Muralitharan a burglar,a thief and a dacoit : Bedi

[Richard]

Very little difference, actually. A sprinter with abnormally fast twitch fibers definitely poses a disadvantage to his competition.

First of all, the majority of sports legends over the decades have been abnormal freaks in one way or another. You enter a competition with whatever mental and physical traits you have - an "unfair" advantage is something external, i.e., steroids. The special olympics are irrelevant - that's a competition for people who can't even do everyday chores properly. You're making it seem like Murali has ten fingers and a bowling machine implanted in his hand.

You're kidding yourself if you think McGrath has gotten where he has purely through "hard work". He is very talented.

Perhaps they can be worked on but they are primarily a result of natural talent.

Very disappointed to see such a post from you, mate.

Excellent point.

By the way, SS - clearly on track for a long-awaited Afridi this week.

Oooh, BTW... 7 in a row, well done Akhil, good stuff.

 

[archie mac]

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.

Off the soap box mate, they changed the rules to let him play, not to help anyone else

 

[Richard]

I still say if you had watched them play you would have no doubt

And I say I wouldn't! FFS, as I say, I'm the exact same way with players who I have watched - there are plenty who I rate differently to the crowd, because I often don't rate players using the same methods that the greater majority do. There are countless batsmen of the last 15 years who I rate higher than Matthew Hayden, for instance, and plenty of people would put him in a top-10 of that time.

And nothing against GSC he was a great player, had every shot and classical style, but I would be surprised if you could find one person who watched both who did not think Richards was the better player

I'd not. They'd certainly not be in the majority, but there will be people out there, same as there's 1 person out there (and probably more, in fact) who thinks Michael Atherton was better than Matthew Hayden, and by a fair bit too. Please stop telling me I'd have different views if I'd watched players.

 

[Richard]

Off the soap box mate, they changed the rules to let him play, not to help anyone else

No, they changed them because had they not done so he would have been unfairly discriminated against, because his action looks bad while others', whose actions are actually (though not visually) as bad don't get looked at.

Helping people wasn't the reason they were changed. The reason they were changed is because the old rules were based on the false assumption that almost all bowlers never bent their arms.

 

[archie mac]

And I say I wouldn't! FFS, as I say, I'm the exact same way with players who I have watched - there are plenty who I rate differently to the crowd, because I often don't rate players using the same methods that the greater majority do. There are countless batsmen of the last 15 years who I rate higher than Matthew Hayden, for instance, and plenty of people would put him in a top-10 of that time.

I'd not. They'd certainly not be in the majority, but there will be people out there, same as there's 1 person out there (and probably more, in fact) who thinks Michael Atherton was better than Matthew Hayden, and by a fair bit too. Please stop telling me I'd have different views if I'd watched players.

Why? that is what I think

 

[silentstriker]

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?

Sure, but he was tested multiple times at different universities by different people. And 'degree of bend' is quite different from something subjective as 'being responsible' for an action.

The degree of bend is not subject to interpretation, only testing error. That testing error is minimized as he was tested multiple times by different teams.

Off the soap box mate, they changed the rules to let him play, not to help anyone else

It helped McGrath too because they found he was chucking by the old rules. And you will have a point if one day someone has the same action, and they are banned despite bio-mechanical tests showing otherwise.

Unless that happens, your argument is simply wrong.

still think my eye is right

If you are convinced of the superiority of your eyes (which, if you ask any doctor or scientists, are quite fallible) over testable scientific data, I don't think anyone can convince you otherwise. Though its a bit disappointing as Akhil and Richard said, as you'd be the last person I'd peg to have a belief like that.

 

[archie mac]

No, they changed them because had they not done so he would have been unfairly discriminated against, because his action looks bad while others', whose actions are actually (though not visually) as bad don't get looked at.

Helping people wasn't the reason they were changed. The reason they were changed is because the old rules were based on the false assumption that almost all bowlers never bent their arms.

Not as much as his was bent mate, or am I wrong? Was his not more than the rest?

 

[silentstriker]

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?'

Just want to ask Kaz. At what point of that curve does a skill become 'abnormal', and worth banning, as opposed to merely 'exceptional' and worth celebrating?

 

[silentstriker]

Not as much as his was bent mate, or am I wrong? Was his not more than the rest?

