Akila Dananjaya reported for suspect bowling action

[Migara]

Why did he fail the test?

His offies have always looked suspicious to me, and I don't rate him as a leg spinner in tests.

Why did he fail the test?

1. He chucks
2. The test is crap

First is possibility. Since normal actions have never been tested, and testing methodology have not been peer reviewed, test could be erroneous too.

 

[cnerd123]

I wonder what % of bowlers that have been tested since the ICC cut ties with UWA have been found guilty.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The same old story. Spinner having a decent year, plays against big three, and gets reported. Cannot see what is suspect about his action. He and Dilruwan Perera has basically the same action. Akhila bowls some additional stuff so they must have thought, "ah, look here, we have a mystery spinner, so he must be chucking", and Dilruwan as "Orthodox classical off spinner". For me Dilruwan's action looks more jerky when he is tired than Akhila.

Brings back to the same old argument I was making. Test the "normal looking" actions too. I am damn sure some percentage of them are throws as well.

No one's the victim of discrimination, if anything it seems like the lower profile countries are getting away with it more, hence only being noticed when playing the big 3, as you put it.

I suspect that there's an issue at the lower levels as to why bowlers are getting through to Test level before having their actions fixed, where in other countries they would have been flagged much earlier.

 

[Migara]

No one's the victim of discrimination, if anything it seems like the lower profile countries are getting away with it more, hence only being noticed when playing the big 3, as you put it.

I suspect that there's an issue at the lower levels as to why bowlers are getting through to Test level before having their actions fixed, where in other countries they would have been flagged much earlier.

What I feel is that the ICC testing procedure is crap. This guy was bowling for nine frikking years, no one even breathed that he was suspect. And he looks awfully orthodox too. There is nothing similar to Ajmal / Senanayake / Narine in Akhila's action. It's almost a carbon copy of Dilruwan Perera. Perera gets away because he doesn't bowl those orthodox leggies and googlies and is out of radar.

I have commented many a times on how controls have to be introduced to the testin procedure. up to now ICC has not random tested any international bowler.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What I feel is that the ICC testing procedure is crap.

I wouldn't complain about that if I were you. If the ICC testing procedure was competent Murali wouldn't have played more than a handful of Tests

Anyway they've definitely improved lately. The biggest issue right now is that they keep allowing guys to "rehabilitate" and then come back and bowl, and they just chuck again, eg. Hafeez. Once someone gets reported and found to have an illegal action they should only get one chance to fix it.

You can't keep reporting the same guys, banning them, then letting them back in over and over. It's pointless and you might as well just let everyone chuck. If they get given a second chance, and they transgress again, that should be them done, forever.

 

[cnerd123]

Anyway they've definitely improved lately.

???

 

[Migara]

I wouldn't complain about that if I were you. If the ICC testing procedure was competent Murali wouldn't have played more than a handful of Tests

Anyway they've definitely improved lately. The biggest issue right now is that they keep allowing guys to "rehabilitate" and then come back and bowl, and they just chuck again, eg. Hafeez. Once someone gets reported and found to have an illegal action they should only get one chance to fix it.

You can't keep reporting the same guys, banning them, then letting them back in over and over. It's pointless and you might as well just let everyone chuck. If they get given a second chance, and they transgress again, that should be them done, forever.

As usual you don't even comprehend the issue on hand (I am not surprised!). The testing procedure is not peer reviewed (if you know what it is). Then the controls have never been tested, or at least the results are hidden behind secret doors. The definition of a chuck it self is not clear. Every bowler has an elbow extension, and it has a standard deviation. This means there will be some percentage of balls (despite being minute) that will be above 15 degrees. Now here lies the issue. Are we making the bowler illegal if he chucks 1/1000 deliveries? If not, what is the limit of "chucking" allowed? (Don't say zero, because it is statistically not possible). Does the average extension and it's variance different over "clean actions", "marginal chuckers" and "outright chuckers"?What should be do for deliberate chuckers? (People who bowl 49 legal deliveries and chuck one to surprise the batsman in a spell). None of these had been answered.

 

[cnerd123]

Almost worth digging up the jonbrooks chucking mega thread - plenty of in depth convo on this topic in there.

 

[Victor Ian]

Let each player deal with their own standard deviation. If I have a standard deviation of 4 degrees then I better learn to bowl within 11 degrees. Bowlers who do this are never reported for chucking.

As for chucking one ball down to surprise a batsmen... Well if you feel you can get away with it, go for it. Or maybe instead of chucking it use some legitimate variation to surprise them.

As for banning someone forever after their second call, I don't think that is a great idea. If they pass the test, then they are good to go, however many times they need to take time off for remedial action. That time off is enough of a blow, for them, and for their team.

