Muralitharan a burglar,a thief and a dacoit : Bedi

[silentstriker]

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.

So again, where do you draw the line? At what point does the strength become 'too much'?

 

[silentstriker]

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

You can win the case if you can show that the comments were false and that it has hurt your reputation. It does not have to be evident in a financial manner.

 

[Ikki]

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.

That is my argument: that he is very efficient and it does have a lot to do with his deformity. Let me say, I am not saying let's ban him because of it - big discussion, I don't want to get into it - but to reply and equate his deformity with the hard worked talent of someone else is ridiculous. Yeah, give him credit, the deformity alone won't make him a great bowler but to ignore how much it enhances his bowling is what I can't believe.

His deformity does not equate the consistency/accuracy of a McGrath, for example.

 

[Ikki]

So again, where do you draw the line? At what point does the strength become 'too much'?

Well really, I am not the pro to really answer that. But to generically comment: when it is clearly unfair and abuses the spirit of that competition: sport.

 

[pasag]

You can win the case if you can show that the comments were false and that it has hurt your reputation. It does not have to be evident in a financial manner.

Yeah but you have to prove that you've suffered or you will suffer financially because your reputation has been hurt by the comments, as far as I'm aware. This isn't a criminal matter, it's a civil one and it's involving Murali losing money because of Bedi defaming him. As I understand it.

 

[Sanz]

Kazo - Is Murali the first cricketer to play with any kind of deformity ? The fact is that ICC allows players with some sort of physical deformity. There have been players in the past (Chandra from India, Wally Mathias from Pakistan) who have done well for their country and fans, ICC etc have recognized their performance.

 

[Ikki]

Kazo - Is Murali the first cricketer to play with any kind of deformity ? The fact is that ICC allows players with some sort of physical deformity. There have been players in the past (Chandra from India, Wally Mathias from Pakistan) who have done well for their country and fans, ICC etc have recognized their performance.

No, I'm sure there are cases, but then again they're not comparable, afaik, to Murali.

Wallis Mathias got an injured finger which then became deformed. It actually hindered his game, it didn't help it.

 

[Sanz]

That is my argument: that he is very efficient and it does have a lot to do with his deformity. Let me say, I am not saying let's ban him because of it - big discussion, I don't want to get into it - but to reply and equate his deformity with the hard worked talent of someone else is ridiculous. Yeah, give him credit, the deformity alone won't make him a great bowler but to ignore how much it enhances his bowling is what I can't believe.

His deformity does not equate the consistency/accuracy of a McGrath, for example.

Viv Richard didn't have the consistency and technique of a Gavaskar, but who really gives a damn, thanks to his physical ability(superb Reflexes, a lot more powerful and supreme hand-eye coordination) he was able to perform as well as (if not better) as Gavaskar.

Murali's deformity didn't appear in 1999, He was a good/decent bowler before that but in last 8 years he has been exceptional and to suggest that it is not because of hard work is totally incorrect and very very unfair.

 

[Sanz]

No, I'm sure there are cases, but then again they're not comparable, afaik, to Murali.

Wallis Mathias got an injured finger which then became deformed. It actually hindered his game, it didn't help it.

And Chandra ? It is clear that he benefitted from whatever physical deformation he had due to whatever he suffered as a child.

I dont understand how they are different, didn't you suggest that there are seperate competitions for people with physical deformation esp if it makes your performance deficient ?

 

[sideshowtim]

Where does it end though? Soon will guys with miniature bowling machines for arms be allowed to bowl?

Murali's deformity gives him an advantage that no one else could possibly have without that deformity. Things such as reflexes, co-ordination and strength can be worked on throughout one's career. The bend in your elbow cannot.

 

[Mahindinho]

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.

It's getting to be a matter of semantics.

Every deformity is a mutation of some form -- remember that not all mutations are genetic. Perhaps the word 'deformity' isn't quite right in this situation.

Yes, Murali has a deformity or two (I'm counting the bent elbow and double-jointed wrist as two separate issues here), in that his attributes aren't considered over and beyond normal human capabilities. However, it just so happens that his deformities allow him to be good at cricket. But they're still deformities.

By that token, I'd say that all massively tall basketball players are deformed, as would be the hypothetic tennis player with the weird (but wonderful for his sport) arm muscles.

