Muralitharan a burglar,a thief and a dacoit : Bedi

[silentstriker]

I guess one thing you can draw from what I was saying before is that it is possible to agree that people shouldn't be banned on account of an optical illusion, and yet still have doubts about Murali's action.

Can you really? If you don't think that people should be banned for an optical illusion, then by definition, you cannot trust your eyes anymore because his action has been proven to create that illusion (and the mechanism for that illusion has been detailed and explained in that article). So I don't see how you can accept that your eyes are deceiving you, and then still call the deception correct?

 

[Richard]

Yes, what I have been saying, did not word it well this morning, but still thought SS understood at the time.

I am saying I still think Murali has more of a bent arm than any other bowler playing the game atm

You see, this is what frustrates myself and Manan. Why? There is no logical reason to think this. Has ss not shown enough reasons why the naked-eye is not a trustworthy tool to make that sort of judgement?

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, what I have been saying, did not word it well this morning, but still thought SS understood at the time.

I am saying I still think Murali has more of a bent arm than any other bowler playing the game atm

I know what you are arguing. I am just saying that unless you can tell me why his action is not an optical illusion and that article is wrong, you cannot fairly make that statement regarding the degree of bend.

 

[archie mac]

But as Manan said, there were people who examined him and found he was bowling the same pace with the same revs on the ball as ever.

In any case, unless you're prescribing an exact bend-ometer to be used for every single ball in every single cricket-match, I don't see how it really matters anyway. Things can go differently in the middle to the testing-lab, that's just life. Unless you have a solution, there ain't much point whining about it.

Not whining mate, just expressing my opinion

 

[Matt79]

So again, how do you explain that people couldn't see the change in his action when he was wearing a brace and it still looked like an elbow straightening despite the brace making it impossible to do so? And you are comparing an empirical study (count the degree of bend) to a subjective one (he did not know what he was doing). Two separate things.

Unless of course his elbow could bend steel.

The thing is, though, why would anyone want to do that? Why would anyone be undertaking the study with a predetermined outcome in desire?

In fact, if anything, surely that outcome would have been far more likely to be one that'd find the precise opposite of what was in fact found?

In any case, I don't like believing in what, essentially, is corrupt investigation. Therefore, unless there's strong evidence that this was the case, I tend to believe the outcome was genuine.

Ok, I'm getting myself in hot water here because this is of course the most charged issue on CW and you can't debate it without being assumed to be saying a lot of things that you actually aren't. I haven't called Murali a chucker anywhere in this thread. I've been very careful not to, and that's not because I don't want to get into an argument.

Clearly I'm not a world authority on biomechanics. It would be futile for me to try here, in a few lines, to disprove a full blown study by a panel of experts, and that's not my intent. If I was going to come out and try to ban Murali from the sport, the onus would, and should, be on me to do so, but that is certainly not what I'm trying to do. I'm not even slinging mud at him.

What I was highlighting is exactly what you've said - there is not a satisfactory system at the moment. I completely agree that unless somebody can come up with a better system we've little option but to accept what that system says - and we can't selectively apply it either. But at the risk of repeating myself, the system in its current form clearly does not come close to satisfying everyone.

 

[archie mac]

I know what you are arguing. I am just saying that unless you can tell me why his action is not an optical illusion and that article is wrong, you cannot fairly make that statement regarding the degree of bend.

When they can test it in a Test Match and any ball I think is a throw, they can show me it is not, than I will be happy to say I am wrong.

I have nothing against Murali I felt sorry for him when he was no balled in Aust but still think it was correct.

Knowing science one day they will be able to tell 100% for sure in a Test Match and then I will agree that he is bowling all of his deliveries. If they prove me wrong

Just one think once in Aust when he was being called in a ODI he bowled a leg break, and his action looked fine to me. Not sure what that means

 

[Matt79]

I'm also just going to say that I'm disappointed in Archie for not even attempting to guess who made the quotes I referred to earlier

 

[silentstriker]

Ok, I'm getting myself in hot water here because this is of course the most charged issue on CW and you can't debate it without being assumed to be saying a lot of things that you actually aren't. I haven't called Murali a chucker anywhere in this thread. I've been very careful not to, and that's not because I don't want to get into an argument.

I did not say you did. I am just reiterating that either you accept the illusion and by definition not trust your eyes, or you tell me why it is not an illusion (after its been explained the exact mechanism for the illusion and examples of other similar illusions are given). It's really that simple.

What I was highlighting is exactly what you've said - there is not a satisfactory system at the moment. I completely agree that unless somebody can come up with a better system we've little option but to accept what that system says - and we can't selectively apply it either. But at the risk of repeating myself, the system in its current form clearly does not come close to satisfying everyone.

No one is arguing that the system is flawed. No one. I'm not, and neither is Richard. We are saying that whatever system you judge, since it has been shown that there is an optical illusion involved and that he does not bend it more than anyone else. So either take action against everyone who bends it as much as or more than Murali, or don't take action on Murali. The question is unfairly singling someone out despite being proven otherwise by a body of work.