No, it was not. Guys like Lee had a higher degree of bend, around 14-15. McGrath had around 12 if I remember right (it was definitely higher than the 10 degrees allowed by the previous law). Murali had about 12 for stock and around 14 for the doosra.

 

[Richard]

Why? that is what I think

But it makes no sense. Have you not seen me arguing for 15 pages that Nasser Hussain was a better batsman than Matthew Hayden? Does that not convince you that the issues at stake are nothing to do with who I watched, but what criteria I judge a player on?

 

[archie mac]

Sure, but he was tested multiple times at different universities by different people. And 'degree of bend' is quite different from something subjective as 'being responsible' for an action.

The degree of bend is not subject to interpretation, only testing error. That testing error is minimized as he was tested multiple times by different teams.



It helped McGrath too because they found he was chucking by the old rules. And you will have a point if one day someone has the same action, and they are banned despite bio-mechanical tests showing otherwise.

Unless that happens, your argument is simply wrong.



If you are convinced of the superiority of your eyes (which, if you ask any doctor or scientists, are quite fallible) over testable scientific data, I don't think anyone can convince you otherwise. Though its a bit disappointing as Akhil and Richard said, as you'd be the last person I'd peg to have a belief like that.

Not real time testing though? And I agree McGrath and others were bending their arm, but it was less than what Murali was, is that not correct? so when my eye could see Murali chucking it was correct?

Well you will be happy to know that I think that the World is round, but yes when it comes to bowling actions I think my eye and the umpires are correct, until they can test in real time, then when I think Murali has thrown they can show me that is was not, then I will be happy to agree with everyone else

 

[Richard]

No, it was not. Guys like Lee had a higher degree of bend, around 14-15. McGrath had around 12 if I remember right (it was definitely higher than the 10 degrees allowed by the previous law). Murali had about 12 for stock and around 14 for the doosra.

Think Murali actually usually had about 7 for his stock-ball TBH. Perhaps 12 was the maximum?

 

[archie mac]

But it makes no sense. Have you not seen me arguing for 15 pages that Nasser Hussain was a better batsman than Matthew Hayden? Does that not convince you that the issues at stake are nothing to do with who I watched, but what criteria I judge a player on?

But surely some of that must depend on what you have watched?

 

[archie mac]

No, it was not. Guys like Lee had a higher degree of bend, around 14-15. McGrath had around 12 if I remember right (it was definitely higher than the 10 degrees allowed by the previous law). Murali had about 12 for stock and around 14 for the doosra.

Okay fair enough but still not real time testing?

 

[Richard]

Just want to ask Kaz. At what point of that curve does a skill become 'abnormal', and worth banning, as opposed to merely 'exceptional' and worth celebrating?

TBF, I don't think KaZo has ever suggested Murali should be banned, just, bizarrely IMO, that his "freakish" advantage is in some way different to a "normal" advantage enjoyed by someone else.

Entirely dependent on socialogical definitions. Me, I'd not be unhappy if people being perceived as "freaks" in any way at all simply never happened. So I tend not to.

 

[Richard]

Okay fair enough but still not real time testing?

What else would it have been? It'd have been a complete waste of time to do anything but.

 

[Richard]

But surely some of that must depend on what you have watched?

Yeah, but don't forget, I watched Richards and Chappell too, just never live ball-by-ball. Whether I have memory of the time that their careers were in motion is not important, it doesn't make any impact on my judgement of them.

 

[archie mac]

What else would it have been? It'd have been a complete waste of time to do anything but.

I thought it in a lab? Not in a Test Match?

 

[archie mac]

Yeah, but don't forget, I watched Richards and Chappell too, just never live ball-by-ball. Whether I have memory of the time that their careers were in motion is not important, it doesn't make any impact on my judgement of them.

Anyway I am bored with this now Where are the Awads?

 

[silentstriker]

The last one was:

There has also been criticism that his last round of tests, in April 2004, did not replicate match conditions.

But the latest version, under biomechanics expert Professor Bruce Elliott, showed his average elbow extension while bowling the 'doosra' leg-break delivery at an average of 53.75 mph was 12.2 degrees

The average for his off-break was 12.9 degrees at 59.03 mph.

McGrath on the other hand had actually a higher bend. Yes, the one with a perfect action:

McGrath is bowling about 13 (degrees), Gillespie about 12 and Brett Lee about 14 or 15

So if you still think the old rules were fair (which were 10 degrees), I don't really know what to say.