The biggest spinner of the cricket ball?

[Migara]

Interesting tidbit from the series where Murali was called, IIRC from the test prior. One of the commentators, I think it was Simon O'Donnell, pointed out that his action had deteriorated throughout the day presumably to fatigue, and stopped just short of outright calling it illegal on air.

Simon O' Donnel called Aravinda de Silva useless (that is after taking SL team to a win in one or two ODIs), to see him hammer 167 in Brisbane. Looks like he did it for Murali too.

 

[Starfighter]

Simon O' Donnel called Aravinda de Silva useless, to see him hammer 167 in Brisbane. Looks like he did it for Murali too.

Way to not engage with the point you intellectually bankrupt dolt.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Simon O' Donnel called Aravinda de Silva useless (that is after taking SL team to a win in one or two ODIs), to see him hammer 167 in Brisbane. Looks like he did it for Murali too.

Was this before 1996 WC? Bit of an off moment for Simon haha

 

[Migara]

Was this before 1996 WC? Bit of an off moment for Simon haha

1988 or 89

 

[Burgey]

Simon O' Donnel called Aravinda de Silva useless (that is after taking SL team to a win in one or two ODIs), to see him hammer 167 in Brisbane. Looks like he did it for Murali too.

A poorly aged take from O’Donnell tstl. One of the better developments in late era channel nine coverage was him getting the arse. Even in early tours when SL really struggled it was obvious Aravinda was a cut above. You only had to watch him for fifteen minutes to see it, and if you couldn’t you shouldn’t have been anywhere near cricket commentary

O’Donnell made a lot of dough breeding race horses apparently.

 

[mr_mister]

What's the actual story with him still bowling the doosra despite being told not to?

Under testing was it deemed he was bowling legally while bowling his offbreak but not his doosra? But then he kept bowling it?

What's the deal!

 

[cnerd123]

TJB having no idea what he's talking about? No! Colour me surprised!

 

[TheJediBrah]

TJB having no idea what he's talking about? No! Colour me surprised!

That's what you got from this? Colour me surprised

 

[Shady Slim]

unironic credit to the mods for keeping this thread open

@honestbharani

You're like a dog with a bone on this issue.

There are two facts, the first you are unhappy with, the second you believe negates the first.

Fact 1. Umpire Hair called Murali under the Laws of cricket as they stood at the time. Just because he had expressed an earlier concern does not prove his actions were premeditated. He called what he saw at the time (be it an optical illusion or otherwise).

Fact 2. Subsequent testing, scientific studies and a revision of the relevant rule has cleared Murali of any 'throwing accusations".

Both facts are indisputable and independent of each other and no amount of debate can change these two historic facts.

I, long ago, accepted these two facts and have accepted that Murali's achievements have been perfectly legal.

I have no respect for those who wish to dispute, distort or deny these factual aspects of cricketing history.

Idiotic claims that past greats were 'chuckers' is an attempt to distort this history and fails to recognise that players in the past (Meckiff for example) were called under the 'old' rules while others (Lock for example) modified their action to satisfy the rules of the day.

Everything's different in a match situation. Training doesn't compare. You're really asking if being in the middle in front of thousands of fans in a pressure situation could be different from a little controlled testing? Especially if you're concerned about your bowling action. Even unconsiously it's likely to change. You'll focus entirely on your action in testing, in a game when you have to worry about bowling the right balls and a hundred other things it all breaks down.

Then there's the people that will just blatantly change their action in either scenario which does happen, it's not a fantasy. You can have guys there to try and make sure the bowler hasn't changed his action but that's about as foolproof as the condom that's been sitting in my wallet for 8 years. And which in-game delivery are they comparing the tested action to? They're not all the same.

None of this is aimed at Murali ftr, it's just a **** system, and it's gotten worse since he retired. More and more chuckers are getting reported and sent away then coming back. Aus domestic cricket has more than a few that just keep operating with no repercussions, and don't even get me started on club cricket. Sunil Narine has been doing it for a decade, the system is clearly broken.

because this and this are two of the best posts i've ever seen on this forum re first murali and second more generally throwing

 

[honestbharani]

@honestbharani

You're like a dog with a bone on this issue.

There are two facts, the first you are unhappy with, the second you believe negates the first.

Fact 1. Umpire Hair called Murali under the Laws of cricket as they stood at the time. Just because he had expressed an earlier concern does not prove his actions were premeditated. He called what he saw at the time (be it an optical illusion or otherwise).

Fact 2. Subsequent testing, scientific studies and a revision of the relevant rule has cleared Murali of any 'throwing accusations".

Both facts are indisputable and independent of each other and no amount of debate can change these two historic facts.

I, long ago, accepted these two facts and have accepted that Murali's achievements have been perfectly legal.

I have no respect for those who wish to dispute, distort or deny these factual aspects of cricketing history.

Idiotic claims that past greats were 'chuckers' is an attempt to distort this history and fails to recognise that players in the past (Meckiff for example) were called under the 'old' rules while others (Lock for example) modified their action to satisfy the rules of the day.

The last part of your post has nothing to do with me, given I was addressing the very specific "lol he is a chucker and a cheat" comments by the two idiots who do this every thread and then say its "baiting" when called out on the racist tropes all over their posts.