 

[silentstriker]

Just one think once in Aust when he was being called in a ODI he bowled a leg break, and his action looked fine to me. Not sure what that means

It means nothing, as his shoulder rotation creates an illusion. So it was probably an angle of the camera.

I'm also just going to say that I'm disappointed in Archie for not even attempting to guess who made the quotes I referred to earlier

I think it was Ranatunga.

 

[Richard]

Just one think once in Aust when he was being called in a ODI he bowled a leg break, and his action looked fine to me. Not sure what that means

Well he was still being no-balled when bowling the leg-breaks. I've never seen it, but it makes no sense and a bit of sense for it to look different. The elbow angle is still the same - surely, surely you accept that his elbow does not straighten fully, yes? - but the action is different and therefore the illusions will not be quite the same.

 

[archie mac]

I'm also just going to say that I'm disappointed in Archie for not even attempting to guess who made the quotes I referred to earlier

I have read that second one somewhere

Hussain as the captain or Waugh?

 

[Richard]

Ok, I'm getting myself in hot water here because this is of course the most charged issue on CW and you can't debate it without being assumed to be saying a lot of things that you actually aren't. I haven't called Murali a chucker anywhere in this thread. I've been very careful not to, and that's not because I don't want to get into an argument.

Clearly I'm not a world authority on biomechanics. It would be futile for me to try here, in a few lines, to disprove a full blown study by a panel of experts, and that's not my intent. If I was going to come out and try to ban Murali from the sport, the onus would, and should, be on me to do so, but that is certainly not what I'm trying to do. I'm not even slinging mud at him.

What I was highlighting is exactly what you've said - there is not a satisfactory system at the moment. I completely agree that unless somebody can come up with a better system we've little option but to accept what that system says - and we can't selectively apply it either. But at the risk of repeating myself, the system in its current form clearly does not come close to satisfying everyone.

This post doesn't seem to be related to what you were saying earlier, though. This is purely about the rules, assuming the studies were correct; earlier you were talking about the possible fallacies of the studies.

 

[Matt79]

I did not say you did. I am just reiterating that either you accept the illusion and by definition not trust your eyes, or you tell me why it is not an illusion (after its been explained the exact mechanism for the illusion and examples of other similar illusions are given). It's really that simple.

Agreed.

No one is arguing that the system is flawed. No one. I'm not, and neither is Richard. We are saying that whatever system you judge, since it has been shown that there is an optical illusion involved and that he does not bend it more than anyone else. So either take action against everyone who bends it as much as or more than Murali, or don't take action on Murali. The question is unfairly singling someone out despite being proven otherwise by a body of work.

Agreed again - its not defensible to single out Murali unless you can show that he is doing something differently from the vast majority of bowlers - which nobody has been able to with any of the available science. It is, unfortunately, true that he will likely remain the cause celebre for those who consider chucking to continue to be a problem as a) he's actually been called in the past, and b) he's ridiculously successful - ie. it's got a definite touch of tall poppy syndrome.

I think we're actually in agreement on these specifics SS.

 

[Matt79]

This post doesn't seem to be related to what you were saying earlier, though. This is purely about the rules, assuming the studies were correct; earlier you were talking about the possible fallacies of the studies.

I'm really not trying to be pedantic about this, but I didn't talk about possible flaws in "the" studies - or at least, I don't think I did and certainly did not intend to. I talked about the fact that biomechanical studies, in general, always have the potential to be flawed. I also mentioned I'm not an expert, and I guess the problem for many people who aren't experts is that while the reasons why a study might be flawed are pretty clear, deciding whether a particular study is flawed is much much harder. That said, I don't have a problem with the studies that were conducted on Murali - from what I've read, they were transparent, unbiased and defensible. However, I think its a fair point to say that its an unsatisfactory situation, but perhaps an unavoidable one, where the decisions of what is a legal delivery and what is not are based upon factors so escoteric that the vast majority of fans and players are unable to make that judgement, and more seriously, its a decision that can't be made or enforced, realistically, at any level below FC cricket in some countries and otherwise, at international level.

 

[Matt79]

I think it was Ranatunga.

I have read that second one somewhere

Hussain as the captain or Waugh?

Haha, no, it was a bit of a trick question. The first was Bob Simpson. The second was Garry Sobers. They were of course talking about Charlie Griffith, although the incident Sobers described happened not during the Australian tour of the West Indies, but during the Windies later tour of England when Griffith was no-balled.

My reason for posting them is that I read the Sobers one and thought - wow, things don't change, and if anyone thinks we're the first generation to have to try and wrestle with these issues, we're kidding ours. It also occurred to me at the time, and when I read the Simpson one just the other day, that if you removed the names, it would be almost impossible to pick that they weren't talking about Murali.

 

[Sanz]

Again, the example is still off. Where is Chandra and where is Murali...in terms of that advantage. Chandra used it to his advantage, but it never made him anything more than a very good bowler. Murali on the other-hand is pushing legacy status because of his.

First of all, Murali is pushing the legacy status because of his hard work like most greats did. His deformation didn't appear out of blue in 1999, before which he was a good bowler but nothing exceptional.

