Fair enough, and maybe I misjudged you - in which case I apologise.
Why? The only argument you've been able to offer for that so far is that it's 'abnormal', and that argument is logically crap - not only does abnormal not mean unfair, you're just setting an arbitrary mark for abnormality so you can single Murali out. So again, why is it unfair? Could it possibly be yet another attempt to diminish Murali's achievements?
As I said Pandora's box is open & there's no point in wishing it shut.
A couple of points - firstly, it's not ok for umpires to make incorrect decisions about any facet of the game and I fully support using Hawkeye and any other technology available to eliminate errors, as I think SS and Richard both do as well. Secondly, and I don't necessarily agree with this view, a dodgy LBW decision is less likely to ruin a career, while calling a bowler for throwing is much more likely to.
There are degrees to being tall and in some cases short height has it's advantages and so does being tall. All cricketers have a variance of height. But you're either double-jointed or not. You either have a kink in your elbow or not. There is no degree to it.
Abnormal in the sense that it is not frequent, nor are there SOME players with a similar characteristic.
But your Murali fanboy cap keeps getting in your view.
Yeah, ignore my point, well done. By the way, I haven't been missing the mark again and again, I'm understanding you quite well but I'll repeat, your argument is nonsensical because you've decided on an arbitrary point of 'abnormality'.Abnormal in the sense that it is not frequent, nor are there SOME players with a similar characteristic.
To be frank, you're examples have been poor and you're missing the mark again and again. Murali's feats are greatly helped by his deformity. I am arguing his deformity being abnormal, not his talent. I mean, there is someone in the same era he has played that has pretty much done what he has
My thoughts were exactly as Akhil's. There are one or two people I've met who've had legit reasons to doubt Murali, but the "I trust my eyes over science" view simply makes no sense, none at all. And by-and-large people who sport that sort of notion are just the sort of guys who lack sense. Sean isn't, and it disappoints both of us that he'd lack sense like that in one area but not in any others. (I felt the same way about Fiery FWIW)
Yeah, **** me is it annoying when people do that. Old LA-ICE E is a master of it. I believe you to be wrong, so I'm "not getting it"? Crap.
I don't see the connection, TBH. No-one's really questioning the integrity of Umpires who've reported (and in the old days no-balled) bowlers, with the exception of Ross Emerson who is almost universally accepted to be an idiot. Even Darrell Hair it's usually held to be mostly conspiracy-theorist crap that he's biased against subcontinental teams. Similarly, mostly Umpires who make the odd bad lbw\caught decision aren't often villified much.
As Dasa said, ideally you want every decision to be as right as you can get it, and I'm in favour of using everything available to get that. There's no point, I've come to the realisation, in doing bits but not all. We're currently in the time with technology\replays that we were in the mid-1970s with covered wickets. Because some people objected to it, instead of going the whole hog straightaway, we initially had some idiotic schemes brought in that made no sense at all (only cover the wicket when play's been called-off for the day? WTF?), just to try and placate those objecting to progress.
Exactly, and I think that's quite right. We've seen enough examples of the deception of the eye for me to say I never again want to see a bowler humiliated, even if it's apparently the most blatant chuck in history (ie, Lord's 2002 and Ruchira Perera). If a bowler's action looks suspicious, report it, get it checked and go from there. If the odd delivery is likewise (eg Marlon Samuels' quicker-ball that I seem to remember you like me spotted earlier this summer) - do the same. But the days of no-balling a bowler for throwing are hopefully gone for good, unless they literally just walk up and make no secret of it (as a jest gesture).
I hardly think players playing well over 50 Tests would given people plenty of time to decide who they thought was the better player not to mention the players who played against themThat's because the majority were and still are those who judge by impulse rather than consideration.
At least, that's the way I see it.
Quite a few people actually. And not just Murali, countless hundreds of other bowlers too.Let me have ago at explaining
Using Aussie Rules as my example
Player 'A' almosts takes off player 'B's head
Extenuating circumstances are that earlier player B had hit player A behind play, and had also insulted player As mother.
Then at the tribunal a biomechanic gives evidence that because player A was moving in a certain way and his arm was at a particular angle he was not responsible for his actions.
What I am wondering is Biomechanic an exact science or is it open to interpretation? Shown the same footage could two different experts come up with a different view of the same incident?
And how many experts viewed Murali? And who paid for their professional opinion?
How many as bad as Murali though?
It's not a case of having time or not, it's a case of judging by face-value or examining the depths of the matter.
And I think the rules were changed because they had been based on false ideals. If, as DB has mentioned, the matter was examined ITFP because of him, then that means we need to be hugely greatful to him IMO. He's the person who's finally induced the chain that has casued the false ideals to be smashed.How many as bad as Murali though?
I still think the rules were changed for his benifit and still think my eye is right
I still say if you had watched them play you would have no doubt
