Johan Botha's action

[Uppercut]

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.

Hum, i thought his bowling was almost identical with the brace on.

 

[Langeveldt]

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.

Not my words to be honest 'pal' -

Cricinfo - Murali threatens to sue Bedi

You sound pretty passionate, i hope your stay is long and prosperous, unfortunately I don't share any of your views whatsoever.

 

[Precambrian]

Not my words to be honest 'pal' -

Cricinfo - Murali threatens to sue Bedi

You sound pretty passionate, i hope your stay is long and prosperous, unfortunately I don't share any of your views whatsoever.

That post of yours was atrociously poor tbh.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

Well, if we believe that every bowler bar Sarwan is a chucker, then yes, you are technically right. However, if there'd been no Murali there'd be no law change because without him the ICC wouldn't have been in a position to have to investigate everyone's actions.

&, without wishing to go down the conspiracy theorist route, it's always puzzled me that the findings of that study haven't been made public. Given the law change was based in no small part around it one wonders if the public interest is being served by it being sat on. It can't be to protect the bowlers' reputations because the ICC was happy to label them all chuckers. So why?

 

[silentstriker]

Well, if we believe that every bowler bar Sarwan is a chucker, then yes, you are technically right. However, if there'd been no Murali there'd be no law change because without him the ICC wouldn't have been in a position to have to investigate everyone's actions.

&, without wishing to go down the conspiracy theorist route, it's always puzzled me that the findings of that study haven't been made public. Given the law change was based in no small part around it one wonders if the public interest is being served by it being sat on. It can't be to protect the bowlers' reputations because the ICC was happy to label them all chuckers. So why?

They haven't? Which study?

I found these on pubmed (1, 2, 3). Any of these the one you're looking for?

I'd certainly be very worried if they conducted a proper scientific study like that and did not make it public and if that is true, I'd agree with you that something very fishy is going on.

 

[BoyBrumby]

They haven't? Which study?

I found these on pubmed (1, 2, 3). Any of these the one you're looking for?

I'd certainly be very worried if they conducted a proper scientific study like that and did not make it public and if that is true, I'd agree with you that something very fishy is going on.

Don't see any mentions of any individual bowlers' degree of flexion in those links.

 

[Flem274*]

Not my words to be honest 'pal' -

Cricinfo - Murali threatens to sue Bedi

You sound pretty passionate, i hope your stay is long and prosperous, unfortunately I don't share any of your views whatsoever.

It won't be long or prosperous if he keeps being a troll tbh.

 

[shankar]

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...

That method had an accuracy of ~3 degrees. Testing with sensors has an accuracy of ~1 deg. So the C.Trophy method was accurate enough to determine that 99% of the bowlers straightened their arm and at least 50% went over limits. But, obviously with a possible 3 deg. error it's not accurate enough to be used as a method for determining when a bowler actually goes over the limit in a match.

 

[The Baconator]

Well, if we believe that every bowler bar Sarwan is a chucker, then yes, you are technically right. However, if there'd been no Murali there'd be no law change because without him the ICC wouldn't have been in a position to have to investigate everyone's actions.

&, without wishing to go down the conspiracy theorist route, it's always puzzled me that the findings of that study haven't been made public. Given the law change was based in no small part around it one wonders if the public interest is being served by it being sat on. It can't be to protect the bowlers' reputations because the ICC was happy to label them all chuckers. So why?

Yeah, I dig that. While I don't want to doubt the findings, with something that's kinda counterintuitive like they were, it would have been nice if there was more explanation when it came out, as opposed to us just having to accept them.

 

[Uppercut]

Wikipedia actually references 8 different studies, all of which supported the findings described (almost everyone chucks to some extent and Murali to a lesser extent than many). Can't confirm because 7 aren't referenced to online sources and the other references to a dead link.

