Congratulations Murali

[Rebecca]

That picture is Murali just as he's bringing his bowling arm over in delivery with his arm ****ed at about 60 degrees.

Even if his arm - which he *ahem* can't straighten fully - were to straighten say half the distance in delivery, he'd still be double the allowable chucking limit.

I'm sure it's a question of viewing angles and I've measured it all wrong and am basically full of ****, but look what I did with the eyes. Aren't I clever.

That's all.

 

[silentstriker]

That picture is Murali just as he's bringing his bowling arm over in delivery with his arm ****ed at about 60 degrees.

Even if his arm - which he *ahem* can't straighten fully - were to straighten say half the distance in delivery, he'd still be double the allowable chucking limit.

I'm sure it's a question of viewing angles and I've measured it all wrong and am basically full of ****, but look what I did with the eyes. Aren't I clever.

That's all.

I love how you can accuratetely judge an angle in a 2-D front-on picture. You should get published, you've just defied the laws of physics.


Idiot.

 

[Rebecca]

Oh, I can take a hint.
You don't like me do you?

 

[Athlai]

Oh, I can take a hint.
You don't like me do you?

I like you.

I don't agree with you.

But I like you.

 

[burr]

Congrats Murali, well deserved. A thoroughly nice man to get such a record. Funny he got the record on his home ground and Warne got it on his.

Have to say I was severely dissapointed with the way The Age reported it. Did not like Greg Baum's article. Spent the whole thing discussing doubts over the action which has already been done ad nauseum and then finished off with the trite sentence 'it would be churlish not to congratulate him'.

As for the Hun, well that back page was an absolute disgrace.What you'd expect from that mob though

 

[silentstriker]

As for the Hun, well that back page was an absolute disgrace.What you'd expect from that mob though

What is that?

 

[Dasa]

What is that?

The Herald Sun. I haven't seen the back page of the newspaper today, but looking at it online I can see what burr is saying.

 

[Athlai]

Cricinfo are so bloody annoying.

"As a matchwinner, Murali has no rival. In the 45 Tests that Sri Lanka have won with him in the team, he has taken a phenomenal 373 wickets - that's more than eight per match - at an average of 15. Only Warne, with 510, and Glenn McGrath (414) have taken more wickets in wins."

Best matchwinners in Tests (at least 200 wickets in wins)

Muttiah Muralitharan 45 373 15.19 41.4 36/ 16
Malcolm Marshall 43 254 16.78 38.1 17/ 4

etc.

Yet the doctored stats show if you remember a certain matchwinner from NZ.

Richard Hadlee 22 173 13.06 33.5 17/8

Not to demean the man but there has been a side that has relied on a bowler more so than Sri Lanka has on the Wizard, bloody cricinfo.

Note:

Shane Bond 9 57 14.21 28.5 3/1

 

[FRAZ]

Congratulations to the gentle gentleman !

 

[silentstriker]

Cricinfo are so bloody annoying.

"As a matchwinner, Murali has no rival. In the 45 Tests that Sri Lanka have won with him in the team, he has taken a phenomenal 373 wickets - that's more than eight per match - at an average of 15. Only Warne, with 510, and Glenn McGrath (414) have taken more wickets in wins."

Best matchwinners in Tests (at least 200 wickets in wins)

Muttiah Muralitharan 45 373 15.19 41.4 36/ 16
Malcolm Marshall 43 254 16.78 38.1 17/ 4

etc.

Yet the doctored stats show if you remember a certain matchwinner from NZ.

Richard Hadlee 22 173 13.06 33.5 17/8

Not to demean the man but there has been a side that has relied on a bowler more so than Sri Lanka has on the Wizard, bloody cricinfo.

Note:

Shane Bond 9 57 14.21 28.5 3/1

Err, 173 is not more wickets? Average is certainly better, but thats not what they were measuring.

 

[Athlai]

Err, 173 is not more wickets? Average is certainly better, but thats not what they were measuring.

That's the doctoring of it though, look at the amount of wins 45 versus 22, I know that they are both fantastic match winners but Hadlee's performance if you only looked at the stats was a lot more influential to whether NZ won or not, the list they gave was specifically made to give Murali the top spot and Hadlee went without a mention.

That was the point I was trying to make, was just annoying not to see his name in there when he was one of the best ever in that regard.

 

[pup11]

I love the way he accurately describes his batting, TBH. Not like these typical tailenders who overrate themselves.

Nah.. McGrath was a far serious tailender who probably took his batting more seriously than many top order batsmen did.

 

[howardj]

Congrats Murali, well deserved. A thoroughly nice man to get such a record. Funny he got the record on his home ground and Warne got it on his.

