Johan Botha's action

[silentstriker]

Also, biomechanical experts at two separate Australian universities have publically come out in support, as well as explained how due to his natural elbow, his action gives the illusion of being bent more than it actually is. Meaning, his elbow actually doesn't straighten more than McGrath's, but one looks bad while the other is considered an almost ideal action. I think that even though most people realize that the eyes can be fooled quite easily, they would still rather go to that than facts, I think it's a bit of a natural inclination to do so.

 

[MendisNuffSaid]

I think it does look suspect to me, pretty dodgy, but then again if the dacoit from Sri Lanka can carry on playing on international cricket, then I'm not going to gripe about PE's finest being allowed the gig as well..

You ignorant bastard, what don't you watch some international cricket for a change rather than succumb to a false conclusion due to an unique action of one bowler?

 

[MendisNuffSaid]

I call Symonds, or Harbhajan, or Hayden names all the time. It's not a big deal. You can ignore it, or dispute it. It's not something that ought to be moderated. He expressed his opinion, which was certainly related to the thread. E.g, he thinks both Murali and Botha chuck, but if one can stay, so should the other. It's completely relevant.

Claiming the Sri Lankans are a bunch of criminals is a complete troll. This South African poster should be banned, i never said anything as crude as this towards other teams.

 

[Athlai]

Claiming the Sri Lankans are a bunch of criminals is a complete troll. This South African poster should be banned, i never said anything as crude as this towards other teams.

Hmmm... these NZ posters were more delusional that i anticipated.

Have New Zealand managed to come up with a competitive XI yet? Seems like Guptill is a class above mediocrity, unlike the other pack of sheep in the side. Sinclair LOL!!!! I doubt he'd get a game in a local Under 12's side.

My grandma could break into the all time New Zealand XI. Southee, Taylor, McCullum, Vettori, and maybe Patel are very good but then again, they have players such as Elliott and Sinclair. You can only wonder how they managed to play international cricket.

Umm.. i think you mean New Zealand is an embarrassment to Mendis

Yeah right.

Wanker.

 

[MendisNuffSaid]

Yeah right.

Wanker.

Some posters such as Flem427 or whatever were the provocateurs in many of those posts. Especially when someone claims that i'm an embarrassment to my country is an insult to my passion of supporting my team.

 

[Nishan]

calm down fellows, all i can say is challenge people go out there and try to bowl or "chuck" like Murali, he is unique and diffrent and very good at what he does.

Botha's action is legal according to the current laws. But he is not as good as Murali.

 

[Burgey]

Emerson called him for bowling leg spinners in the 1998/99 VB series. After having first called him for bowling his orthodox off-spinners.



No need for that. It tends to happen on CW. Also, I can understand the dislike people have for the fact that Murali, seemingly singlehandedly, has overturned a long standing and stable law of the game. Sometimes, I feel that way myself, but then I also think about some possibly other wonderful bowlers who may never have got to bowl because their actions just seemed questionable. I think Cowdrey, in his autobiography, mentioned a bowler Robin Hobb (iirc) who was double-jointed at the elbow and looked like he was chucking when he, Cowdrey, was convinced he was not. As a result his career was curtailed.There are, probably, scores more examples.

Whether the final outcome of the law changes is for the good of the game or not, I suppose only time will tell.

Meckiff, for one, would not have been a chucker under today's rules according to his then captain. No doubt there are many others as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

Meckiff, for one, would not have been a chucker under today's rules according to his then captain. No doubt there are many others as well.

Isn't Benords on the record as saying he didn't think Meckiff chucked back then either and only removed him from the attack because the umpire called him?

 

[Son Of Coco]

But the thing is, it's been established that he does straighten his arm in delivery when bowling in competitive cricket. It's just that the straightening is within the 15% limit allowed by the law. As Uppercut has pointed out, the only "bowler" in modern cricket who doesn't straighten his arm is Ramnaresh Sarwan.

From this I'm forced to conclude that in this particular TV trial, even under the rigorous scrutiny of Mark Nicholas, Murali wasn't bowling as he would in a Test match.

I'd also point out, slightly mischievously, that there's some interesting footage of Murali bowling legspin on YouTube (I don't have the link but you can find it easily). And when he's bowling legspin, his arm looks completely straight.

This is simply untrue...they haven't all been tested for a start. We can assume they must given it's been found that the elbow must flex during the action, but I think they're talking about a different thing to actually throwing the ball. Until every bowler is tested it's impossible to say Sarwan's the only one. Didn't they come up with this line during the Champion's Trophy a few years back after 'testing' players actions mid-match? A process that hasn't been considered accurate enough to use in matches since apparently...

 

[duffer]

Someone will always slip through the net (but even Bird has been sent to rehab more times than Amy Winehouse)

Not a big achievement, she won't go go go.

 

[duffer]

Yeah right.

