Akila Dananjaya reported for suspect bowling action

[TheJediBrah]

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.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. No country is being "preferentially selected as illegal". I don't know why you have paranoid delusions about this but I hope that people actually in places of authority in Sri Lankan cricket aren't as in denial about it as you are, because then the issue will never be fixed.

This is what a sensible and potentially productive attitude regarding the issue would look like:

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..

 

[Flem274*]

sa and nz aren't in the big 3 and of guys who got to test cricket, i can only think of botha and williamson getting pinged. domestically, nick beard got nailed and he was fringe for his province anyway.

looking at their regular bowlers you'd be pushing uphill to say any throw. im all for a good big 3 troll but this one is doomed to fail.

 

[Migara]

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. No country is being "preferentially selected as illegal". I don't know why you have paranoid delusions about this but I hope that people actually in places of authority in Sri Lankan cricket aren't as in denial about it as you are, because then the issue will never be fixed.This is what a sensible and potentially productive attitude regarding the issue would look like:

The issue is you fail to understand the logic of the answer.

Q: Why some nations produce more illegal bowlers?
A:
1. They truely produce illegal bowlers
2. They are caught because they are tested

Now, unless you show me with evidence that some nations truely produce more illegal bowlers, assumption 2 also holds equal importance. The only way to prove assumption 1 is to blanket test or random test players. ICC is reluctant to do so, and keeps the tests of controls hidden. Once that happens, assumption 2 gets more importance.

I am open to both options. To believe one of them, it needs data. And that is what ICC has been hiding for a decade.

 

[StephenZA]

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

These things are never absolutes. Some debate because the evidence is not rigorous enough either which way.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ts-race-performance-study-finds-idUSKBN19L1EE
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121205200059.htm
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026(17)30105-9/fulltext

So may have a small effect, but in all probability insignificant. In truth the effects may/may not work for some and probably gives almost no benefit; but when you at the very top every little bit helps, even if just pschologically.

 

[Starfighter]

The thing with option is one is that the countries which are having more illegal bowlers are the ones who have had dodgy bowlers in the recent past and now are having a generation of imitators coming through. If past history is a guide throwing crises almost seems to come in waves.

 

[Migara]

looking at their regular bowlers you'd be pushing uphill to say any throw. im all for a good big 3 troll but this one is doomed to fail.

The entire problem lies here. Subjectivity. To test, you should "feel" like the bowler is chucking.

Cut the crap, blanket test or random test them.

 

[cnerd123]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/nov/06/maurice-holmes-english-murali-spin

https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/chucking-disease-grips-juniors/

Stuff like this is why we don't see dodgy actions from certain countries IMO

 

[StephenZA]

I think the issue here may be coaching at school and young level. SA has somebody like Paul Adams and his action was questioned a lot. But if you in general tried to bowl like Muralitharan or even Malinga with his slingy arm action in SA your coach would pull you aside early on and 'correct' your action and get you bowling 'properly'. I am unsure what happens in SL, but considering the number of bowling actions from SL that would not pass muster here in SA at school level you would think it is less rigorously coached. So when it gets to international it gets questioned by the countries who are more rigorous in how they treat their players.


Just to be clear I don't think Muralitharan threw the ball, I personally think he was fine.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The issue is you fail to understand the logic of the answer.

Q: Why some nations produce more illegal bowlers?
A:
1. They truely produce illegal bowlers
2. They are caught because they are tested

Now, unless you show me with evidence that some nations truely produce more illegal bowlers, assumption 2 also holds equal importance. The only way to prove assumption 1 is to blanket test or random test players. ICC is reluctant to do so, and keeps the tests of controls hidden. Once that happens, assumption 2 gets more importance.

I am open to both options. To believe one of them, it needs data. And that is what ICC has been hiding for a decade.

No one fails to understand your "logic". It would be clear to a child. That doesn't mean it's fact.

Option 2 is laughable. Giving it any credence whatsoever is laughable. It's a textbook paranoid delusion because you refuse to accept the obvious truth.

Of course the testing is a joke from a scientific point of view. It probably will be for a long time to come, maybe it always will be, but using that as an excuse to try to claim that your country is being picked on . . . come on, surely you can see how ridiculous it is that you consider it more likely that there is an ICC chucking conspiracy targeting Sri Lanka, than that Sri Lankan cricket has an issue with developing illegal actions

 

[Maximas]

Hmm the big new thing in Sri Lankan spin bowling always gets done for chucking, Kaushal, Senanayake and now Akila.

No suspicion on my part of course you can't argue with the hard data, as others has pointed out it seems more likely a failure of coaching

 

[the big bambino]

Visual observation by experienced practitioners isn't subjective. It is the basis of coaching and an acceptable standard to begin a process of investigation of a possible infringement. All players are subjected to it in every match played, including the big 3, so no one is being singled out or protected.

 

[Starfighter]

Finding of chuckers definitely happens at a lower level here. Gannon was found to throw at state level and Bosisio was just just pulled up too so it's not like it doesn't happen.

 

[Daemon]

Make the boards responsible for fielding players that throw. It's the easiest way to get them weeding out the problems at a grassroots level.

 

[Maximas]

Finding of chuckers definitely happens at a lower level here. Gannon was found to throw at state level and Bosisio was just just pulled up too so it's not like it doesn't happen.

Probably helps that there's a lab available here - SLC having the resources to properly test their FC or even national level bowlers would surprise me, but having said that it doesn't appear that there's any sort of flagging process, which is an issue

 

[trundler]

Crying little Lankans amirite.

 

[Migara]

Visual observation by experienced practitioners isn't subjective. It is the basis of coaching and an acceptable standard to begin a process of investigation of a possible infringement. All players are subjected to it in every match played, including the big 3, so no one is being singled out or protected.

It has been proved visual observation is a failure in judging elbow extensions.

What I find amusing is that reluctance of every body to test the normal actions. Instead of going on and on about coaching, filtering, yadda, yadda, yadda. It is like everybody wants to hide some skeletons in the cupboard.

 

[StephenZA]

It has been proved visual observation is a failure in judging elbow extensions.

What I find amusing is that reluctance of every body to test the normal actions. Instead of going on and on about coaching, filtering, yadda, yadda, yadda. It is like everybody wants to hide some skeletons in the cupboard.

They did test normal actions? It was one of the reasons they brought the spin and seam bowlers extensions into similar ranges. My understanding was that the 15 deg decision was considered appropriate because it was the point at which it was visually discernible for a person to see a seam bowler as 'throwing'. A number of bowlers with 'good; actions where found to be beyond the original angle limits (the 5 and 10 deg) so there is no skeletons on this issue, or at least they are on full display.

 

[the big bambino]

It has been proved visual observation is a failure in judging elbow extensions.

What I find amusing is that reluctance of every body to test the normal actions.

Except the tests on the bowler shows he throws and he’s been banned for internationals. So initial observation correct.

There’s no need to test normal actions.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It has been proved visual observation is a failure in judging elbow extensions.

What I find amusing is that reluctance of every body to test the normal actions. Instead of going on and on about coaching, filtering, yadda, yadda, yadda. It is like everybody wants to hide some skeletons in the cupboard.

Yeah, no. A bowler with a clean looking action might feasibly be fractionally over the limit. There's zero evidence that it's possible to have a dodgy looking action that's actually totally clean except in the case of certain freaks with permabent arms.

 

[Starfighter]

It has been proved visual observation is a failure in judging elbow extensions.

Not really.