One of the studies SS found was actually used by you Brumby in a discussion not long ago if i'm not mistaken- about how perhaps how quickly it straightens rather than how much gives the impression of a throw?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Wikipedia actually references 8 different studies, all of which supported the findings described (almost everyone chucks to some extent and Murali to a lesser extent than many). Can't confirm because 7 aren't referenced to online sources and the other references to a dead link.

One of the studies SS found was actually used by you Brumby in a discussion not long ago if i'm not mistaken- about how perhaps how quickly it straightens rather than how much gives the impression of a throw?

Only scanned the links, tbh.

The study I refer to was that done by Porter, Elliott, and Hurrion during the 2004 Champions Trophy. The ICC (IIRC) blamed their lack of transparency on confidentiality, but it still somehow became public knowledge that everyone bar Sarwan threw.

 

[Uppercut]

There's confidentiality issues in any study, of course there is. But there's nothing to stop Sarwan from mentioning it to a team-mate or relative and it getting to the press that way somehow. I think you're kinda looking for controversy where there isn't much.

 

[Precambrian]

They haven't? Which study?

I found these on pubmed (1, 2, 3). Any of these the one you're looking for?

I'd certainly be very worried if they conducted a proper scientific study like that and did not make it public and if that is true, I'd agree with you that something very fishy is going on.

Great find that SS. Now if only someone could spoon-feed it here without the med lingo.

 

[Precambrian]

There's confidentiality issues in any study, of course there is. But there's nothing to stop Sarwan from mentioning it to a team-mate or relative and it getting to the press that way somehow. I think you're kinda looking for controversy where there isn't much.

Ah yes. In fact the statement from Murali that even McGrath straightened his arm above the limit attracted some ire from the ICC ranks, presumably because he was not expected to talk about the results in public.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There's confidentiality issues in any study, of course there is. But there's nothing to stop Sarwan from mentioning it to a team-mate or relative and it getting to the press that way somehow. I think you're kinda looking for controversy where there isn't much.

Yeah, I didn't expect them to name names, but listing the degrees of flexion from bowler X, Y or Z over the course of their spells surely couldn't have done any harm? Certainly not more so than labelling every bowler (bar Sarwan) a chucker.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, I didn't expect them to name names, but listing the degrees of flexion from bowler X, Y or Z over the course of their spells surely couldn't have done any harm? Certainly not more so than labelling every bowler (bar Sarwan) a chucker.

Possibly, but I can see why they wouldn't want to as well. Any of the players who took part in the study would have had opposition fans moan every time they took a wicket, so naming names is out. And they could have named them bowler X and Y but i don't think it would have meant a lot to anyone. There's not a lot of grounds for a conspiracy theory there IMO, especially considering so many independent studies (referenced by SS) have backed up what the ICC said they'd found.

And as I said earlier, cricket's governing bodies are notoriously conservative and Sri Lanka isn't even one of the more powerful members. I sure as hell don't think they'd go out of their way to accommodate Murali.

 

[TT Boy]

In regard to Shaun Tait and questions over his action, according to Neil Manthrop’s tour diary, the South Africans think it is dodgy.

"It's one of many potentially painful truths Australia have to face in the coming months. I discover that my cynicism about Shaun Tait, too, is shared by the Proteas. But let's not get started there. I thought he couldn't field. They think there's more of a problem with his bowling (action). Oops, sorry, I just got started..."

 

[funnygirl]

Akhtar fans calling Tait a chucker .Tait fans calling Murali a chucker ....Interesting debate.

 

[Precambrian]

In regard to Shaun Tait and questions over his action, according to Neil Manthrop’s tour diary, the South Africans think it is dodgy.

"It's one of many potentially painful truths Australia have to face in the coming months. I discover that my cynicism about Shaun Tait, too, is shared by the Proteas. But let's not get started there. I thought he couldn't field. They think there's more of a problem with his bowling (action). Oops, sorry, I just got started..."

Lol at Dave Hussey's stupid comments.

 

[Top_Cat]

Totally with Manthorp about Bracken. It's pretty rare a serious enough injury to knock a player out of a game heals within a week.