The biggest spinner of the cricket ball?

[Burgey]

only about Bruce Yardley being brought in to verify that the bowling action

Bruce himself was called for chucking in the 70s.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

What did the comms say when Amla was bowling that time, because that was the most obvious one I can think of.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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?

"Good enough" isn't beyond reasonable doubt. My main issue here has nothing to do with Murali anyway. It's ongoing right now. I think these discussions would go so much better if everyone could somehow just forget about Murali and how emotional it makes them but I'm not sure that's possible

 

[Starfighter]

What did the comms say when Amla was bowling that time, because that was the most obvious one I can think of.

Lol no, Amla's action was saintly compared to Ajmal's. In any case it's a bit easier with someone who barely bowls. Here you go:

 

[Shady Slim]

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

correct

why do i have to reskin the same sentence over and over again. before they went through the big science, testing, and degrees of flexion boom, whether or not a bowler chucked was solely based on if the umpire, subjectively, based on a vibes criteria, thought he or she threw the ****in ball. sometimes when you mash potatoes you get mash potatoes, this is not difficult!!

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lol no, Amla's action was saintly compared to Ajmal's. In any case it's a bit easier with someone who barely bowls. Here you go:

14.99999 degrees

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Lol no, Amla's action was saintly compared to Ajmal's. In any case it's a bit easier with someone who barely bowls. Here you go:

That looks throwy as hell to me tbh

 

[Burgey]

Bloody hell

 

[Starfighter]

That looks throwy as hell to me tbh

Oh it is, I strongly doubt he was within the limit like the comms were trying to imply. But Amla is nothing compared to Ajmal in County Cricket just before he was banned. It was shocking.

This one against SA was so bad I actually screen recorded the video at the time.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

correct

why do i have to reskin the same sentence over and over again. before they went through the big science, testing, and degrees of flexion boom, whether or not a bowler chucked was solely based on if the umpire, subjectively, based on a vibes criteria, thought he or she threw the ****in ball. sometimes when you mash potatoes you get mash potatoes, this is not difficult!!

Yeah I think everyone is talking past each other here. It's possible for both the following to be true and fine:

- Hair called Murali based on his own judgement which at the time was the only way to call chucking.
- Hair was proven wrong by subsequent scientific testing

You could make an argument that the entire affair turned out well for everyone: Murali got to keep his records, cricket now had a formal test to deal with chucking, and people are still having online meltdowns about it 30 years later.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As the thread seems to have taken a turn down "Who's got the cruddiest action" boulevard I feel contractually obliged to mention Ian Meckiff:

 

[Burgey]

Jim Burke (iirc) also had an absolute shocker.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Inzi was my favourite

 

[Starfighter]

Inzi was my favourite

The amazing thing is the lack of control despite the throwing.

 

[Burgey]

Inzi was my favourite

Jesus Christ

I’ve got some questions about this.
Chief among them why Inzi of all people is bowling the 9th over of what looks like a test innings?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

It was an ODI I think haha. Pakistan won as well.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

What's the deal!

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Fair enough but the original point that brought about the discussion was TJB suggesting it can easily be cheated, which, as usual, is just bollocks.

 

[honestbharani]

My main issue here has nothing to do with Murali anyway.

Wonder why you bring it up everytime someone talks about Murali in a thread then?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fair enough but the original point that brought about the discussion was TJB suggesting it can easily be cheated, which, as usual, is just bollocks.

round we go again. It's not bullocks, that the system is very easily cheated is common sense and widely accepted by most people in this thread. It's happening right now. Narine has been "bowling" for a decade. You're just refusing to believe anything that might be perceived as not being in 100% support of "MuRaLi pRoVeD"

I've said this 3 times already in this thread. You need to forget ****ing Murali because the second his name comes up your minds all clamp shut and thoughtful discussion flies out the window