Ajmal Action Reported

[Prince EWS]

But have we really got enough cases of clean actions turning filthy to say there's a serious problem?

Well, I say yes. Ajmal, Senanyake, Shillingford, Samuels, Botha, Aaron Bird and Shabbir all immediately spring to mind as bowlers who were cleared, then tested later and found to be chucking. There are probably more who have escaped my mind too. I think all of them bar Ajmal were actually found to be chuckers originally, then had remedial work and were cleared after that only to fall back into old patterns, which is slightly different (although still problematic), but Ajmal is a whole other thing that opens a massive can of worms.

Most of them have actually occurred in the last twelve months which suggests the testing process might just be improving - which is a good thing. But if actions that looked dodgy initially but were legal deteriorating to a point of chucking without actually looking any worse than they were originally is really a thing, then we're ****ed. It basically suggests that being cleared in the past means absolutely nothing, even if it was a couple of days ago.

 

[Furball]

There's a few people commenting that Ajmal's action hasn't noticably deteriorated.

I have to ask, at what point did his action look fine?

 

[Prince EWS]

I guess we need to start working towards being able to be monitoring people in games to have a system where they, say, get no balled every time they go beyond 15 degrees. Can't be testing people every month.

Indeed, but it's really hard to sell to me the idea that this is worth the cost involved given the other financial issues the game faces. We may just have to look at the law instead.

 

[smash84]

There's a few people commenting that Ajmal's action hasn't noticably deteriorated.

I have to ask, at what point did his action look fine?

That's the point. It didn't look fine and it got cleared. Now it still looks the same as before and doesn't get cleared.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's a few people commenting that Ajmal's action hasn't noticably deteriorated.

I have to ask, at what point did his action look fine?

It never did. That's the point. He looked like he was chucking even when he (apparently) wasn't. That's why this is such a problem. If you look like you might be chucking but you're actually not, no amount of testing can actually prove that's the case for longer than 15 seconds afterwards, because Ajmal.

"Your action looks a bit dodgy. Go do testing."
"Oh, testing says you're clean? That's cool."
- one week later-
"Your action still looks the same. The fact that you were cleared in the past doesn't exclude the possibility of your action deteriorating without it looking any worse. Go do more testing."
"Oh testing says you're clean? That's cool."
- one week later -
"Your action still looks the same. The fact that you were cleared in the past doesn't exclude the possibility of your action deteriorating without it looking any worse. Go do more testing."

.. etc etc.

The only way this isn't a complete farce is if Ajmal cheated the original testing in a way that he can't anymore. That'd be terrible for the integrity of the game throughout Ajmal's career but the best reality moving forward.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

They should be tbf.

But the more important issue is that our defeat away to Pakistan in 2012 should be annulled. It's irrelevant that we were turd anyway.

Also all those times people were claiming Ajmal was the best spinner in the world, apologies are required. Graeme Swann was the worlds best spinner (TM) for a little longer than was widely accepted

What about Rahman?

 

[Maximas]

Also all those times people were claiming Ajmal was the best spinner in the world, apologies are required.

They can be made here

 

[viriya]

This is a sad day for Sanga

 

[sledger]

I really love it that this massive cheat has been banned, just a shame it didn't happen much earlier.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well, I say yes. Ajmal, Senanyake, Shillingford, Samuels, Botha, Aaron Bird and Shabbir all immediately spring to mind as bowlers who were cleared, then tested later and found to be chucking. There are probably more who have escaped my mind too. I think all of them bar Ajmal were actually found to be chuckers originally, then had remedial work and were cleared after that only to fall back into old patterns, which is slightly different (although still problematic), but Ajmal is a whole other thing that opens a massive can of worms.

Most of them have actually occurred in the last twelve months which suggests the testing process might just be improving - which is a good thing. But if actions that looked dodgy initially but were legal deteriorating to a point of chucking without actually looking any worse than they were originally is really a thing, then we're ****ed. It basically suggests that being cleared in the past means absolutely nothing, even if it was a couple of days ago.

I think this is a case for Ockham's Razor, tbh.

The simplest solution, the one I already posited that testers now have a proper baseline to work from, is the one one that requires the least donning of tinfoil hats.

Moreover one thinks of Dave Richardson's words when Ajmal was originally cleared. He said (and here I paraphrase) being cleared once is not a green light that one is forever beyond doubt.

In retrospect it could almost be taken as a thinly veiled suggestion that the 2009 verdict was more akin to Scottish courts' third option of the case being "not proven" rather than "innocent".

 

[GGG]

It never did. That's the point. He looked like he was chucking even when he (apparently) wasn't. That's why this is such a problem. If you look like you might be chucking but you're actually not, no amount of testing can actually prove that's the case for longer than 15 seconds afterwards, because Ajmal.

"Your action looks a bit dodgy. Go do testing."
"Oh, testing says you're clean? That's cool."
- one week later-
"Your action still looks the same. The fact that you were cleared in the past doesn't exclude the possibility of your action deteriorating without it looking any worse. Go do more testing."
"Oh testing says you're clean? That's cool."
- one week later -
"Your action still looks the same. The fact that you were cleared in the past doesn't exclude the possibility of your action deteriorating without it looking any worse. Go do more testing."

.. etc etc.

The only way this isn't a complete farce is if Ajmal cheated the original testing in a way that he can't anymore. That'd be terrible for the integrity of the game throughout Ajmal's career but the best reality moving forward.

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that they are using technology that is used to compare the way they bowl in testing and the way they bowl in a game. Maybe that technology wasn't there before and he bowling with a cleaner action in previous tests.

 

[GIMH]

Reckon his appeal will be a success just ftr

 

[sledger]

Better use the word "cheat" in conjunction with his name as much as possible in the meantime then.

It just feels so good.

"Ajmal is a horrible cheater". Oh boy that feels amazing.

 

[harsh.ag]

@Sledger Trying to get a rise out of some of the posters. Hope he doesn't.

 

[Maximas]

I really love it that this massive **** has been banned, just a shame it didn't happen much earlier.

fixed to reflect the overall mood whenever the same fate befalls you

 

[sledger]

Whether it gets a rise or not, I've been waiting to say this with impunity for several years. I am going to enjoy every second of it.

 

[sledger]

fixed to reflect the overall mood whenever the same fate befalls you

Aw, cute, but no need to get personal.

 

[Fusion]

fixed to reflect the overall mood whenever the same fate befalls you

No more of these type of posts please.

 

[Maximas]

Was a joke, love me some sledger, but whatever

 

[sledger]

Was a joke, love me some sledger, but whatever

My apologies for taking it the wrong way. I do not recall having any previous dealings with you, and so did not detect the warm sentiments you were attempting to convey. I hope you do not feel cheated by this.