Have to say I was severely dissapointed with the way The Age reported it. Did not like Greg Baum's article. Spent the whole thing discussing doubts over the action which has already been done ad nauseum and then finished off with the trite sentence 'it would be churlish not to congratulate him'.

:

Yes, but just because Murali is a nice man and this saga has gone on for years, does not mean that people should tire of arguing that his action is suspect, if that is what they think. I think there's a tendency, just because this thing has dragged on for years, to say: "Oh look, I'm sick of the debate, let's just get on with it". But I will never tire of arguing that the rules were changed to accomodate Murali and that, in match conditions, his action is very suspect. And I don't care where he comes from, or how nice of a person he is. I love the game (moreso than I love any team) and think that it should be played to its rules, and that those rules should not be altered to accomodate particular people. Put simply, people shouldn't just roll over and say: "Oh this has gone on forever, let's just shut up and move on".

 

[pup11]

Though as Warne fan i feel a bit bad that Warney is no longer the highest wicket-taker in test cricket, but i am happy for Murali who has achieved this great milestone and his record will remain for a long long time.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, but just because Murali is a nice man and this saga has gone on for years, does not mean that people should tire of arguing that his action is suspect, if that is what they think. I think there's a tendency, just because this thing has dragged on for years, to say: "Oh look, I'm sick of the debate, let's just get on with it". But I will never tire of arguing that the rules were changed to accomodate Murali and that, in match conditions, his action is very suspect. And I don't care where he comes from, or how nice of a person he is. I love the game (moreso than I love any team) and think that it should be played to its rules, and that those rules should not be altered to accomodate particular people. Put simply, people shouldn't just roll over and say: "Oh this has gone on forever, let's just shut up and move on".

Nobody is asking you to move on, but there is no need to do it in every thread.

 

[Dasa]

Nobody is asking you to move on, but there is no need to do it in every thread.

Particularly a tribute thread for Muralitharan.

 

[SJS]

Though as Warne fan i feel a bit bad that Warney is no longer the highest wicket-taker in test cricket, but i am happy for Murali who has achieved this great milestone and his record will remain for a long long time.

As I was just calculating, no chance of it being broken in my lifetime at least

 

[gettingbetter]

As I was just calculating, no chance of it being broken in my lifetime at least

Piyush Chawla - you heard it here first. Just joking, but there was a thread about 3 months ago detailing how every nation bar England and NZ have had new leading wicket-takers since...I can't exactly recall, around the late 1980s. My bet is Chawla will be the closest to overtake Kumble.

 

[FRAZ]

As I was just calculating, no chance of it being broken in my lifetime at least

hmmm wild wild wild wild wild wild guess !!
Kaneria

 

[Top_Cat]

Yes, but just because Murali is a nice man and this saga has gone on for years, does not mean that people should tire of arguing that his action is suspect, if that is what they think. I think there's a tendency, just because this thing has dragged on for years, to say: "Oh look, I'm sick of the debate, let's just get on with it". But I will never tire of arguing that the rules were changed to accomodate Murali and that, in match conditions, his action is very suspect. And I don't care where he comes from, or how nice of a person he is. I love the game (moreso than I love any team) and think that it should be played to its rules, and that those rules should not be altered to accomodate particular people. Put simply, people shouldn't just roll over and say: "Oh this has gone on forever, let's just shut up and move on".

This is the thing though; the science should have just about put the debate about his action beyond, well, debate. It's been shown quite elegantly by guys like Bruce Elliott that Murali does not chuck. The whole 'they changed the rules to suit him' fast became a fringe conspiracy theory and the degree to which people cling to it is borderline irrational. There are a vast array of checks and balances that the ICC goes through in law changing and there's simply no way something as revolutionary as a law change like this would get through on a whim even if all of the Asian countries banded together as many have said so. It's not even a debate any more; it's a shouting match. When those who are on the 'he chucks' side of the debate refuse to even look at the evidence, there's just no point in even speaking to them, really.

The whole 'match conditions' argument is a furphy too. Certain people like to say that results within a match are the only ones which count knowing full well it's impossible to measure them without significant errors. Additionally, the assertion that results in testing don't correspond to match situations is rubbish too and if those on the anti side of the debate actually read the report, they'd see that. Deliberate ignorance of the scientifically-determined evidence is anti-intellectual and in the context of the wider debate, very dishonest.

Seriously, it's a joke; Murali has a vested interest in not being a faker in testing and those who say so essentially are saying that Bruce Elliott and his team are too stupid to be able to tell the difference between what he was sending down in matches and what he was sending down in testing. That's arrogant in the extreme and part of why the debate even continues at all.