Murali to retire from Test Cricket

[Son Of Coco]

And that is why spinners, as a rule, should never be trusted with anything. Obviously others agree with me; outside of India, when was a spinner last made a national captain?

Nuff said. Evil, wrist-snapping bastards. They're like a bunch of subversives too wussy to actually take the citadel. Otherwise, they'd be pace bowlers.

Couldn't agree more, the moment they try to rise above their station as someone relied upon to give their fast bowlers a rest they're akin to Hitler rising to power in the NDP.

 

[Migara]

Did murali chuck under the old law when he was reported.

You know when the umpire called him was he chucking.

Hair is a rosted chicken because the seven deliveries that he called did not have any difference from the rest. OK, we'll say calling that legal. Then why McGrath was not no balled who was extending up to 12 degrees who was also chucking under the old law?

 

[Migara]

You can restore your honesty by showing the results where it shows 99% of bowlers chuck.

Sorry, your idea is a stupid one. Research papers are not free material. perhaps you pay the bucks and then I'll show the results. Cricinfo and multiple sources is good enough for me. Because you are so biased and deluded with it, cricinfo is also not good enough for you. You've changed from an intellectually dishonest to a moronic one with that post.

 

[Streetwise]

Hair is a rosted chicken because the seven deliveries that he called did not have any difference from the rest. OK, we'll say calling that legal. Then why McGrath was not no balled who was extending up to 12 degrees who was also chucking under the old law?

You are being dishonest Migara, McGrath has never chucked the ball when bowling.

 

[Migara]

You are being dishonest Migara, McGrath has never chucked the ball when bowling.

Who says? only umpires who have human eyes as good as yours or mine. Testing have shown he's extending up to 12 degrees. Yes McGrath was a CHUCKER under the old law.

If you have reading problems here is the extract of it.

"even bowlers like Glenn McGrath and Shaun Pollock, usually considered examplars of the classical action, occasionally go over the prescribed tolerance limit, bending their arms by as much as 12 degrees"

If you don't accept the ICCpanel, do your own research and show that McGrath extends it less than 7.5, which was limit for fast medium bowlers. Under any circumstances I am not going to believe your error prone eye which sees the action nor your biased brain which interprets it.

 

[Streetwise]

Sorry, your idea is a stupid one. Research papers are not free material. perhaps you pay the bucks and then I'll show the results. Cricinfo and multiple sources is good enough for me. Because you are so biased and deluded with it, cricinfo is also not good enough for you. You've changed from an intellectually dishonest to a moronic one with that post.

Cricinfo reported there was going to be a release of a report in 2004, that report never materialised, do you know why?.

Resorting to personal abuse seems to be your main arguement when the facts become too hard to swallow.

 

[Migara]

Cricinfo reported there was going to be a release of a report in 2004, that report never materialised, do you know why?.

Resorting to personal abuse seems to be your main arguement when the facts become too hard to swallow.

It would have showed that even bowlers with classical action going over 10 degrees. If only Murali was to be affected, they would have published it.

Or otherwise, it is intellectual property. ICC wouldn't have paid the scientists properly and they have refused to give the full report. Or some morons may be not publishing it for the fact there could be suspicions raised like what you do to discredit Murali.

 

[Streetwise]

It would have showed that even bowlers with classical action going over 10 degrees. If only Murali was to be affected, they would have published it.

No it never showed bowlers with classical action going over 10 degrees, you are now mixing up comments from the panel of players (none of whom are biomechanics or scientists).

Sorry mate but you dont even know what you are talking about. You really need to calm down and look at things in a logical way and not be so pig headed about this issue. You rant and rave abusing umpires, anyone who disagrees with you or has an opinion different to yours and the whole time you dont know what you are saying.

 

[Streetwise]

Who says? only umpires who have human eyes as good as yours or mine. Testing have shown he's extending up to 12 degrees. Yes McGrath was a CHUCKER under the old law.

If you have reading problems here is the extract of it.

"even bowlers like Glenn McGrath and Shaun Pollock, usually considered examplars of the classical action, occasionally go over the prescribed tolerance limit, bending their arms by as much as 12 degrees"

If you don't accept the ICCpanel, do your own research and show that McGrath extends it less than 7.5, which was limit for fast medium bowlers. Under any circumstances I am not going to believe your error prone eye which sees the action nor your biased brain which interprets it.

