Akila Dananjaya reported for suspect bowling action

[the big bambino]

I'm more embarrassed for all the Aussies who are adamant their 'country' was once a colony.

I wonder if the inmates at Alcatraz think they're living in a American colony as well.

There are no inmates at Alcatraz. Alcatraz has been closed for over half a century

 

[Migara]

I don't think anyone disagrees, or thinks that testing methods are fine the way they are. The reason there's back and forth in this discussion is the implication from Migara that we shouldn't be reporting or banning chuckers at all, or that anyone reported is being unfairly treated, because the testing mechanism isn't perfect. Which is pretty absurd IMO

I ma trying hard to find out where I have said so.

While keeping the current system of testing reported ones, random testing of non reported ones should be performed as a quality assurance of the test.

This was my stance. Afterall you don't seem to have any grounds to comment about educational system of Hong Kong while missing a point like above in a simple internet conversation.

 

[Migara]

Anyway I learned today SL has blanket testing of diabetes.

As matter of fact, yes we have, at least on theory. Prevalence is 12%, so one in every eight adults is diabetic, so population screening is the accepted method. It gets no where there without enough funds though. While testing people with risk factors (yeah, similar to reported by umpires), the guidelines are to test every adult, at least once a year.

 

[the big bambino]

Thats just one disease though. The usual procedure is that a Doctor uses their experience and reviews your symptoms before recommending a specific test. First the visual examination then the confirming test. Sound familiar?

Look your post at 142 admits the efficacy of the present system. You highlighted it in red. Random or blanket testing would be costly, unnecessary and inconvenient. And really you' have to keep testing non reported bowlers wouldn't you? I mean if reported bowlers can be tested again and again then you'd have to be consistent and test, say Ashwin or Lyon every 6 or so months to maintain your data points of reference wouldn't you? I can't imagine any player or national board being happy for long with such a procedure. Especially when no one sees any need for it. Your recommendation is based on a belief SL is being singled out. They aren't. Every player is reviewed every match they play. So no one is being treated differently and everyone is having their actions reviewed under the same process.

 

[Daemon]

Had no idea everyone in SL is a bed wetter

ffs did no one get this

 

[Starfighter]

ffs did no one get this

I did, I just didn't think it worth noting.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I ma trying hard to find out where I have said so.



This was my stance. Afterall you don't seem to have any grounds to comment about educational system of Hong Kong while missing a point like above in a simple internet conversation.

**** you're can be a tool. Do you know what "implication" means? How about worry about not making yourself look stupid before trying to say that I am.

 

[Maximas]

He's not wrong though. You don't hear about non sub-continental teams spitting the dummy and threatening to go home/refusing to come back on to field unless they get their way.

The rules were not changed for Murali, making his premise false.

Also it's just typical and annoying baiting

 

[Migara]

**** you're can be a tool. Do you know what "implication" means? How about worry about not making yourself look stupid before trying to say that I am.

Touche. But you still look stupid

 

[Migara]

Look your post at 142 admits the efficacy of the present system. You highlighted it in red. Random or blanket testing would be costly, unnecessary and inconvenient. And really you' have to keep testing non reported bowlers wouldn't you? I mean if reported bowlers can be tested again and again then you'd have to be consistent and test, say Ashwin or Lyon every 6 or so months to maintain your data points of reference wouldn't you? I can't imagine any player or national board being happy for long with such a procedure. Especially when no one sees any need for it. Your recommendation is based on a belief SL is being singled out. They aren't. Every player is reviewed every match they play. So no one is being treated differently and everyone is having their actions reviewed under the same process.

This is a failed argument made over and over again. How much it would cost to test say 15 bowlers in random? Much less than what ICC spends per day. "I mean if reported bowlers can be tested again and again then you'd have to be consistent and test," - This has nothing to do with random testing. You do it, keep the data, and the fella chucks, then send for remedial action. After some time once enough data is available the whole process can be reviewed with experts. My recommendation is baded on scientific facts. Just because it put your team and bowlers in a more vulnerable position, you see it as nationalistic bias.

 

[cnerd123]

The ICC doesn't even have to test international cricketers - local club cricketers in the neighborhood of the testing facilities with clean looking actions would be sufficient.

