The biggest spinner of the cricket ball?

[Starfighter]

ICC study reveals that 99% of bowlers throw

Extensive research conducted by the International Cricket Council has revealed that 99% of bowlers in the history of cricket have been throwers

www.espncricinfo.com

That may be a good citation I suppose. And Daily telegraph too.

McGrath and Pollock would have sued Daily Telegraph for libel if it was not the case.

Bottom line, under previous tolerance lomits, mcGrath and Pollock would have been out and out chuckers. Ironically, Murali would have survived limited to his off break.

It's well known that the specific attribution of 13° to McGrath around 2004 was a complete fabrication and that we don't have a specific figure on him, thanks to research ethics.

I have several of Portus's papers. Murali's average extensions for the doosra are towards the upper end to right on the limit, and enough to be an outlier in some studies.

Murali could have sued any number of papers, Darrell Hair and Ross Emerson for libel too.

 

[StatsLance]

MacGill

 

[Migara]

It's well known that the specific attribution of 13° to McGrath around 2004 was a complete fabrication and that we don't have a specific figure on him, thanks to research ethics.

I have several of Portus's papers. Murali's average extensions for the doosra are towards the upper end to right on the limit, and enough to be an outlier in some studies.

Murali could have sued any number of papers, Darrell Hair and Ross Emerson for libel too.

Once again wrong. It is well known that Australian media trying to coverup that Hair / Emerson was asked to call Murali, and it shows by them even calling his leg breaks. Simply they did not see anything in Murali's action, but was just calling it like headless chicken. McGrath extended 13 defgrees according to the ICC research. Accepting the researches that only suits your argument and omitting others is called blatant bias. Secondly, you have to show us evidence that 13 degrees was a fabrication with neutral media. Aussie tabloids don't count.

Murali cannot sue the umpires because he was called under the existing - but wrong, and stone age - laws. Your arguments falls flat on face there.

 

[Starfighter]

Once again wrong. It is well known that Australian media trying to coverup that Hair / Emerson was asked to call Murali, and it shows by them even calling his leg breaks. Simply they did not see anything in Murali's action, but was just calling it like headless chicken. McGrath extended 13 defgrees according to the ICC research. Accepting the researches that only suits your argument and omitting others is called blatant bias. Secondly, you have to show us evidence that 13 degrees was a fabrication with neutral media. Aussie tabloids don't count.

Murali cannot sue the umpires because he was called under the existing - but wrong, and stone age - laws. Your arguments falls flat on face there.

The only reference for 13 deg for McGrath was a comment Murali made on a radio talk show without any kind of attribution or backing. This was then reported onwards without sufficient scrutiny. He was actually censured by the SLCB for that comment.
I'm not 'omitting' research, I'm using what's there in peer reviewed literature and retrievable on the internet. Meanwhile you're the one who's crying conspiracy when it's pretty damn open what Hair and Emerson were doing.

The same nationalistic bias that leads you to simply make up history is strongly showing here.

 

[Adders]

Guys, how is this even a debate/argument now?

Aren't you aware that TJB settled all this some years ago with a protractor??? It's done, time to move on.

 

[Burgey]

Nope... as evidenced by the video of him actually bowling with a ****ing weight tied to his elbow. But sure, keep harping on the hatred.

Look, you don’t go and get tested for a specific delivery then remediate your action in light of the results unless there’s an issue with it. Why would you? There’s literally a report on the test results produced in full which is publicly available.

This is not a controversial take, even though it is, of course, being brought to you by the Ku Klux Klan over here.

 

[Burgey]

Once again wrong. It is well known that Australian media trying to coverup that Hair / Emerson was asked to call Murali, and it shows by them even calling his leg breaks. Simply they did not see anything in Murali's action, but was just calling it like headless chicken. McGrath extended 13 defgrees according to the ICC research. Accepting the researches that only suits your argument and omitting others is called blatant bias. Secondly, you have to show us evidence that 13 degrees was a fabrication with neutral media. Aussie tabloids don't count.

Murali cannot sue the umpires because he was called under the existing - but wrong, and stone age - laws. Your arguments falls flat on face there.

What would you expect Hair to have done at the time he called Murali if he thought he chucked other than call him? There were no protocols when he called Murali in that Boxing Day test.

Certainly agree re Emerson. Was grandstanding on his part of the highest order

 

[Burgey]

Brett Lee was a chucker too by the same measures.

Brett Lee was absolutely a chucker when he really bent his back. As was Courtney Walsh when he bowled his effort ball.

 

[Burgey]

McGrath and Pollock would have sued Daily Telegraph for libel if it was not the case.

Why would they do that? How is it a sleight on your character if you bend and straighten your arm when you bowl a cricket ball ffs?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Lmao "well it must be true because they didn't sue anyone"

 

[Burgey]

That's also why Pizzagate is obviously real.

 

[honestbharani]

Look, you don’t go and get tested for a specific delivery then remediate your action in light of the results unless there’s an issue with it. Why would you? There’s literally a report on the test results produced in full which is publicly available.

This is not a controversial take, even though it is, of course, being brought to you by the Ku Klux Klan over here.

