Wisden on Murali's Action

[fredfertang]

I am no sort of a scientist, but isn't the testing that Murali went through in Australia after the idiot Hair called him just a tad more 'scientific' than sitting in front of the TV with a protractor?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I am no sort of a scientist, but isn't the testing that Murali went through in Australia after the idiot Hair called him just a tad more 'scientific' than sitting in front of the TV with a protractor?

You'd hope so. But the whole process was nothing short of a joke.

brb call in 'experts' to watch him and say 'yeah I guess that's the same action he uses in matches?'

edit: i think it's better the way it was anyway. Had they gone ahead and banned him it would have caused more trouble than allowing him to keep on playing. Thanfully the ICC were smart enough to realise this and waited until after he retired to actually start testing players actions properly and issuing warnings and bans. You could argue it's somewhat unfair on the current bowlers with questionable actions to all of a sudden be persecuted but you're hardly going to get as much trouble banning Mohammad Hafeez than if you had gone ahead and banned a 30-something year old Murali with 500+ test wickets and the kind of support he had from fans.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah the process was a joke. The alternative of using our eyes and a protractor that jedibrah our resident scientist has suggested is much more scientific in it's approach.

 

[weldone]

slow the screen down and look at whichever angles you like, get your protractors out if you want, he obviously straightened his arm more than 30 degrees every delivery.

I nominate this for the best scientific discovery of the century.

 

[watson]

In March 2004, during Australia's tour of Sri Lanka, his doosra was reported by match referee Chris Broad. Subsequent tests at the University of Western Australia measured the flexion in his action at ten degrees - twice the amount then permitted for spinners.

Murali tried to conform and, for a year, cut out his doosra. At the time, following an ICC ruling in 2000, spinners were permitted only five degrees, medium-pacers 7.5, and fast bowlers ten. Murali felt this was unfair. "I challenged the system," he says. "I asked why it couldn't be ten degrees for everyone. Then they came up with 15." That figure was reached because biomechanical experts argued it was the point at which a chuck became visible to the naked eye.

Let's be clear - before 2004 Murali chucked the ball according to the law of the time.

Then the law was changed at Murali's request so that he no longer chucked the ball according to the revised law.

The contention is whether a cricket law should be changed just to accomodate a specific player? The excuse for changing the law was that a straightening of less than 15 degrees is not 'visible to the naked eye'. That arbitrary number of 15 sounds dodgy to me. But I'm happy to be wrong.

 

[marc71178]

Why?

I'm guessing it's because Murali's not Australian, seeing as he then backs it up with such scientific processes as using a protractor on a TV screen.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Let's be clear - before 2004 Murali chucked the ball according to the law of the time.

Then the law was changed at Murali's request so that he no longer chucked the ball according to the revised law.

The contention is whether a cricket law should be changed just to accomodate a specific player?

Bull****

 

[marc71178]

Let's be clear - before 2004 everyone chucked the ball according to the law of the time.

Then the law was changed by the ICC so that the game could continue.

The contention is whether a cricket law should be changed just to stop the game from completely finishing? The reason for changing the law was that as it stood no game ever could continue as every ball was a no ball a straightening of less than 15 degrees is not 'visible to the naked eye'. That arbitrary number of 15 sounds dodgy to me, but then again I clearly haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

Fixed your post for you. Just the odd minor inaccuracy.

 

[fredfertang]

Didn't the 'clarification' of the law benefit some bloke called McGrath as well?

 

[honestbharani]

I'm probably as big a fan of Murali as they come, but even I'm not going to claim he was perfect or that his action was perfectly "legal". It was never actually "proven" either way if you look into it and just watching him live, or even slow the screen down and look at whichever angles you like, get your protractors out if you want, he obviously straightened his arm more than 30 degrees every delivery. That and it's literally a physical impossibility to bowl a doosra within current rules.

Personally I don't think it matters, he still did what no one else could do. If you went up to to every bowler and said "you are allowed to thrown the ball when you bowl", none of them would have been as good as Murali, or even come close probably.

I share equal contempt for those who say "he was a cheater so his achievements don't matter" as I do for those who kid themselves into thinking he didn't straighten his arm.

He made the game more interesting to watch and that's what really matters.

Spot the guy having trouble admitting facts.. Fact: He was chucking under the old stupid rules. Fact: He was chucking under the rules that allowed more degree flexion for fast bowlers for no reason at all. Fact: Every bowler playing international cricket were chucking under the same old rules. Fact: When the rule was redrawn for the first time based on actual scientific study and evidence, his bowling action was well and truly legal.


Read that piece again and see how the bend in his elbow helps him bowl at an angle that pretty much no one else can without going over the degree limits enforced based on actual study and evidence.

 

[honestbharani]

Let's be clear - before 2004 Murali chucked the ball according to the law of the time.

Then the law was changed at Murali's request so that he no longer chucked the ball according to the revised law.

The contention is whether a cricket law should be changed just to accomodate a specific player? The excuse for changing the law was that a straightening of less than 15 degrees is not 'visible to the naked eye'. That arbitrary number of 15 sounds dodgy to me. But I'm happy to be wrong.

Law was changed because every bowler bowling around the world was found to be chucking under those rules, except the great Sarwan. Not because "Murali requested it". What a stupid ass comment to make when it is not even accurate.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I love how both sides of this will never agree

 

[honestbharani]

I love how facts are so easy to disagree with too..

 

[Migara]

I'm probably as big a fan of Murali as they come, but even I'm not going to claim he was perfect or that his action was perfectly "legal". It was never actually "proven" either way if you look into it and just watching him live, or even slow the screen down and look at whichever angles you like, get your protractors out if you want, he obviously straightened his arm more than 30 degrees every delivery. That and it's literally a physical impossibility to bowl a doosra within current rules.

Personally I don't think it matters, he still did what no one else could do. If you went up to to every bowler and said "you are allowed to thrown the ball when you bowl", none of them would have been as good as Murali, or even come close probably.

I share equal contempt for those who say "he was a cheater so his achievements don't matter" as I do for those who kid themselves into thinking he didn't straighten his arm.

He made the game more interesting to watch and that's what really matters.

Troll alert.

 

[jan]

Muralism, Sachinism and such things

 

[indiaholic]

Muralism, Sachinism and such things

What?

 

[Jono]

Wisden is about as relevant today as fear of witches and burning them at the stake. Wouldn't get worked up about it.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I love how facts are so easy to disagree with too..

Good luck with that

 

[Bahnz]

I know I'm inviting a world of hate for bringing this up, but does anyone else think it's a little weird that Murali's average bowl speed during his 2004 action test was about 65-70 kmh?

If there's an explanation for it then I'm open to it. But if not, then that strikes me as the kind of thing that would be a serious red flag under today's testing regime.

 

[Pratters]

How are these the same? It would be nice to get both points of view regarding whether he used to chuck or not. I have never really got proper view points on this.