Muralitharan a burglar,a thief and a dacoit : Bedi

[garage flower]

There is no reason that an alternative delivery delivered by a bowler whose stock-ball is legal should be illegal, is there?
That really isn't very difficult to understand, so maybe you'd better resort to your tactic.

No reason that it should be, no, which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't. There appear to be a number of people throughout the cricketing establishment who remain to be convinced about Murali's legality, so I would think that all parties - Murali included -should be quite happy to check things out again and hopefully put a lid on the matter once and for all.

Not sure what my tactic is, so you'll have to let me know whether I 've resorted to it.

 

[garage flower]

Do u know what is a doosra. Its a hindi word for "the second one". So u can call a ball doosra when it is different from a bowlers stock delivery.
Therefore murali bowls a Doosra. There cannot be any specific definition of the term Doosra.

Nice one Rajat. Perhaps this might prompt Richard to concentrate on discussing the issues at hand, rather than trying to pick up on perceived errors in other people's posts.

 

[Tom Halsey]

We have been waiting rather a long time for Richard's comeback...

 

[Shane Warne]

Lets just say Richard mate, Mr Warne isnt the brightest of people.

:!(

 

[Pratters]

Prayutush, your statements about Murali are as stupid as this one:

"Steve Bucknor has taken money"

Well my name is Pratyush, not Praayutush or whatever you said. Got it Rajut?

 

[Shane Warne]

Well my name is Pratyush, not Praayutush or whatever you said. Got it Rajut?

calm it fellas, lets have decorum

 

[marc71178]

No one can prove this about chucking

Except the scientists...

We cant leave Murali alone coz he will surpass every one in the wickets tally not because of a great talent but because of his abnormality.

Erm, there's a lot of people who can't straighten their arm fully, but only one of them has a lot of Test wickets - so it can't be solely the deformity, surely?

 

[Richard]

Nice one Rajat. Perhaps this might prompt Richard to concentrate on discussing the issues at hand, rather than trying to pick up on perceived errors in other people's posts.

Perceived?
No.
I wasn't actually aware it meant "second one" (I had heard "other one" - not that much difference).
But basically it has been taken to mean a delivery bowled by a fingerspinner that goes the opposite way to the stock-ball.
Rather like, for instance, the "googly" and the "flipper". They don't neccesarily mean exactly what they might mean in other circles, do they?

 

[marc71178]

Perceived?
No.
I wasn't actually aware it meant "second one"

So how does that mean it's not a perception?

 

[Richard]

No reason that it should be, no, which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't. There appear to be a number of people throughout the cricketing establishment who remain to be convinced about Murali's legality, so I would think that all parties - Murali included -should be quite happy to check things out again and hopefully put a lid on the matter once and for all.

Not sure what my tactic is, so you'll have to let me know whether I 've resorted to it.

Not on this occasion, but you know perfectly well what your tactic is - if I make a point you can't answer, say I'm "not moving the conversation on".
If Murali's leg-break and top-spinner were to be checked I would be delighted.
And people remain to be convinced because they insist on making something out of nothing. Murali's action has never been illegal and there is no reason whatsoever why it should be just because the delivery is different.
And if you suspect Murali's alternative delivery, you must surely suspect every other alternative delivery every other bowler has ever bowled?

 

[Richard]

So how does that mean it's not a perception?

Because it's not - it's a misunderstanding.
Anyway, that particular misunderstanding has nothing whatsoever to do with that to do with what the doosra means in cricketing terms.

 

[Pratters]

Except the scientists...

Its not conclusive for me


Erm, there's a lot of people who can't straighten their arm fully, but only one of them has a lot of Test wickets - so it can't be solely the deformity, surely?

Yes he does have talent no question about that. But I dont like him getting an unfair advantage over the others. (sad face coz I love the guy for his humility and his nature, whatever I have seen of him in the interviews but dont like the idea of him playing test cricket)

 

[marc71178]

Yes he does have talent no question about that. But I dont like him getting an unfair advantage over the others.

How is it unfair though?

It's no more unfair than the advatage being small has in certain cases, or being tall, or being left handed...

 

[Richard]

It really amazes me that anyone would begrudge someone a double-jointed wrist. And it doesn't break the rules - whatever the differences, as long as the rules aren't broken there can be no complaint.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I have said this before. If the ICC clear him again, I won't have a problem. But, until then, I believe he chucks.

 

[Richard]

And I've said it before - I'd like to see it, but I doubt it'll happen.
As far as I'm concerned there is no reason to suspect Murali's alternative deliveries.
Surely you're simply acting on the customary optical-illusion in the arm, though, not the double-joint in the wrist? Because I have certainly said this before and I will now say it again - whatever happens at the wrist, NOTHING can mean the delivery is a throw.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Surely you're simply acting on the customary optical-illusion in the arm, though, not the double-joint in the wrist? Because I have certainly said this before and I will now say it again - whatever happens at the wrist, NOTHING can mean the delivery is a throw.

Yes, I am indeed talking about the arm, not the wrist.

 

[Pratters]

It really amazes me that anyone would begrudge someone a double-jointed wrist. And it doesn't break the rules - whatever the differences, as long as the rules aren't broken there can be no complaint.

He does get an unfair advantage to be able to bowl like other people would not. If some one can prove 100% that he bowls totally legally, within the laws, a way other people with normal hands can be allowed to bowl too, maybe I wont have a problem. The way Murali rolls his arm before bowling, I dount it would be allowed if some one else tried to bowl that way. Getting the ball to come from behing your hand would simply mean chucking for some one else. Just because he has a uniqueness in his hand which is apparently straight as proved by some gruop of scientists 2-3 years, ago I am not convinced his hand is straight while bowling.

I seem so against Muralidharan in whatever I have written but I am not. I would say so if any one else, who ever it was would have been in a similar situation.

 

[Richard]

If anyone has EVER bowled a delivery with the hand straight I'll eat my computer.
You have to wrap your fingers around the ball.
Anyway, it was Chandrasekhar who had unnaturally useful fingers - IIRR he had 6, where most people have 5. Now that certainly is an unusal disability - but should he have been banned. No, because he didn't break any rules.
Muralitharan's wrist doesn't, either, and certainly his hand doesn't!

 

[Pratters]

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

I thought the arm has to be straight at the point of delivery. Its not the case as Liam explained to me over MSN.

His wrist flexing wasnt concieed at the time of writing the law though and things have to be changed as and when required. Chandra having 6 fingers wasnt such an advantage. Even Sobers had 6 fingers in both hands when he was born.

He shouldnt be bowling in test cricket right now.. thats what I feel. All my thoughts and feelings dont have to be in sync with that of other people but its some thing I believe in and I will stand by it.