Check Murali's action in a Test - Warne

[shortpitched713]

I posted this in the "Cricket on YouTube" thread originally, but is probably germane to this discussion as well.

Murali at 2000 frames per second.

Now that sort of scrutiny might make a lot of bowlers' actions look questionable, but there's no doubt that Murali's delivery from about 1.05-1.15 looks (note "looks") rather ordinary to say the least. & that is the problem; Murali's action has always looked iffy.

Actually, it really doesn't look all that bad to me.

As burgey said in the Larwood thread such footage "would not sustain the burden of proof that he chucked."

 

[Richard]

You don't know what is short pitched bowling???

In any case, I would have thought the meaning of my user name was both fairly self explanatory and irrelevant to the context of the discussion.

Oh dear. Can't call you a posting-ID and can't call you a real-name either.

 

[Richard]

I posted this in the "Cricket on YouTube" thread originally, but is probably germane to this discussion as well.

Murali at 2000 frames per second.

Now that sort of scrutiny might make a lot of bowlers' actions look questionable, but there's no doubt that Murali's delivery from about 1.05-1.15 looks (note "looks") rather ordinary to say the least. & that is the problem; Murali's action has always looked iffy.

Of course it has. And of course it always has.

But as I said, and as someone said in a review of the u19 WC in 2000\01 or something when the sponsors made chucking allegations: "it is possible to discover vaguaries in just about any bowler's action if you look closely enough" (and 3 years later we knew why this was). That Murali's action looks odd is long established. That it has been found to be merely more superficially apparent (thanks Simon Barnes) than others' has also been long established, and there for all who are willing to accept it as a reality. I'm inclined to agree with Mr Barnes again that "those who cannot accept the reality have something lacking in their souls. The spirit of cricket, perhaps".

 

[BoyBrumby]

As burgey said in the Larwood thread such footage "would not sustain the burden of proof that he chucked."

Really? If I'm ever in court I want you on the jury.

Think it looks rank myself.

 

[shortpitched713]

Oh dear. Can't call you a posting-ID and can't call you a real-name either.

Just call me shortpitched, as 713 was more or less a random amalgam of some of my favorite numbers.

 

[shortpitched713]

Really? If I'm ever in court I want you on the jury.

Think it looks rank myself.

For most of those 10 seconds the degree of bend in his elbow is very much obscured by his long sleeved shirt. Would need more evidence than that to convict him, imo.

 

[Richard]

Really? If I'm ever in court I want you on the jury.

Think it looks rank myself.

I think looks can be deceiving (never mind when it's one angle of one delivery of grainy footage) and if this fact isn't taken to account in court then, to coin a Bumble (no, not that Bumble) phrase "if that's what the law supposes, sir, then the law's a hass!"

 

[Richard]

He is a champion bowler, and appears to be a great guy. However given his action (especially the doosra) I can't see how at the end of the fifth day after having bowled the truckload of overs that he does in many matches, he wouldn't get tired. As he tires and has to put extras effort in during a match, I think it a reasonable suggestion to make that his action might deginerate slightly from what he did in a lab.


The current situation is untenable(IMHO). An umpire suggest someone is chucking in tests and he is referred. Tests in the lab show he is OK. So he gets a clean slate and he goes back to bowling. How do you really control a guy whose action deginerates at the end of the day in pressure situations but whose normal action is within the limits. He will test everytime as OK, and it may only be several balls a day that have a problem.

How is this different to any other bowler? Every bowler is almost certain to do exactly this.

And I for one haven't got much of a problem with it. It's inevitable.

 

[Top_Cat]

Agree with shortpitched, there's no point. If people aren't swayed by scientific evidence compiled in a controlled environment with prceise tools there's no way in hell they'll be convinced by evidence collected using instruments 70 metres away. Which brings another point; who woudl they do it? Nothing could be precise from a distance away which would make the results more questionable. Again, what's the point?

