What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[Burgey]

You can't function in Saturday cricket without a healthy number of ****s in your side. they're mandatory.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No, not arguably. You have to put him in, because your spectators treated him badly. That's the new way of things, apparently.

Next up, Mitchell Johnson in the England AT XI, because they sung a nasty song about his mum and girlfriend.

Murali doesn't need to be picked in an ATG XI (although yes not picking him would be incorrect) but it would be good if the same country that was primarily responsible for a vicious attempt at discrediting all his achievements (along with some racism thrown in there as icing) with flimsy evidence didn't continue to do it.

 

[Burgey]

the same country that was primarily responsible for a vicious attempt at discrediting all his achievements with flimsy evidence

Murali came here with massive question marks over his action already. Hair absolutely did the right thing in calling him if he thought his action didn't pass muster. Emerson made a dick of himself a couple of years later, but Hair acted completely appropriately given the rules and playing conditions around at the time. You didn't get a polite, private email asking you to report for testing back then so that your feelings weren't hurt even though you were basically relieving for the Yankees. An umpire had to call you if they thought you were chucking.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

You can't function in Saturday cricket without a healthy number of ****s in your side. they're mandatory.

I think me being in the team fulfills the quota.

 

[Burgey]

I think me being in the team fulfills the quota.

I think it probably fills an eight team competition quota tbh.

Or it would if I was on the opposition team sheet.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't want any ****s in my Saturday side so I wouldn't pick Warne.

How boring would cricket be without ****s. That's the only reason I play

 

[TheJediBrah]

Murali came here with massive question marks over his action already. Hair absolutely did the right thing in calling him if he thought his action didn't pass muster. Emerson made a dick of himself a couple of years later, but Hair acted completely appropriately given the rules and playing conditions around at the time. You didn't get a polite, private email asking you to report for testing back then so that your feelings weren't hurt even though you were basically relieving for the Yankees. An umpire had to call you if they thought you were chucking.

Almost think the system was better back then (note: almost). Now it's a joke. You can chuck all you want, get reported, take a break and "fix" your action then come back and keep chucking until you get reported again. Repeat.

 

[Burgey]

I think there needs to be some system where there's independent testing, but agree there's no doubt Murali and a lot of others rorted it as much as possible. I recall after one of many rounds of testing that he was not supposed to bowl the doosra, but of course he kept doing it, and because there was no mechanism for an umpire to call him without his team forfeiting a tour (which let's be honest would have been an improvement for all home fans around the world) there were no consequences for his blatant flouting of the terms of his being allowed to play.

 

[Gob]

Murali came here with massive question marks over his action already. Hair absolutely did the right thing in calling him if he thought his action didn't pass muster. Emerson made a dick of himself a couple of years later, but Hair acted completely appropriately given the rules and playing conditions around at the time. You didn't get a polite, private email asking you to report for testing back then so that your feelings weren't hurt even though you were basically relieving for the Yankees. An umpire had to call you if they thought you were chucking.

I don't think its right tbh. Regardless of he chucked or not, there had to be a better way of handling it instead of crucifying him in front of 100, 000 people in one of the most recognized days in sporting calendar

Also there is no way for Hair to conclusively decide Murali chucked the ball all he had was a suspicion and by now we conclusively know Hair called at least one Murali delivery for chucking which Murali clearly couldn't throw (the leg break Murali bowled after being instructed by Arjuna)

Murali is a great cricketer and if there were suspicions for throwing, it should have gone through the match referee. I don't know about the chucking protocol then but there were match referees

 

[Gob]

I think there needs to be some system where there's independent testing, but agree there's no doubt Murali and a lot of others rorted it as much as possible. I recall after one of many rounds of testing that he was not supposed to bowl the doosra, but of course he kept doing it, and because there was no mechanism for an umpire to call him without his team forfeiting a tour (which let's be honest would have been an improvement for all home fans around the world) there were no consequences for his blatant flouting of the terms of his being allowed to play.

I think this was after Chris Broad called his doors out for throwing. IIRC he didn't bowl the doosra until the rule was changed

 

[Burgey]

I don't think its right tbh. Regardless of he chucked or not, there had to be a better way of handling it instead of crucifying him in front of 100, 000 people in one of the most recognized days in sporting calendar

No, back then there wasn't. It was the initial calling of him which led to the current protocols. Up til then it was getting called or not getting called on the field. The conclusive proof was simply the umpire's decision. See also Ian Meckiff. As an umpire you can't just not do your job because it might hurt a bloke's feelings. What if a miracle happened and he actually bowled effectively and took wickets when the umpire is standing there thinking he's chucking?

The size of the crowds has nothing to do with it ffs. Come on. Do you not call him in front of a (biggish but nothing like 100K) crowd on Boxing Day but go for your life in front of an empty ground in Abu Dhabi?

 

[akilana]

Was it the same time the protractor sale skyrocketed in Australia? If so, be grateful.

 

[Burgey]

Was it the same time the protractor sale skyrocketed in Australia? If so, be grateful.

Nah, it was however the start of the great - and so far unending - SC cricketing victim-complex era

 

[Gob]

No, back then there wasn't. It was the initial calling of him which led to the current protocols. Up til then it was getting called or not getting called on the field. The conclusive proof was simply the umpire's decision. See also Ian Meckiff.

Yeah I checked and there is a long list of bowlers who got called for throwing during games (Ian Redpath, Bruce Yardley etc) with Murali being the last of them. I think it was fine in the early days when there were no other better solution but sufficient technology was definitely there at the time of Murali's throwing or even before that and they should have used them given it's far more accurate than what the ump see

As for the crowd thing, I just think it's not good for the image of the game for such situations to occur

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Just give the video ump a protractor and he can measure every ball bing bong so simple

 

[stephen]

Yep, the Murali/ Hair affair changed the way chucking was handled in cricket. Hair thought he chucked, the Sri Lankan team almost threw in the towel and the ICC threw out the existing laws and tossed Hair under the bus.

It was discovered later in testing that the doosra was almost impossible to bowl biomechanically without breaking the regulation but Murali could due to a deformity. Or something. Either way, most bowlers couldn't legitimately bowl a doosra.

Anyway, I brought that up as a joke reason for not rating Murali (Just as the diuretics was a stupid reason for not rating Warne) and even said it was stupid in my post.

It's true though, Warne is a great cricketer and a **** human, which is one reason to pick Murali over him.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah I checked and there is a long list of bowlers who got called for throwing during games (Ian Redpath, Bruce Yardley etc) with Murali being the last of them. I think it was fine in the early days when there were no other better solution but sufficient technology was definitely there at the time of Murali's throwing or even before that and they should have used them given it's far more accurate than what the ump see

As for the crowd thing, I just think it's not good for the image of the game for such situations to occur

Oh yeah, it's certainly preferable not to be embarrassed in front of people and to have it dealt with in a controlled environment, which is why I think Emerson made a dick of himself when he called him a couple of years later after he'd been cleared. But when Hair did it, if he thought his action was bad, and let's be honest it looked diabolical, he either had to call him or consciously refuse to enforce a law of the game. Which would make his position as an umpire untenable.

 

[Burgey]

Warne is a great cricketer and a **** human, which is one reason to pick Murali over him.

One of several tbf. Murali seems to be a genuinely good bloke. Have never really heard anyone say a bad word about him as a bloke at all.

 

[akilana]

One of several tbf. Murali seems to be a genuinely good bloke. Have never really heard anyone say a bad word about him as a bloke at all.

I’d take Warne over Murali as a person. **** Murali.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I’d take Warne over Murali as a person. **** Murali.

wtf is this now