Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[TheJediBrah]

This bit is 100% true though, wish more casual fans understood it.



Probably the only argument against this would be long sleeves?

Yeah this is fair enough. I doubt the vast majority of chuckers, or alleged chuckers, were doing it on purpose.

I have doubts about Saeed Ajmal though. He knew what he was doing.

 

[Burgey]

Not sure how this

In the 17th over of Australia's innings, [Pakistan] umpire Khizer Hayat examined the ball and said its seam had been tampered with....
Though [Australian] umpire Peter Parker was initially unconvinced, a report was submitted to [New Zealand] match referee Graham Dowling. With little evidence and no thought of consulting the Sri Lankan management, Dowling issued an extraordinary press release, stating: "The Sri Lankan captain, Arjuna Ranatunga, was notified that the condition of the ball had clearly been altered by a member or members of his team during the course of the 17th over...

squares with this

As Australian influence grew during the early '90s, the country's administrators seemed to declare themselves moral guardians of the game. Just as it was their duty to rid the game of the Asians who would pick at a seam, they felt obliged to crack down on the chuckers who threatened to bring cricket into disrepute.

 

[Burgey]

This bit is 100% true though, wish more casual fans understood it.



Probably the only argument against this would be long sleeves?

Yeah I think this is absolutely spot on tbh.

 

[Starfighter]

Yeah this is fair enough. I doubt the vast majority of chuckers, or alleged chuckers, were doing it on purpose.

I have doubts about Saeed Ajmal though. He knew what he was doing.

Not the only one. The West Indies actually re-defined throwing to excuse Griffith's disgraceful action.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Starfighter will know a lot more to me but until recently I think cricket board executives around the world presumed themselves to have a much greater ability (and right) to, shall we say, get involved in the details of the game than would be considered remotely proper today. Modern views around propriety and appropriateness are exactly that, modern.

I'll take your word for it but it's not like this happened in the 50s tbf.

Anyway, it's about whether or not an executive getting involved to that degree is something you feel is dodgy. Not whether it's accepted as something that happens. If hair/Emerson were influenced by that kind of pressure, the "he didn't do anything wrong" thing isn't something I can agree with.

 

[Starfighter]

Not sure how this
squares with this

The amazing thing about that passage is that it's supposedly a bit of racist whatever that they didn't consult the Sri Lankan management before the finding was announced.

 

[Spark]

I'll take your word for it but it's not like this happened in the 50s tbf.

I think most of this changed in the late 90s and early 00s with stuff like the Warne/Waugh bookies saga, Cronje, various other forms of obvious corruption coming to light etc etc and the general substantial lift in the professionalism (and, more importantly, commercialisation) of the game. You start to see a lot more "normal" corporate governance structures appearing around that time rather than cricket being the personal fief of some very powerful individuals who see no limits to their authority within the sport in a country.

 

[Burgey]

Absolutely it happened in the 50s. There's a stack of literature on cables going back and forth between Lord's and Jolimont St about bowling actions ahead of a couple of the late 50s/ early 60s tours.

Mind you, some of those guys had filthy ****ing actions. Seriously. Murali's doosra levels of bad

 

[OverratedSanity]

Absolutely it did. There's a stack of literature on cables going back and forth between Lord's and Jolimont St about bowling actions ahead of a couple of the late 50s/ early 60s tours.

Mind you, some of those guys had filthy ****ing actions. Seriously.

You misunderstand me, I meant the Murali thing didn't happen in the 50s so using what was seen as acceptable in the 50s to justify it doesn't feel right.

It's sus imo. If hair/Emerson actually felt he was chucking fair enough. If he was egged on by someone from Cricket Australia, he ****ed up and have failed in being impartial judges.

 

[Burgey]

You misunderstand me, I meant the Murali thing didn't happen in the 50s so using what was seen as acceptable in the 50s to justify it doesn't feel right.

Ah sorry. Yeah fair enough.

 

[Burgey]

You start to see a lot more "normal" corporate governance structures appearing around that time

Which have now developed to the point where those governance structures have pretty much paralyzed CA in the way it's dealt with the Warner thing this year.

