Akila Dananjaya reported for suspect bowling action

[TheJediBrah]

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

Really stretching my memory with that one, can't really remember much from back then. The main one that sticks with me was Ajmal, as Bambino said, because he was allowed to just bowl for years being one of the best bowlers in the world and then within a year (or so) after Murali retired he was targeted and they found that he was bending at like 40 something degrees lol. Always feel a bit sorry for Ajmal with how he was strung along.

It wouldn't surprise me at all either if there are just more suspect actions these days though, which I assume is what you're trying to say?

 

[cnerd123]

Murali got no-balled for throwing in 1995. First underwent testing in 1996. ICC established Laws on throwing in 2000, and refined it to 15 degrees in 2005 after further study and testing. Murali retired in 2010.

Ajmal debuted in 2008, was first reported and tested in 2009 - less than 12 months since his debut, and while Murali was still playing.

You're like, literally wrong about everything.

It wouldn't surprise me at all either if there are just more suspect actions these days though, which I assume is what you're trying to say?

Not trying to say anything, just trying to figure out what you're saying. How are the ICC (and by extension, all the Full Member Cricket Boards) better now at identifying/reporting/testing suspect actions than they were back in 2005, when the laws and protocols were first established? Did you actually have any information behind that statement?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Murali got no-balled for throwing in 1995. First underwent testing in 1996. ICC established Laws on throwing in 2000, and refined it to 15 degrees in 2005 after further study and testing. Murali retired in 2010.

Ajmal debuted in 2008, was first reported and tested in 2009 - less than 12 months since his debut, and while Murali was still playing.

You're like, literally wrong about everything.

No, I told you I had a poor memory from back then and was just going by what I vaguely remember. IIRC Ajmal was banned not long after Murali's retirement, that's the only relevant time-related factor to what I said and you didn't even bring it up, instead rattled off a bunch of irrelevant dates and events.

If you want an example of "wrong about everything" go look at your posting in the umpire no-ball calling thread. And if you do you'll notice that despite your horrendously rude and garbage posting in there I was quite respectful to you throughout. You've had a really horse**** attitude on here lately *****.

 

[cnerd123]

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.

1) Real-time flex/straightening measurement will be a thing eventually, but the theoretical argument on what constitutes a chuck is still up for debate last I read. As in, it's hard to define at what point exactly an action 'looks' chucky or gives any real advantage to a bowler. Something to do with how the shoulder rotates, what speed the arm comes down, where the camera is placed...I gotta find the article for it. But yea, basically, hard to define this.

2) The crux of the issue with chucking is that we aren't measuring a bowler real-time, ball by ball. We're just testing them in test conditions, where they can bowl legally, and then come match day they can start chucking again and get away with it. It's a real problem that can only be fixed with real-time measuring, or by letting umpires call anything that looks like a chuck a no-ball, regardless of the science.

3) If you throw the ball twice you are suspended from the attack - see Law 21.3

 

[cnerd123]

You've had a really horse**** attitude on here lately *****.

Sorry but it's hard to be nice when you're repeatedly making demonstrably false statements:

Anyway they've definitely improved lately.

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.

During Murali's career there was a bit of an uneasy policy of just letting chuckers chuck

The main one that sticks with me was Ajmal, as Bambino said, because he was allowed to just bowl for years being one of the best bowlers in the world and then within a year (or so) after Murali retired he was targeted and they found that he was bending at like 40 something degrees lol.

Ajmal was tested and cleared within 12 months of his debut while Murali was still playing. I can't think of a single other chucky-looking bowler during Murali's career, let alone one that was inexplicably given a free pass. And since you're the one making the claim, I asked you to back it up, and you admit it yourself you can't think of any either.

What really happened to Ajmal was that his action clearly deteriorated over the course of his career - we even compared videos of him bowling on this forum while discussing his ban - and the fact that the ICC shifted their testing from UWA to a couple of other universities, and may have changed it in the process but never got it peer reviewed, something the UWA professor responsible for developing the methodology strongly condemned:

The scientific stand-off between ICC and their critics | Cricket | ESPNcricinfo

Yet here you are repeatedly insinuating that the ICC were protecting Murali during his career and only choosing to crack down after he retired. That's dire.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ajmal was tested and cleared within 12 months of his debut while Murali was still playing. I can't think of a single other chucky-looking bowler during Murali's career, let alone one that was inexplicably given a free pass. And since you're the one making the claim, I asked you to back it up, and you admit it yourself you can't think of any either.

Then why are we still talking about it? It was a theory based on impressions I wasn't claiming to have done a quantitative study on it ffs

Yet here you are repeatedly insinuating that the ICC were protecting Murali during his career and only choosing to crack down after he retired. That's dire.

