I'm sorry?. Azhar Mahmood is in a totally different league from Sami and doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence as him imo.Injury-excluded, obviously.
Mooted. Not yet come back, has he? Even with the rubbish (Sami, Azhar Mahmood) who played for Pakistan in the WC. Wonder why that's been now...
Babe Ruth doesn't even dent Bradman, and the guy we're talking about here would murder Bradman - figuratively.
He was named in their provisional squad of 30. It shows he's still under consideration despite him being a proven chucker.
Shocked at Azhar's one day record tbh. Average of nearly 40 is unbeliavable for of man of his skill in game. An average of 18 is also very, very poor as he has defenite ability with the bat and could have easily averaged mid 20s to 30.
Yeah, but I'm not equating Murali to these guys, that's the whole point - although a misunderstood one. And yes, thank god it's these two. That guy would have already gone into comparing something with Hitler and the Nazi's by now.
Again, I don't think Murali even gets near these kind of examples.
Good one mateYeah .... once upon a time people believed that the World was flat Too .....
Wrong. He's a quite patently superior bowler to every single non-Asif\Shoaib bowler in Pakistan. By a distance. If he had any chance of being picked for the final squad, he'd have been picked for the final squad. Why he was in the 30, I don't know, but I do know that bowlers like Mahmood and Sami being picked ahead of him simply cannot be done purely on merit, even Pakistan selectors aren't that stupid.
Nah, if the world was round and I was on the south pole, I would just fall down into the sky. Surely my eyes can't be deceiving me.Good one mate
Now tell me about Gravity? Why don't you just float away
Mahmood is a poor man's Abdur\l Razzaq IMO, and even Razzaq's hardly set ODI cricket on fire, even if he has had a reasonable career.
I don't think it'd be fair to compare olympics with paralympics. That doesn't mean I think it's not fair to have a bowler with a double-jointed wrist playing cricket.
We can only hope
But people DO have what Murali has, perhaps not cricketers that we know of, but people do...and when did the double-jointed wrist come into this? Warne has unusually supple wrists - he has an 'abnormality' and an 'unfair advantage' by your standards....oh yeah, don't try to argue that Murali is even more of a minority, I bet there's not a person around who could do what Warne does with his wrists, so he has just as much of an 'unfair advantage' as Murali. You're already dealing with a tiny minority of people, and you ARE setting an arbitrary mark to single Murali out. Every cricketer is already 'abnormal' because what they do cannot be done by the vast majority of people.
Sums up your motivation behind the Murali-bashing pretty well. Oh yeah, I am not a Murali fan at all (although I do support him after seeing all the crap he gets).KaZoH0lic said:I mean, there is someone in the same era he has played that has pretty much done what he hasBut your Murali fanboy cap keeps getting in your view.
With this you lost all your credibility you were trying to build up here. I have read your views on Murali in the past but I was giving you another chance and hoping that you were indeed arguing in all sincereity. But you proved me wrong and I agree with every word Dasa said about you.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
care to explain what rules they are?
lol..... left hand batsmen, when cricket first started out, were so rare that it was a HUGE advantage for them, for bowlers were simply not used to bowling to those players... So maybe we should have banned left handers back then and there.... So what if we would have lost Lara, Sobers, Border etc....Okay, I'm just too lazy to highlight and use the tag.
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'.
u are actually saying that the ONLY reason he is bowling so well is because of his deformity?