Wanker.

Haha, neck and crop.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Correct me if i get anything wrong here, but this has always been my interpretation of events.

1. Hair calls Murali for throwing. Murali gets biomechanical tests done and clears his name. He had no doosra at the time.

2. Emerson calls Murali for throwing, he gets tested again and cleared again.

3. Some time later, someone (i forget who) calls his doosra into question and when this delivery is tested, it's found to break the laws of the game. Murali is instructed not to bowl the doosra again as it broke the current rules (no straightening of the arm by more than 5 degrees).

4. Tests are carried out on 50-odd other anonymous international bowlers and it's found that they all break the rules, except Ramnaresh Sarwan. To avoid having to test and ban the vast majority of international bowlers, the ICC decided that 5 degrees (and 10 for quicks) is an unreasonable limit and increase the limit to 15 degrees. Hence, Murali can bowl the doosra again.

The reason i don't think there's any foul play involved is that cricket authorities are notoriously conservative, especially with regards to the chucking question. A lot of them, i'd say, don't like his action, and only ended up letting him bowl because the subsequent research left them with little other option (other than to ban everyone). The other theory, that he "fakes" testing, i don't agree with. If he can bowl perfectly legally in a brace, why would he chuck without one?

That all points to him being the catalyst, no?

As for him bowling legally in a brace, I've no doubt he can bowl legally without one (see the link to his leg-breaks) but doubt that he always does. His action sometimes appears worse than on other occasions, which suggests to me he sometimes gets a bit unconventional to extract whatever advantage it gives him.

 

[Flem274*]

Some posters such as Flem427 or whatever were the provocateurs in many of those posts. Especially when someone claims that i'm an embarrassment to my country is an insult to my passion of supporting my team.

Flem427 ownss u!

 

[zaremba]

This is simply untrue...they haven't all been tested for a start. We can assume they must given it's been found that the elbow must flex during the action, but I think they're talking about a different thing to actually throwing the ball. Until every bowler is tested it's impossible to say Sarwan's the only one. Didn't they come up with this line during the Champion's Trophy a few years back after 'testing' players actions mid-match? A process that hasn't been considered accurate enough to use in matches since apparently...

Sarwan was the only one of 23 bowlers analysed not to straighten his arm. The fact that there may be one or two others who happened not to be analysed and who also don't straighten there arm is, in my opinion, neither here nor there.

Whether such tests were or were not accurate is a more relevant point and I don't pretend to know the answer.

 

[zaremba]

The other theory, that he "fakes" testing, i don't agree with.

I'm not accusing him of faking testing. He can, unsurprisingly, bowl with his arm in a brace. With that brace on his arm, he's not faking it (how could he?), he's just doing the best he can with that thing on his arm. But when he doesn't have the brace on, he bowls with a noticeably different action, which involves straightening of his arm. And I don't think anyone seriously disputes this.

If he can bowl perfectly legally in a brace, why would he chuck without one?

He can bowl without straightening his arm when he wears a brace, and it's possible that he could do the same when not wearing a brace. However if he did so, he would be a less effective bowler. The main advantage he gets from straightening his arm would (I expect) be to be able to extract more spin for each of his stock deliveries - off break, topspinner, doosra.

 

[zaremba]

You ignorant bastard, what don't you watch some international cricket for a change rather than succumb to a false conclusion due to an unique action of one bowler?

Can someone please deal with this person - not sure exactly what the rules on insulting and abusive posting are but surely this must breach them

 

[Flem274*]

Tempted to make a MNS tribute thread in SD with his greatest quotes in tbh. Just to make the point.

 

[chaminda_00]

he bowls differently, and with more movement in his arm. Which I don't think anyone seriously disputes.

I would dispute that. What the arm brace thing showed was that there was very little difference in action he gets on the ball, with or without the arm brace.

It might look different, but the thing is very uncomfortable to wear. If you bowl without it your action going to me more natural and more free flowing. But at the end of day the end product was still basically the same with the arm brace.

 

[zaremba]

I would dispute that. What the arm brace thing showed was that there was very little difference in action he gets on the ball, with or without the arm brace.

It might look different, but the thing is very uncomfortable to wear. If you bowl without it your action going to me more natural and more free flowing. But at the end of day the end product was still basically the same with the arm brace.

It may be that we both saw what we wanted/expected to see. I think we must have formed very different impressions of (a) his action and (b) the end product. Anyhow let's agree to disagree.

 

[Uppercut]

That all points to him being the catalyst, no?

As for him bowling legally in a brace, I've no doubt he can bowl legally without one (see the link to his leg-breaks) but doubt that he always does. His action sometimes appears worse than on other occasions, which suggests to me he sometimes gets a bit unconventional to extract whatever advantage it gives him.

But the law wasn't "changed to accommodate his action", which is the line people often come out with. It was changed to accommodate everyone else's.