Yeah and those old rules were wrong, not his action. Its funny when suddenly proven scientic research is immaterial when it doesn't suit your view.

 

[honestbharani]

The only reference for 13 deg for McGrath was a comment Murali made on a radio talk show without any kind of attribution or backing. This was then reported onwards without sufficient scrutiny. He was actually censured by the SLCB for that comment.
I'm not 'omitting' research, I'm using what's there in peer reviewed literature and retrievable on the internet. Meanwhile you're the one who's crying conspiracy when it's pretty damn open what Hair and Emerson were doing.

The same nationalistic bias that leads you to simply make up history is strongly showing here.

There is an actual thread on CW where this was discussed, with all links available. I dont know how much of it has been archived and therefore harder to find on google. But these links showed up on the first 5 results for me.

ICC study reveals that 99% chuck

Extensive research conducted by the International Cricket Council has revealed that 99% of bowlers in the history of cricket have been chuckers

www.espncricinfo.com

ICC on right course by attacking chucking problem by degrees

"Chucker" is one of the worst labels anyone can inflict on a young cricketer. I know, as it happened to me when I was a kid and it hurt deeply.

www.smh.com.au

McGrath flexed 12 degrees myth

Some people still believe that McGrath flexed his elbow 12 degrees after Murali made the claim in an interview. When confronted about where he got that information Murali blamed it on misrepresentation by the media. No testing by the ICC or anyone else showed McGrath to be flexing his elbow by...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[mr_mister]

Who had the dodgiest looking action after Murali that got to continue playing?

 

[Line and Length]

Yeah and those old rules were wrong, not his action. Its funny when suddenly proven scientic research is immaterial when it doesn't suit your view.

I'm not sure that the old rules were "wrong", they simply needed refining. They caught out the obvious "chuckers" and they were called accordingly. The whole issue came to a head with the 'calling' of Murali. IMO there initially was a problem with some of his deliveries but his action came under closer scrutiny than normal because of his elbow, which couldn't be fully straightened.

Remediation of one type of delivery and then, following subsequent testing, Muralitharan's bowling action was cleared by the ICC after biomechanical analysis at the University of Western Australia and at the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology in 1996. The tests led to the conclusion that his action created the 'optical illusion of throwing'.

To accuse umpire Hair of being part of some sort of conspiracy is unfair and a little naive. Hair acted on what he saw, just as Colin Egar had 'called' Ian Meckiff in the '60s.

Forget the accusations of nationalistic bias (against both Murali and Hair). The issue was and still is about refining a perfectly fair rule.

 

[Migara]

The only reference for 13 deg for McGrath was a comment Murali made on a radio talk show without any kind of attribution or backing. This was then reported onwards without sufficient scrutiny. He was actually censured by the SLCB for that comment.
I'm not 'omitting' research, I'm using what's there in peer reviewed literature and retrievable on the internet. Meanwhile you're the one who's crying conspiracy when it's pretty damn open what Hair and Emerson were doing.

The same nationalistic bias that leads you to simply make up history is strongly showing here.

Er, no. Daily Telegraph references to two people who were in the commitee, namely Derek Pringle and Angus Fraser. Michael Holding who headed the committee publicly declared that 99% of bowlers go over the limit. Here it is only you fabricating things. No one else.

When a leg break is twiced no balled, it is evident what it is. Even a tree can see it, smell it taste it and feel it.

 

[Migara]

Yeah and those old rules were wrong, not his action. Its funny when suddenly proven scientic research is immaterial when it doesn't suit your view.

Burgey and accepting scientific evidence only can bee seen in this sentence.

 

[cnerd123]

I'm not sure that the old rules were "wrong", they simply needed refining. They caught out the obvious "chuckers" and they were called accordingly. The whole issue came to a head with the 'calling' of Murali. IMO there initially was a problem with some of his deliveries but his action came under closer scrutiny than normal because of his elbow, which couldn't be fully straightened.

Remediation of one type of delivery and then, following subsequent testing, Muralitharan's bowling action was cleared by the ICC after biomechanical analysis at the University of Western Australia and at the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology in 1996. The tests led to the conclusion that his action created the 'optical illusion of throwing'.

To accuse umpire Hair of being part of some sort of conspiracy is unfair and a little naive. Hair acted on what he saw, just as Colin Egar had 'called' Ian Meckiff in the '60s.

Forget the accusations of nationalistic bias (against both Murali and Hair). The issue was and still is about refining a perfectly fair rule.

Love it whenever Murali being tested at HKUST gets a mention:

Murali's throwing controversy resolved at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (CRICKET)

Murali, cricket, Muttiah, muralidaran, muralitharan, world cup, sri lanka, srilanka, australia, england, hair, hare, bccsl

ieda.ust.hk

 

[Burgey]

Yeah and those old rules were wrong, not his action. Its funny when suddenly proven scientic research is immaterial when it doesn't suit your view.

So the umpire operating under the then rules should have just ignored them and not called him? Is that what you're saying? This is a level of bizarro which is out there even by your usual standards

And his doosra was tested under the new rules. Why do you have a problem accepting that?

 

[Burgey]

Who had the dodgiest looking action after Murali?

Murali bowling left handed