Nah I'm actually pretty confident about that theory tbh. And no before you ask of course I don't have any evidence.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Murali is the 2nd greatest cricketer of the 21st century (behind Kallis) imo. Shame this sort of stuff always comes up. At least he was never a drug cheat like Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, and Shane Warne though.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Murali is the 2nd greatest cricketer of the 21st century (behind Kallis) imo. Shame this sort of stuff always comes up. At least he was never a drug cheat like Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, and Shane Warne though.

Every athlete in every "physical" sport other than cricket (I think) is on juice. The people you named just happened to be unlucky enough to get caught.

 

[cnerd123]

Plenty of cricketers on the juice as well. Dre Russ has avoided drug tests for ages.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Every athlete in every "physical" sport other than cricket (I think) is on juice. The people you named just happened to be unlucky enough to get caught.

I think that's an exaggeration, but an element of truth to it. The most famous sportsmen found juicing were almost certainly just targeted because they were the best. Guaranteed that every other cyclist who finished Top-20 in the tour de France in a year where Lance Armstrong was on pretty much the same stuff, but they weren't the best so they didn't get caught.

 

[Gomez656]

ICC suspended Dhananjaya Akila after he took 85 international wickets

https://m.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news...-action-found-to-be-illegal-sri-lanka-cricket

 

[Gomez656]

He is allow to bowls in SL domestic only if SL cricket board allow to.

 

[YorksLanka]

surprised to see that his action has been deemed illegal BUT since that is the ruling and his action has been proved illegal then he should be banned from bowling until he changes his action is changed to fall within the legal limits. I have to say that I don't understand why our board and officials didn't pick this up much earlier. Surely coaches can see an action that isn't right? isn't that part of what they are paid for..yet another failure for our ridiculous board..

 

[Spark]

Every athlete in every "physical" sport other than cricket (I think) is on juice. The people you named just happened to be unlucky enough to get caught.

In the case of Armstrong his competitors all got caught too. He was just more brazen about lying about it (and, obviously, more successful whilst on it)

 

[StephenZA]

In the case of Armstrong his competitors all got caught too. He was just more brazen about lying about it (and, obviously, more successful whilst on it)

Isn't one of the sad ironies, that EPO does not appear to actually have a discernible effect.... think he was doing other things as well; but that was the 'big one'?

 

[Spark]

"It's the cover-up, not the crime"

 

[Migara]

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.

Shaminda Eranga's downfall is due to medical reasons. Tharindu Kaushal's downfall has nothing to do with chucking. His off break was cleared, only 50% of the doosras were found illegal. His action was crap, needed to slow down, be more balanced at the delivery stride. He was bowling utter crap in his last test played. Instead of a doosra, with his action, a back spinnin slider can be easily added to the repertoire. The coaches are responsible for his downfall IMO. Senanayake of course, meh . . . why he was chucking to spin it two inches?

 

[cnerd123]

surprised to see that his action has been deemed illegal BUT since that is the ruling and his action has been proved illegal then he should be banned from bowling until he changes his action is changed to fall within the legal limits. I have to say that I don't understand why our board and officials didn't pick this up much earlier. Surely coaches can see an action that isn't right? isn't that part of what they are paid for..yet another failure for our ridiculous board..

I can see potential reasons why the ICC and testing universities might keep their methodology and procedures under wraps from the general public, but I don't know why they wouldn't share it with the member boards. The ICC is the member boards, it's not an independent organisation. If the SLCB wants to know the testing setup so they can unofficially replicate it in a local university to test their own athletes, it should be possible right? Which means the blame would entirely fall on the SLCB for not ensuring their bowler was legal.

I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than it seems to us on the outside. Something to research I suppose.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Isn't one of the sad ironies, that EPO does not appear to actually have a discernible effect.... think he was doing other things as well; but that was the 'big one'?

It's news to me that EPO doesn't have any benefit, interesting given how widespread it's use is.

It's funny that many sportsmen caught "doping" were probably not even actually helping themselves. A local Australian football club (essendon) had almost all its players and coach banned for a year because they used peptides, which almost certainly do **** all, but were apparently on an obscure banned list just on case

 

[Migara]

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.

It' hard to miss tit that you are not doing your intelligence.

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.

Lol, what? If Murali was around, I will bet my arse that they will be testing normal actions too. The issue is there is no high profile player questioning the system. That is the very reason I want Lyon and Ashwin tested. An odd delivery exceeding 15 degrees, and a ban, and antics from BCCI, will force ICC to go for a sane option, and allowing peer review of the process. Frankly, I don't see an improvement at all. There is a fixed limit of 15 degrees, and for any normal distribution you cannot set limits. Only thing you can set are probability limits.

If the limit is set like "the likelihood of a delivery exceeding 15 degrees should be <0.1%" I would agree with a definition as such. And there had been absolutely no improvement in calibration and testing controls.

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.

This is a circular argument. Certain countries produce "illegal" actions, because they are preferentially selected as "illegal" and preferentially tested. Unless there is blanket testing or testing of a representative sample, you cannot make this claim.