 

[Spark]

Which have now developed to the point where those governance structures have pretty much paralyzed CA in the way it's dealt with the Warner thing this year.

Oh yeah, definitely not an unalloyed positive, not least because it's allowed the game to be taken over by mining industry hacks which think a sports administration body is exactly the same as a publicly traded business to be squeezed for every single dollar it's worth for short term shareholder value despite, you know, it not being that at all.

Amazing that it's still not dawned on them that trying to sheet home public criticism onto the players to protect CA's public image is the worst possible thing to do for your public image when the players are your representatives.

 

[Starfighter]

Oh yeah, definitely not an unalloyed positive, not least because it's allowed the game to be taken over by mining industry hacks which think a sports administration body is exactly the same as a publicly traded business to be squeezed for every single dollar it's worth for short term shareholder value despite, you know, it not being that at all.

It's funny that the corporatisation fo cricket has been brought up, because as you allude to the standard of corporate governance recently has been absolutely shocking.

 

[Shady Slim]

hey fellas i think this "murali chucking" deal may well warrant its own thread. no way it could end badly i reckon lets make one

 

[PlayerComparisons]

hey fellas i think this "murali chucking" deal may well warrant its own thread. no way it could end badly i reckon lets make one

Should I make it?

 

[ataraxia]

Should I make it?

Yes, something new like Murali v Warne would be a nice change from these repetitive Kallis threads.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Yes, something new like Murali v Warne would be a nice change from these repetitive Kallis threads.

Maybe something like a “Was Murali a chucker?” poll. There’s no way it could end badly right

Edit: oh wait there already is one lol.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I daresay, if that article is any guide to his book, that Nigel Brookes probably believes that the leg-side limitation on fielders was brought in after Bodyline. His attempts to set up the idea that the Sri Lankans had reason to feel that they were being dicked around with right from the start by being sent from Cairns to Hobart. Well in 1958, after losing the Brisbane test, MCC were sent to Tasmania to play two matches before going Adelaide to play South Australia ahead of the third test... in Melbourne. As @Burgey said, junk. It's an attempt at setting up the thesis of the article either coming from the ignorance of the writer or relying on that of the reader.

As for administration, I haven't looked into this in detail, but my impression of how it worked in, say, the 50s is that it was sort of like if Cricket Australia was to be staffed and run entirely by the National Selection Panel, a chairman, a treasurer and, say, Allan Border and Paul Sheehan. It'd have been a bit more sophisticated in the 90s, but perhaps not that much more.

 

[honestbharani]

See, no substantive response to what I said at all. Because there isn't any.

You can say Hair made wrong calls for whatever reason, but to argue there was a conspiracy involving CA to somehow persecute a side the hosts would have beaten 3-0 if the visitors had fielded 15 players is laughable. There was just no reason to do it. FMD you'd want Murali bowling from both ends in Aus. He averaged 70 with the ball here.

It's also noteworthy the umpire who said the ball in Perth had been tampered with was that renowned Australian white nationalist Khizar Hayat. The match referee who said it had been tampered with was a Kiwi.

If the ICC had told SL Murali's action had been reported pre-tour, this would and could have been completely avoided, and the game would have been much better for it. Instead, it came to all that.

I think the calls were not made on cricketing reasons and it was decided even before a ball was bowled. Its really that simple.

And the sniffer dog thing is the real paradox here. It maybe used on everyone of the general populace but it seems the writer is suggesting they were used for the SL cricketers and not for cricketers from NZ or Eng. Unless we know for sure that is not the case, we cannot rule out that SL were treated as a 3rd world nation coz it honestly seems pretty probable for that timeframe.

 

[kevinw]

Cricinfo reporting that Ballance has signed a 2y deal with Zimbabwe cricket. Probably the best thing really. He can make a new start and he at least accepted responsibility and fault for his actions which many at Yorkshire have failed to do. He was so good in his first stint of Test cricket. Shame it unravelled, he could still be a fixture of England's top order (not with Bazball though!)