Secondly it seems to me that you are ok with Murali bowling if he wasn't threatening to break most bowling records (for Spinners )but would have had no issues if he were merely a decent bowler as you have no issues with Chandra whose advatnage was much more than Murali's. TBF I dont understand that kind of selective stand on the issue.

Different competitions are needed when the sportsman in question is clearly deficient because of his abnormality. Why would you want him to compete with others anyway? Because it is exclusive? IF that person can overcome their abnormality to play with the others, and of course not breaking the rules of the game, then why not?

But, an Abnormality that hinders your playing is quite different to one that enhances your playing.

You are assuming that his abnormality enhances his game, to me it doesn't. His game has enhanced because of his hard work over the years.

 

[Richard]

I'm really not trying to be pedantic about this, but I didn't talk about possible flaws in "the" studies - or at least, I don't think I did and certainly did not intend to. I talked about the fact that biomechanical studies, in general, always have the potential to be flawed. I also mentioned I'm not an expert, and I guess the problem for many people who aren't experts is that while the reasons why a study might be flawed are pretty clear, deciding whether a particular study is flawed is much much harder. That said, I don't have a problem with the studies that were conducted on Murali - from what I've read, they were transparent, unbiased and defensible. However, I think its a fair point to say that its an unsatisfactory situation, but perhaps an unavoidable one, where the decisions of what is a legal delivery and what is not are based upon factors so escoteric that the vast majority of fans and players are unable to make that judgement, and more seriously, its a decision that can't be made or enforced, realistically, at any level below FC cricket in some countries and otherwise, at international level.

Yep, absolutely. Cricket is developing ever more, and people are realising that it's not as simple as they'd like it to be. In many ways it's a shame, but you never know, in time the technology may catch-up and it may be possible to biomechanically check every player in every organised game of cricket. Sound unthinkable? In 1900, the thought that every game of "international" cricket around 10 different places would be available to watch on something called "television" would probably have been fairly unthinkable too. The World changes. Cricket moves with the times - eventually.

 

[Richard]

Haha, no, it was a bit of a trick question. The first was Bob Simpson. The second was Garry Sobers. They were of course talking about Charlie Griffith, although the incident Sobers described happened not during the Australian tour of the West Indies, but during the Windies later tour of England when Griffith was no-balled.

My reason for posting them is that I read the Sobers one and thought - wow, things don't change, and if anyone thinks we're the first generation to have to try and wrestle with these issues, we're kidding ours. It also occurred to me at the time, and when I read the Simpson one just the other day, that if you removed the names, it would be almost impossible to pick that they weren't talking about Murali.

Heard the stories of Arthur Mold? No-balled out of cricket in 1900, and thereafter reckoned his career (one of the best going around at the time) amounted to nothing. Not "ah, well, I have some memories to treasure". Nothing. He wished he'd never picked-up a cricket ball.

Similarly, the story of Cuan McCarthy, Pelham Warner and Frank Chester; the Umpire dissuaded by the administrator who was worried that to no-ball the tourist would be being a bad host, and that the SAfricans would be hugely upset by it.

 

[pup11]

This has all the makings of a long nice feud and believe me Bedi would have a lot of **** to say about Murali.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

The first point you raise is fair enough & I did actually qualify what I said to accepted (in the sense that an umpire's probity isn't called into question if he makes an incorrect shout on an LBW), but does rather miss my point, which was that if the technology is available why isn't it used? My question was rhetorical in case that wasn't initially clear. The obvious answer is that there isn't the political will behind it to force the change through. Murali's action (& by extension chucking) is a cause celeb in a way the use of Hawkeye isn't.

The second point (whilst appreciating you may just be playing devil's advocate) is rather easier to counter. Not enforcing a law because it might ruin a transgressor’s career doesn't seem a very compelling reason not to enforce it. Moreover, accusations of chucking haven't done Murali's career too much damage, have they? 700 & counting, isn't it?

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.

You aren't serious, are you? Hair was removed from the test umpire's list largely at the behest of the south Asian test nations. If his judgement was held to be untainted by bias his exile makes literally no sense whatsoever.

The issue is not about the integrity of Umpires, but simply about what is right and wrong. It was wrong to assume almost no bowler ever straightened his arm. I'm glad we found that out, personally, if I'm wrong I generally like to find-out I am so I can change my view.

Come on, that's too, too rich, Rich.

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).

Why tho? Why is it not ok to hurt the feelings of someone who is contravening the laws of the game? No one would dream of letting someone who'd failed a drug test continue playing in a game for fear of humiliating him (or her).

Chucking is a serious accusation, but let's get some perspective here, sportspeople constantly bend & breaks laws in an attempt to gain an advantage in any way they can. Why should chucking be seen as somehow the exception that no-one would possibly ever countenance? Could it just possibly be that some bowlers bend (ha!) the laws on flexion to gain an edge over the opposition on occasion?* If so, shouldn't they be punished?

*I'd just like to add, for legal reasons, there is no suggestion that Muttiah Muralitharan is one of them.