You forgot the leading sentence in your claim,

According to Derek Pringle in the Daily Telegraph

Why did cricinfo put this at the start of the paragraph when you say its the ICC panel.

 

[Migara]

And Pringle was in the ICC panel.

No it never showed bowlers with classical action going over 10 degrees

How do you know? What is your evidence? Once again your error prone eye and biased brain? Do you have anything else to prove it? And BTW it's 7.5, not 10 degrees. McGrath and Pollock are No Akthar or Lee to be considered as out and out fast.

According to Derek Pringle in the Daily Telegraph

"The scientific evidence is overwhelming," said Michael Holding, the possessor of one of the smoothest bowling actions in history, and a member of the six-man panel of former Test players who have been gathered in Dubai to investigate the issue. "When bowlers who, to the naked eye, look to have pure actions are thoroughly analysed ... they are likely to be shown as straightening their arm. Under a strict interpretation of the law, these players are breaking the rules"

According to Derek Pringle in the Daily Telegraph, Murali is no different from the vast majority of his fellow players

As Angus Fraser - another member of the six-man panel - wrote in The Independent, even the likes of Fred Trueman, Dennis Lillee, Curtly Ambrose, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, and Ian Botham were found to have exceeded the straightening-limit set by the ICC.

You are clutching on to the straws. Various people in that panel is saying most of the bowlers are chuckers under old laws.

And I am yet to find cricinfo saying that a report is going to be published in 2004. This was in November 2004, there is hardly any time for report in that year. Source where you have taken it?

 

[Johnners]

Sir Alex & Migara, regardless of what you think about Streetwise's opinion, it is NOT acceptable to resort to personal insults at any time.

 

[Migara]

Sir Alex & Migara, regardless of what you think about Streetwise's opinion, it is NOT acceptable to resort to personal insults at any time.

Intellectual dishonesty is regarded as a insult?

 

[Sir Alex]

Sir Alex & Migara, regardless of what you think about Streetwise's opinion, it is NOT acceptable to resort to personal insults at any time.

Hold on, where have I resorted to personal abuse?

To bring in asinine remarks about a player who have been proven not guilty despite scores of biomechanical tests, video evidence etc etc and with little evidence as to him being over the stipulated limit as of now.

 

[Shri]

Been noted before that one silly comment deserves another. Not sure whether Hing was joking or not, the PH34R suggests it's a possibility and no more than that. Either way, Hing's and Migara's posts were of a similar nature - tongue-in-cheek regardless of whether they had some seriousness to them.

Totally different to posts along the lines of "all Murali's wickets are worthless because he's a chucker" which are, plainly and simply, incendary rubbish that absolutely everyone is miles better-off without.

Designated noob translator.

 

[lockton2skipper]

There's no opinions about chucking. It's proven by science. If some one still tries to disprove what is proven by scientific evidence, 'idiot' would be the nicest word to use. Sorry, I am not remotely sorry about using that. Crap about chucking should be dealt as crap, not otherwise. I had been nice to almost all people here, even in heated debates, but a vomitus of subjective crap when there's clear evidence will not get any respect from me.

personall attacks on a message board now there's something new. what i posted was my opinion, one shared by many across the world, i have thought for a long time the icc are waiting for murali to retire to avoid controversy and i fully expect one day his tally of wickets to be expunged because he is a chucker. remember what happend last time he toured aussie? couldn't fool their umpires.

 

[Sir Alex]

Why should icc protect murali?

 

[lockton2skipper]

because like any organisation they are frightened to be seen to be doing something contraversial. bit like politicians.

 

[Sir Alex]

because like any organisation they are frightened to be seen to be doing something contraversial. bit like politicians.

:roll: How come they barred Shahid Nazeer then? Called on Johan Botha's action? etc? etc?

 

[lockton2skipper]

because they were'nt a big name. maybe murali isn't a chucker and i got it all wrong

 

[Dasa]

because they were'nt a big name. maybe murali isn't a chucker and i got it all wrong

That's quite likely.