Substitute 'different' for 'deformed' (and 'difference' for 'deformity') in the above, and see if it reads any differently. That's what I'm trying to get at here.

Back to the point about 'deformed' people competing in sports. If it's a positive deformity, why not? After all, the top echelons are all about being the best.

If it's a negative deformity, well, you're never going to compete with the best. For some deformities, e.g. being born without any legs, well, there are special categories in certain competitions. Which is as it should be. To an extent, it's the same for women athletes -- they're never going to be as strong or as fast as the top men, so it'd be unfair to force them to compete in the same competitions as the men. Only at the top level, mind -- for example, there are plenty of women players at my hockey club who are much better than almost all the men.

Actually, there's an point -- we've got at least one blind cricketer on this board, who is one of the best in the country (or even world?) at his sport. If he had instead the eyes of a hawk, should there be a special category above Test cricket for him? I don't think so, and neither would he. I guess

I'm starting to sound like some sort of misogynistic Nazi. I don't mean it that way -- I'm just saying that people are different and should sometimes be treated as such...but not all the time.

 

[silentstriker]

Where does it end though? Soon will guys with miniature bowling machines for arms be allowed to bowl?

Murali's deformity gives him an advantage that no one else could possibly have without that deformity. Things such as reflexes, co-ordination and strength can be worked on throughout one's career. The bend in your elbow cannot.

What about fast twitch muscle ratio? If you are born with 100%, you can't do much about it and Kaz thinks that should be grounds for preventing that person from joining a sport...which IMO is ridiculous.

 

[Engle]

Dont believe deformity is the issue here per se.
Nor how tall, short, fast, strong, muscles etc

The point here is whether a player can stretch the rules, intentionally or not, to the point of making it questionable to the sport and it's participants/fans.

If you were playing a game of cricket. And an opposing bowler was running thru your side with some sort of mysterious action, what would you be thinking ?
I'd lean towards the fact that he's gaining an advantage with that action.

This is the contentious point.

The ball is to be bowled.

What's happening here is that a bowler is touching a nebulous area that's far removed from the scale of a perfect bowling action and closer towards a realm of unacceptability,
than any other bowler.

We have to accept it as we must, since it has been deemed legal.....but gawd do I ever wince when I see that action.

 

[Sanz]

Dont believe deformity is the issue here per se.
Nor how tall, short, fast, strong, muscles etc

The point here is whether a player can stretch the rules, intentionally or not, to the point of making it questionable to the sport and it's participants/fans.

If you were playing a game of cricket. And an opposing bowler was running thru your side with some sort of mysterious action, what would you be thinking ?
I'd lean towards the fact that he's gaining an advantage with that action.

This is the contentious point.

The ball is to be bowled.

What's happening here is that a bowler is touching a nebulous area that's far removed from the scale of a perfect bowling action and closer towards a realm of unacceptability,
than any other bowler.

We have to accept it as we must, since it has been deemed legal.....but gawd do I ever wince when I see that action.

That my friend has beend discussed a no. of times.

 

[Langeveldt]

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

Can he link not being able to tour Australia to Bedi's comments?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Can he link not being able to tour Australia to Bedi's comments?

I'd seriously doubt it. Think Murali's non-appearance down under can be traced to his lacking one of these:

 

[silentstriker]

I'd seriously doubt it. Think Murali's non-appearance down under can be traced to his lacking one of these:

I think that's a bit unfair, considering the type of abuse he faces. But no point in having this discussion again.

 

[JBH001]

The term "deformity" is very much a social and cultural construction, and usually only contextual in basis, depending on the society and the area of its use.

However, to say that Murali does not deserve his wickets...lol!

Kazo and Sideshow = small-minded, petty, little men.

 

[open365]

Where does it end though? Soon will guys with miniature bowling machines for arms be allowed to bowl?

Murali's deformity gives him an advantage that no one else could possibly have without that deformity. Things such as reflexes, co-ordination and strength can be worked on throughout one's career. The bend in your elbow cannot.

There is a line though, it's 15 degress, which Murali is judged to be legal by.

Anything else on the discussion is a moot point, those are the rules and he is adjudged to be able to play by them.

 

[Raghav]

The article is 100% right.. If he has got deformity ask him to play in 'cricket for disables' and not at international level cheating