinter is running in the 100m in 9.9 seconds, he isn't going to be slower because the guy next to him is running it in 8 seconds. But Murali's advantage works to disadvantage his opposition. Hence, it goes a step further than just being 'unfair'.

I see what you mean with this but do you really imagine running would be of interest if it wasn't a case of people competing, and that all was of interest was each person doing his or her best?

I don't, and I'm no massive track-and-field affectionado ITFP.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, with that reasoning they should be. How much harder are they going to hit EVERY ball. Not just the serve.

To my understanding such a player is not just going to be a bit better, but he will be murdering his opponents. Why even have a tournament?

Because sport is all about the display of physical skill! That's the whole point, most of the time.

George Foreman has a freakish punch that could level a truck. It allowed him to be a champion in his forties. So now there should be a 'maximum' strength test for all Tennis and Boxing players? Maximum speed for Soccer players?

 

[Richard]

Yeah, with that reasoning they should be. How much harder are they going to hit EVERY ball. Not just the serve.

To my understanding such a player is not just going to be a bit better, but he will be murdering his opponents. Why even have a tournament?

Consistent maybe, but frankly I find such a POV rather strange.

Ah well, each to his own.

EDIT: Manan probably puts it much better ^^^^^^

 

[Ikki]

I see what you mean with this but do you really imagine running would be of interest if it wasn't a case of people competing, and that all was of interest was each person doing his or her best?

I don't, and I'm no massive track-and-field affectionado ITFP.

I see what you're saying. I am simply replying to how much different that example is to what we're saying about Murali.

I don't mean to imply that it's all 'honky-dory' and 'that's that'. But if everyone acknowledges why that runner is so good, and keeps him on a different plane to those that don't have that many twitch fibers, then I can see a case for him racing. In essence, the comparison is unfair.

I can't delve into reforms or alternatives for something that simply has not occured, but even if it did I do not have the expertise in this running area. But in regards to Cricket, I see it a bit more clearly and I think both reasonings are solid.

 

[Ikki]

Because sport is all about the display of physical skill! That's the whole point, most of the time.

George Foreman has a freakish punch that could level a truck. It allowed him to be a champion in his forties. So now there should be a 'maximum' strength test for all Tennis and Boxing players? Maximum speed for Soccer players?

But here you keep making terrible examples.

You jump from one extreme: a guy with 100% twitch fibers, really an anomaly that hasn't even happened - to by knowledge - to George Foreman? George Foreman was strong, but he was never ABNORMALLY strong. It was not a deformity that made him stronger. It was his conditioning and of course his genetics (not abnormal ones though). I mean there are boxers like Tyson that a lot of people say hit harder than Foreman, and you can go back to Marciano and Liston too.

Your example would only be apt if Foreman was literally beating every boxer at/in an unprecedented rate/fashion. Ali stood against Foreman's punches, and that was when Ali was old and Foreman young. Sorry, but again, I fail to see how this example is even apt.

 

[Sanz]

See, if Murali is being helped so much of because of his deformity, that means all batsmen that oppose him will be disabled from playing their natural game. They have to deal with Murali and their figures will drop, so will the opposition's success in total.

And that's an assumption and an incorrect one. For Example :-

Ricky Ponting's avg. against some Off spinners :-

Vs. Harbhajan - 3.4
Vs. Robert Croft - 17.00
Vs. Ashish Kapoor - 14.00
Vs. Murali - 96.00

Tendulkar's Avg. against some Off Spinners :-

Vs. Saqlain - 47.33
Vs. symcox - 22.00
Vs. Murali - 61.00

Brian Lara's Avg. against some off spinners :-

Vs. Saqlain - 36.50
Vs. Murali - 56.80

 

[Ikki]

And that's an assumption and an incorrect one. For Example :-

Ricky Ponting's avg. against some Off spinners :-

Vs. Harbhajan - 3.4
Vs. Robert Croft - 17.00
Vs. Ashish Kapoor - 14.00
Vs. Murali - 96.00

Tendulkar's Avg. against some Off Spinners :-

Vs. Saqlain - 47.33
Vs. symcox - 22.00
Vs. Murali - 61.00

Brian Lara's Avg. against some off spinners :-

Vs. Saqlain - 36.50
Vs. Murali - 56.80

Yes, but in Cricket it isn't Sri Lanka being represented by 1 Murali and, for e.g., India being represented by 1 Sachin.

You bring out Murali's other stats and that is in the face of ALL batsmen and opposition. That is what I was assuming and implying. Murali can be hit like that - and it is rare - and make up the rest by tearing apart the rest.

 

[pasag]

The only unfair advantages in sport, can only ever be external ones. If you're born with something and become the best because of it, then that's the way things go and it makes little sense to discriminate against the person because of it.

Back on topic (both quite interesting tbh), I still don't see any legal foundation here (unless he is suing for previous comments). Also for defamation don't you have to prove that you've been financially affected to be compensated for that which the defamation has negatively affected you? Has Bedi's comments meant Murali has lost money? I dunno, I'm no legal expert but I just don't see a defamation case here (although there def would be for the thread title, however the links don't work. Very, very interesting to see LE's comments in post# 5 from back in 03)

 

[Sanz]

You added more so I'll reply to that:

Actually, yes. If you are extremely deficient in something you aren't considered in the normal competitions. That is why there are such things like: The Special Olympics or the Paralympics. It does not make it fairer for those with deficiencies to have to compete with those that have none. Your argument is preposterous, really.

But the point is Murali is not deficient, he is supremely efficient.And there are no separate competitions for people who are born with that kind of natural advantages.

 

[open365]

I don't think he has to have lost money to sue for defamation

 

[pasag]

I don't think he has to have lost money to sue for defamation

It's a civil matter, you have to prove that you've been financially affected by the comments as far as I'm aware.