Can a player still be banned from bowling during a game, or has that been something that umpires no longer rule over? If not, I'd suggest Australia bring in a baseball pitcher for the SCG test.

 

[Borges]

The same old story. Spinner having a decent year, plays against big three, and gets reported.

Is there any statistical evidence of this? That bowlers are more often reported during a series with one of the big three?

 

[randycricfreak]

Shaminda Eranga got reported during a Test in England 2016, never played International Cricket despite getting cleared.

Tharindu Kaushal got reported vs India at the SSC Test 2015. Has gone downhill since.

Sachithra Senanyake was reported for suspect action during ODIs in England 2014.

 

[randycricfreak]

Shaminda Eranga the fast bowler was only cleared. Others were banned

Sachitra cameback with re-modelled action. Wasn't as successful as he used to be.But he still plays domestic cricket.

 

[harsh.ag]

Maybe he was Sharminda

 

[TheJediBrah]

As usual you don't even comprehend the issue on hand (I am not surprised!). The testing procedure is not peer reviewed (if you know what it is). Then the controls have never been tested, or at least the results are hidden behind secret doors.

You're not telling me anything new here. In fact I've said all this myself numerous times on here. I've gone into depth explaining to people regarding controls, statistical significance etc. as well so cheers for the not so subtle, and very childish, questioning of my intelligence.

The definition of a chuck it self is not clear. Every bowler has an elbow extension, and it has a standard deviation. This means there will be some percentage of balls (despite being minute) that will be above 15 degrees. Now here lies the issue. Are we making the bowler illegal if he chucks 1/1000 deliveries? If not, what is the limit of "chucking" allowed? (Don't say zero, because it is statistically not possible). Does the average extension and it's variance different over "clean actions", "marginal chuckers" and "outright chuckers"?What should be do for deliberate chuckers? (People who bowl 49 legal deliveries and chuck one to surprise the batsman in a spell). None of these had been answered.

I see you're going really in depth with this, and I respect the thought you've clearly put into it. I don't think anyone is saying that the system is perfect, or even good. When I said "they've definitely improved lately" I was actually referring to the fact that they seem much more willing to take action against suspect actions, which they were seemingly too afraid to do much while Murali was around.

I think you're ignoring the issue that I brought up though, regarding why certain countries seem more susceptible to fielding players with suspect actions. Your implication that it is discriminatory against the smaller fish and that it is some conspiracy to favour "the Big 3" is laughable. Much more likely there are issues with coaching and development in those countries regarding bowling actions.

 

[Bahnz]

The same old story. Spinner having a decent year, plays against big three, and gets reported. Cannot see what is suspect about his action. He and Dilruwan Perera has basically the same action. Akhila bowls some additional stuff so they must have thought, "ah, look here, we have a mystery spinner, so he must be chucking", and Dilruwan as "Orthodox classical off spinner". For me Dilruwan's action looks more jerky when he is tired than Akhila.

Brings back to the same old argument I was making. Test the "normal looking" actions too. I am damn sure some percentage of them are throws as well.

I definitely can, at least for his off-break. No surprises to see the long-sleeve shirt utilised frequently in his bowling.

His leg-break looks pretty pure though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Regarding bowlers who only chuck occasional deliveries, they simply need to be clearly banned from bowling those deliveries, and if they continue to bowl them occasionally despite being told not to, then banned from all bowling.

If Akila wants to bowl leg breaks 100% of the time, and they aren't suspect, let him do it IMO. He should just not be allowed to bowl offies (assuming that he is found to be exceeding the limit)

 

[cnerd123]

I was actually referring to the fact that they seem much more willing to take action against suspect actions, which they were seemingly too afraid to do much while Murali was around.

Lol what

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lol what

That's my theory anyway. During Murali's career there was a bit of an uneasy policy of just letting chuckers chuck, because if you started banning them left right and centre people would point the finger at Murali and say "well how come he is allowed to bowl". It definitely seemed as though a harder stance was taken almost right after Murali finished, and the rates of reporting/banning suspect actions increased.

 

[the big bambino]

Reckon Ajmal benefitted from the reluctance post Murali from that attitude.

 

[cnerd123]

That's my theory anyway. During Murali's career there was a bit of an uneasy policy of just letting chuckers chuck, because if you started banning them left right and centre people would point the finger at Murali and say "well how come he is allowed to bowl". It definitely seemed as though a harder stance was taken almost right after Murali finished, and the rates of reporting/banning suspect actions increased.

What other 'chuckers' were going around that weren't getting called until the Murali saga?