• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jonbrooks chucking Megathread

Stick o Rhubarb

Cricket Spectator
The ICC clearly buckled under the intense financial pressure put on them by SLC to cover the whole thing up and change the rules for Murali
Boycott is quite vocal on this point. You can hear the fear in Agnew's voice if Murali is mentioned whilst commentating together.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
The ICC clearly buckled under the intense financial pressure put on them by SLC to cover the whole thing up and change the rules for Murali
One wonders if he would have ended up holding the record for most wickets had the rules not be changed. One suspects he would not have, tbh.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Boycott is quite vocal on this point. You can hear the fear in Agnew's voice if Murali is mentioned whilst commentating together.
It's this sort of bull**** that stops issues like this from being properly discussed though. It's the proverbial elephant in the room. If people believe an action to be bull****, then let them call bowlers out on it.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
One wonders if he would have ended up holding the record for most wickets had the rules not be changed. One suspects he would not have, tbh.
The rule change was good though. This is like saying Obama never would've become POTUS if they didn't abolish slavery. Sure it might be true but it shouldn't tarnish his achievements, because the old law was ****.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
The rule change was good though. This is like saying Obama never would've become POTUS if they didn't abolish slavery. Sure it might be true but it shouldn't tarnish his achievements, because the old law was ****.
Goddamn it man, why are you responding to me seriously?! That post was meant to attract mouth-breathers.
 

Adders

Cricketer Of The Year
One wonders if he would have ended up holding the record for most wickets had the rules not be changed. One suspects he would not have, tbh.
Who was leading wicket taker at the time?? Whoever it was would still hold the record and we'd all have been following a different sport for the last decade whilst reminiscing on how much we used to enjoy cricket.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Shane Warne would now be the leading wickettaker, no?

So wouldn't have in been in Australia's interests to keep Murali banned, so they could claim the greatest batsman and greatest bowler? And Australia had quite a lot of power in the 1990s ICC.

Not much logic behind a pro-Murali conspiracy, and even less evidence.
 

Top