***Official*** Pakistan and England in UAE

[Woodster]

Then why was no fight shown in that second innings? They rolled over even more meekly in the second innings than they did in the first.

I want to see fight. I want to see batsmen say "you're never getting my wicket".

Anyhoo, the second Test will show England's quality.

Yes the second innings was probably more disappointing than the first for the reason that they had chance for redemption but failed to take it. The shot selection was the major disappointment, Cook, Pietersen, even Trott that had played so well gave his wicket away with a loose shot.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I was looking through PakPassion and someone had posted this:

'Dr Paul Hurrion, the ICC’s chief biomechanics analyst and consultant, recently explained how these tests were conducted to remove doubts on whether the “conniving” spinner had in fact sneaked his way through the trials. “We use synchronised footage of the player bowling in a match to check that they are not just going through the motions or altering their style. They have to replicate the speed of a delivery from a match, the deviation and the revolutions of the ball. When being tested, the bowler is topless and has reflective markers all over his bowling arm, so the three-dimensional, high-speed cameras can film him from every angle.'

So Ajmal who has been cleared for his regular off-spin and doosra, can't possibly straighten more than 15 degrees in the match because the ICC uses the actual match footage. Therefore Ajmal has been bowling legally according to the ICC rules. However the only question is on the teesra, which has not been tested and is most likely a chuck (but Ajmal said he won't be using it since it didn't work for him - it was a mind game all along).

 

[marc71178]

No, all that means that when he was tested he didn't exceed the limits. As others have posted, just being passed once does not make you always legal.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It's about as valid a test as passing your driving license. Sure, you've shown that you're able to drive perfectly without breaking any laws, but that doesn't mean everyone follows the rules perfectly afterwards.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

But they use synchronised footage from a match in comparison to the lab test.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

He also has to bowl at the same speed and put same revs on the ball.

 

[marc71178]

But they use synchronised footage from a match in comparison to the lab test.

Right, so which match did they use then? The most recent one?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Who cares, they used a match where he bowled a doosra, in order to give it the all OK.

Botha got caught out on the doosra. So does that mean Ajmal is more sneaky/clever than Botha because he got away with it.

 

[Spark]

AN you've fairly well missed the point here.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

The straightening of the arm more than 15 degrees provides two advantages:

1. Speed

2. Spin/Revs

So if they make sure that his speed is the same as in the match and he spins it the same amount, then how else can he gain advantage.

 

[marc71178]

Which match are you talking about, the current one or the one in 2009?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I don't know which match they use, but they must use a match where he regularly bowled his doosra because they have tested and cleared him for it.

Say they used a match in 2009 in which he regularly bowled his doosra. His action hasn't changed since 2009 and he can't have deliberately controlled his bowling in a particular match in 2009 thinking that the ICC will test him. The ICC could even test several matches and have a baseline.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

AN you've fairly well missed the point here.

Which is?

 

[Spark]

That he was cleared some years ago, fine. That does not give him carte blanche to bowl however he likes for the rest of his career without being monitored and tested if people feel he needs testing again.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

So he will be tested again and if cleared, what then. Will people shut up.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I'm not saying his teesra is OK, because it definitely looks like a chuck (but he has said he won't use it because it didn't work out). But has his action for the doosra changed over time, and if no then he must be bowling it like he bowled since he was cleared.

 

[honestbharani]

That he was cleared some years ago, fine. That does not give him carte blanche to bowl however he likes for the rest of his career without being monitored and tested if people feel he needs testing again.

You do understand that the possibility that a bowler chucks an occassional delivery exists with just about every bowler?

 

[Daemon]

I was looking through PakPassion and someone had posted this:

'Dr Paul Hurrion, the ICC’s chief biomechanics analyst and consultant, recently explained how these tests were conducted to remove doubts on whether the “conniving” spinner had in fact sneaked his way through the trials. “We use synchronised footage of the player bowling in a match to check that they are not just going through the motions or altering their style. They have to replicate the speed of a delivery from a match, the deviation and the revolutions of the ball. When being tested, the bowler is topless and has reflective markers all over his bowling arm, so the three-dimensional, high-speed cameras can film him from every angle.'

So Ajmal who has been cleared for his regular off-spin and doosra, can't possibly straighten more than 15 degrees in the match because the ICC uses the actual match footage. Therefore Ajmal has been bowling legally according to the ICC rules. However the only question is on the teesra, which has not been tested and is most likely a chuck (but Ajmal said he won't be using it since it didn't work for him - it was a mind game all along).

Yeah, SS pointed this out earlier. If he was able to get the same revs and speed without chucking in the lab, what need would there be for him chuck in a match? Of course that was a couple of years ago, and the ICC should do regular tests, maybe once a year.

 

[Black_Warrior]

That he was cleared some years ago, fine. That does not give him carte blanche to bowl however he likes for the rest of his career without being monitored and tested if people feel he needs testing again.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. But my point is, why are we talking about this when he has been cleared AND not reported since then. If an umpire or a match referee finds his action dubious, by all means go for it, but the last time I checked, no such thing has been done..in such a case, why are we going around in circles about this?

 

[Jayzamann]

Reading the articles on Miandad and this 'New era' bollocks makes me think they'll look pretty silly in retrospect if (and probably when) England get their hands out of their pockets and start hitting back.