 

[Burgey]

I wonder how many would choose to ignore all the scientific evidence if Warne hadn't been around to compete. It's an interesting question, because Australia is a country where they think he chucks more than any other place and it can't be a coincidence (especially as historically speaking, Australia has been the where many non-traditional cricketing ideas have been born).

AWTA, but I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that he was called twice here as well as the Warne factor.

 

[Anil]

Agree with shortpitched, there's no point. If people aren't swayed by scientific evidence compiled in a controlled environment with prceise tools there's no way in hell they'll be convinced by evidence collected using instruments 70 metres away. Which brings another point; who woudl they do it? Nothing could be precise from a distance away which would make the results more questionable. Again, what's the point?

hey welcome back!, totally agree with your post...the conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied anyway, there is no point in the man being repeatedly tested...

 

[silentstriker]

I posted this in the "Cricket on YouTube" thread originally, but is probably germane to this discussion as well.

Murali at 2000 frames per second.

Now that sort of scrutiny might make a lot of bowlers' actions look questionable, but there's no doubt that Murali's delivery from about 1.05-1.15 looks (note "looks") rather ordinary to say the least. & that is the problem; Murali's action has always looked iffy.

Actually, it looks better than I thought it would. The optical illusion that the people at university of western australia talked about is a lot less apparent at this speed. Thanks for the video.

 

[pup11]

I don't think Warney should have come up with such a statement at this point of time when Murali is so close to breaking his record, even though Warney might have said these things with good intentions in mind but the media would modify it in such a way where it may sound as if Warney is saying all this stuff because he is jealous of Murali overtaking his record.
Anyways i don't think such a test right in heat of the game would prove anything, Murali doubters would still doubt him and all his supporters would still support him.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think Warney should have come up with such a statement at this point of time when Murali is so close to breaking his record, even though Warney might have said these things with good intentions in mind but the media would modify it in such a way where it may sound as if Warney is saying all this stuff because he is jealous of Murali overtaking his record.
Anyways i don't think such a test right in heat of the game would prove anything, Murali doubters would still doubt him and all his supporters would still support him.

Haha, not possible.

 

[biased indian]

Awta

 

[social]

I wonder how many would choose to ignore all the scientific evidence if Warne hadn't been around to compete. It's an interesting question, because Australia is a country where they think he chucks more than any other place and it can't be a coincidence (especially as historically speaking, Australia has been the where many non-traditional cricketing ideas have been born).

Australians thought he was a chucker loooooong before Warne was approaching the record.

Problem for most Australians is that we have seen so little of him and most people's views are tainted by the incredibly dodgy action that he first displayed in the country

In relation to Warne, to answer your question, all you need to realise how little we cared when Lillee's record was broken by Kapil Dev (? - shows how much I cared when I cant even remember who did it!)

Lillee is at least, and probably more, as admired as Warne could ever be.

Because of our sporting culture, we generally understand that records are made to be broken. Murali's will be as will the guy who holds it after him

 

[JASON]

Warne's suggestion is excellent....perhaps he could be tested during the series against England in one of the 3 tests -preferably First Test....by a panel of experts on site ie on location so they can ask for extra camera angles etc as they choose..

 

[cameeel]

I don't think Warney should have come up with such a statement at this point of time when Murali is so close to breaking his record, even though Warney might have said these things with good intentions in mind but the media would modify it in such a way where it may sound as if Warney is saying all this stuff because he is jealous of Murali overtaking his record.
Anyways i don't think such a test right in heat of the game would prove anything, Murali doubters would still doubt him and all his supporters would still support him.

I'm not sure that that's actually the case. If Murali were to be tested under match conditions and found to be within the laws of the game, I'm certain that many Murali doubters - myself included - would switch camps. The problem at the moment is that testing him in a biomechanics lab is hardly representative of how he might bowl in a real match.

 

[Anil]

Haha, not possible.

absolutely...clearly planning mischief there...

 

[burr]

Haha, not possible.

Exactly.