 

[Victor Ian]

Let's say we apply a percentages approach to chucking... How does that work? Do we check for a chuck when wickets are taken? Maybe with an on screen protractor! Do we overlook the occasional chuck if the rate is below a threshold?
Do we then realise that no balls are a similar thing with variability and send bowlers to remedial school if they bowl too many? Do we, upon calling a no ball, get a clean bowler to have a bowl for comparison to know if it really was a no ball?
Should we claim that bowlers from the PIS countries have had difficult formative conditions to develop in and set quotas for remedial action such that 50 percent of remedial come from SANE countries? Can SANE countries bowl a certain percent of chucking players to keep their percentages of chuckers equal? Is this why South Africa gave Amla a bowl?

 

[the big bambino]

This is a failed argument made over and over again. How much it would cost to test say 15 bowlers in random? Much less than what ICC spends per day. "I mean if reported bowlers can be tested again and again then you'd have to be consistent and test," - This has nothing to do with random testing. You do it, keep the data, and the fella chucks, then send for remedial action. After some time once enough data is available the whole process can be reviewed with experts. My recommendation is baded on scientific facts. Just because it put your team and bowlers in a more vulnerable position, you see it as nationalistic bias.

I was just countering your diabetes analogy. Professional and experienced observation is an efficacious component for diagnosing an eventual outcome. Whether sporting, medical or any other. I don't care whether you think it wouldn't be costly. Fact is your suggestion, while capable of occuring, is unnecessary. Everyone, including SL, are happy with the present system. The only reason you advance your suggestion is a perceived bias against your own team. As has been shown this is not so, and is not even a complaint of the notoriously over sensitive SL board. Therefore there is no good reason for it. Your last sentence is projection.

 

[Migara]

Let's say we apply a percentages approach to chucking... How does that work? Do we check for a chuck when wickets are taken? Maybe with an on screen protractor! Do we overlook the occasional chuck if the rate is below a threshold?
Do we then realise that no balls are a similar thing with variability and send bowlers to remedial school if they bowl too many? Do we, upon calling a no ball, get a clean bowler to have a bowl for comparison to know if it really was a no ball?
Should we claim that bowlers from the PIS countries have had difficult formative conditions to develop in and set quotas for remedial action such that 50 percent of remedial come from SANE countries? Can SANE countries bowl a certain percent of chucking players to keep their percentages of chuckers equal? Is this why South Africa gave Amla a bowl?

I think you don't understand the bio-statistics.

In biostatistics most actions have a normal distribution or can be transformed in to one. If you bowl hundred off breaks, you will have hundred different mesures of extension different to each other. If you plot all these in a graph, it will give a bell shape curve (or similar one). Now the height and width of this graph defines two important properties. Average and variance. Variance is a representation of how much your arm extension changes between each deliveries. Now with this model, any amount of extension can occur. But when the number is more away from average, more it be comes unlikely. Hence it is a probability. You can calculate probability of a chuck for each player.

Ex.

Player A - Average extension 10 = 1, standard deviation (SD) = 2 - In this player we know that 2.5% of his deliveries will have an extension of less than 14 degrees. The probability of this guy going over 15 degrees is 0.62%

Player B - Average extension = 7, SD = 4: This guy has a chance of going over 15 degrees 2.3%. Despite having a lower average extension player B is likely to chuck the bowl four times more than player A

The rest of you post I cannot understand.

 

[Migara]

I was just countering your diabetes analogy. Professional and experienced observation is an efficacious component for diagnosing an eventual outcome. Whether sporting, medical or any other. I don't care whether you think it wouldn't be costly. Fact is your suggestion, while capable of occuring, is unnecessary. Everyone, including SL, are happy with the present system. The only reason you advance your suggestion is a perceived bias against your own team. As has been shown this is not so, and is not even a complaint of the notoriously over sensitive SL board. Therefore there is no good reason for it. Your last sentence is projection.

The only impression I get is by not agreeing to test controls and keep quality assurance, you are holding on to some information that can send ripples.

 

[Daemon]

Pretty much on board with almost everything Migara says until he reaches this bit

The only impression I get is by not agreeing to test controls and keep quality assurance, you are holding on to some information that can send ripples.

 

[Migara]

Pretty much on board with almost everything Migara says until he reaches this bit

You means ICC and their supporters.Not a particular person.

 

[Daemon]

Well yes, I disagree with that. I don't think there's a conspiracy to hide information.

 

[Migara]

Hiding information it self can be regarded conspiracy.

 

[Daemon]

And I don't think they're hiding any information that would be material to the cricketing world.