You are right in your inference about me as far as Fact 1 goes. To me, it is definitely wrong of any umpire to predetermine what they think of a bowling action and then act on it on their own when there is no actual data to back it up. I also have always pointed out Hair may well have believed he was doing the right thing and he did what was allowed legally then. I am not insisting the way I see it is the way everyone should see it but it is the way I see it. If you think otherwise, that is fine with me. But the fact that you and I are still discussing this shows why Burgey was so desperate to shift the goalposts from his original crappy and false post.

 

[honestbharani]

no uh before the mid 1990s or so the test for chucking was literally whether or not the umpire vibed that the guy was throwing it. it was not x degrees as to extension, bend, hyperextension, congenital defect, none of that factored - the test until the mid 1990s testing wave was done was solely whether the umpire thought the delivery was a throw - this is a fact

Why do you think there were seperate limits of flexion for different types of bowlers?

 

[honestbharani]

Bowling in a match situation when you're trying to get the other guy out is different to bowling under lab conditions. I believe Murali's action is clean, but thinking the test conditions are the same as a real match is a bad argument.

Do you know how the labs measure this? AFAIK they set up and record so many positions of your arm, wrist, elbow and everything and they match those points to what they had in the game and you need to hit a certain percentage of match for it to even be a valid test. If it was so easy to game or cheat this system, Narine would be playing for Windies this WC.

 

[honestbharani]

Interesting tidbit from the series where Murali was called, IIRC from the test prior. One of the commentators, I think it was Simon O'Donnell, pointed out that his action had deteriorated throughout the day presumably to fatigue, and stopped just short of outright calling it illegal on air.

Did he define "deterioration"? And its funny coz I have heard many commentators comment on how bowlers' actions deteriorate over long spells and yet no one here sees the need to infer it as "stopped just short of outright calling it illegal on air".

And of course, the elephant in the room is the fact that everyone is so much more used to actions starting with a straight arm and then seeing the elbow bent a bit to hurl it, than starting with a bent arm and straightening it, which always creates the illusion of thinking the bowler is chucking for some reason, when even the old law clearly said it was legal as long as you dont straighten/bend it irrespective of how you start your action.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Do you know how the labs measure this? AFAIK they set up and record so many positions of your arm, wrist, elbow and everything and they match those points to what they had in the game and you need to hit a certain percentage of match for it to even be a valid test. If it was so easy to game or cheat this system, Narine would be playing for Windies this WC.

OK but surely this is just an approximation otherwise you would just use game footage to make the decision in the first place. My argument isn't that the system can be easily cheated, it's a counter-argument to behaviours in the lab and in the wild being the same.

 

[Burgey]

Did he define "deterioration"? And its funny coz I have heard many commentators comment on how bowlers' actions deteriorate over long spells and yet no one here sees the need to infer it as "stopped just short of outright calling it illegal on air".

And of course, the elephant in the room is the fact that everyone is so much more used to actions starting with a straight arm and then seeing the elbow bent a bit to hurl it, than starting with a bent arm and straightening it, which always creates the illusion of thinking the bowler is chucking for some reason, when even the old law clearly said it was legal as long as you dont straighten/bend it irrespective of how you start your action.

I don’t think I ever saw Murali’s action noticeably deteriorate even after he’d bowled a ton of overs tbh. Seems to be something I notice more with seam bowlers than spinners

 

[Starfighter]

Did he define "deterioration"? And its funny coz I have heard many commentators comment on how bowlers' actions deteriorate over long spells and yet no one here sees the need to infer it as "stopped just short of outright calling it illegal on air".

And of course, the elephant in the room is the fact that everyone is so much more used to actions starting with a straight arm and then seeing the elbow bent a bit to hurl it, than starting with a bent arm and straightening it, which always creates the illusion of thinking the bowler is chucking for some reason, when even the old law clearly said it was legal as long as you dont straighten/bend it irrespective of how you start your action.

Are you seriously that obtuse? He said it looked worse in the afternoon than the morning. There's nothing else to it. And you don't outright call someone a chucker on air, so he hinted.

 

[Burgey]

Why do you think there were seperate limits of flexion for different types of bowlers?

But they weren’t taking those things into account back then. It was just whether an umpire thought you chucked based on his observations.

 

[TheJediBrah]

OK but surely this is just an approximation otherwise you would just use game footage to make the decision in the first place. My argument isn't that the system can be easily cheated, it's a counter-argument to behaviours in the lab and in the wild being the same.

The state of things that this needs to be explained

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I disagree with your assertion that the tests can't be scientifically valid though. You're never going to get perfect experiments when it comes to human behaviour. The lab stuff is probably "good enough".

I looked at the Lloyd paper out of my own interest and they say the same thing as I did about those limitations. Couldn't find anything about the matching stuff, only about Bruce Yardley being brought in to verify that the bowling action was close to a game one. Maybe they did matching in some other analysis?

 

[Burgey]

And you don't outright call someone a chucker on air, so he hinted.

I remember Zimbabwe touring here in either the 90s or early 200s and Blessing Mahwire came on to bowl.

There was complete silence from the comms for his first over, and at the end of it Richie Benaud says wtte of “There’s a lot of things young men need to learn about what’s required to make your way as a bowler in international cricket, and Blessing Mahwire is about to find out what a few of them are.”

i think as close as I’ve heard someone flat out say a bowler was a chucker