Akila Dananjaya reported for suspect bowling action

[Bolo]

I don’t know if it’s either of those things specifically. Hair did exactly what was right. I don’t know if it’s the Warne rivalry either tbh, because when he toured here we’d have been happy to have Murali bowl from both ends - he averaged 70.

It may be that a lot of people thinks it’s over the odds for a bloke to be called under the rules then have those rules changed for him. It’s a very SC reaction to something - when something goes against you, spit the dummy and threaten to go home until you get your way. See also - Pakistan at Lord’s, SL in Adelaide vs England, India any time they don’t like an lbw decision.

Your claim that AUS feels unthreatened by Murali’s average of “70” reveals the problem to be more serious than a warne rivalry. Its an attack on Australia's premier icon, Bradman, the guy who was famous for being not quite good enough to average 100. Your average of 70 includes the ICC farce. In actual test cricket, Murali manages to average well over 100, exposing the mediocre average of Bradman and the inadequacy of Australian cricket in general.

Australians have been willing to do anything to discredit murali to avoid this cold truth that they have failed as a nation.

More seriously, its easy enough to justify a position for or against Murali. Neither position is surprising. But the split in support is surprising. A heavy proportion of Aussies take issue and a heavy proportion of every other country supports him. The difference in AUS perspective cant come from general criticisms as you are suggesting. Aus differs in view due to some circumstance or perspective. Warne rivalry doesn't seem sufficient reason. Perhaps the circumstances around Hair. You say it was the correct call. I cant remember if a general perspective existed outside Aus. But Hairs idea that home advantage should be extended to umpiring and general dislikability had not made him popular. Widespread condemnation of Hairs actions on principle wouldn't surprise me. Did this maybe happen, resulting in an Aus media reaction in his defence against Murali, causing a rift between Aus and the rest of the world? This is a huge work of fiction on my behalf, but something along these lines must have occured

 

[Starfighter]

This is a huge work of fiction on my behalf

No more so than normally.

 

[the big bambino]

Not sure if it was complicated as that. The 2nd para of Burgey's post represents my feelings closely enough. Even more so the treatment of umpires who called him. Guys were made examples of for simply doing their job and sending a message to all umpires they had better umpire in a certain expected way. Thereby compromising the impartiality of their position.

 

[cnerd123]

Lol. The thin skinned cheaters don't like Murali because they had a big waaah about his action but they couldn't bully him out of world cricket.

At that point in time they were already losing out on influence to the subcontinent, what with ODI cricket being so huge and TV money being focused on that region. So insecure that they would no longer be the centre of the cricketing universe, they decided to stomp their feet and make a big fuss on a whole host of issues, with Murali being one of them.

They had been so used to cheating and getting their way, but they couldn't chase Murali out of the game. Logic and science prevailed, and it turns out he 'chucked' as much as McGrath did.

After all this, he then made their premier spinner look inferior everywhere outside of Australia, and he was just universally more well liked than any Australian to have ever played the game.

Murali represents the decline of Australian cricketing influence and a shift in world cricket away from colonial powers. He showed them up to be the cheating whingers we all know they are, and did it all while being an awesome human being with a smile on his face.

That's why Aussies don't like Murali.

 

[Bolo]

Not sure if it was complicated as that. The 2nd para of Burgey's post represents my feelings closely enough. Even more so the treatment of umpires who called him. Guys were made examples of for simply doing their job and sending a message to all umpires they had better umpire in a certain expected way. Thereby compromising the impartiality of their position.

Your sympathy for umps is showing Aus divergence. Not sure its unique to AUS, but a number of countries had encountered Hair in tests and would have no sympathy, even if they considered treatment to be poor if considered in isolation.

 

[Starfighter]

Your sympathy for umps is showing Aus divergence. Not sure its unique to AUS, but a number of countries had encountered Hair in tests and would have no sympathy, even if they considered treatment to be poor if considered in isolation.

Would any of those countries have justification? (Hint: no, they're whingers)

 

[the big bambino]

Lol. The thin skinned cheaters don't like Murali because they had a big waaah about his action but they couldn't bully him out of world cricket.

At that point in time they were already losing out on influence to the subcontinent, what with ODI cricket being so huge and TV money being focused on that region. So insecure that they would no longer be the centre of the cricketing universe, they decided to stomp their feet and make a big fuss on a whole host of issues, with Murali being one of them.

They had been so used to cheating and getting their way, but they couldn't chase Murali out of the game. Logic and science prevailed, and it turns out he 'chucked' as much as McGrath did.

After all this, he then made their premier spinner look inferior everywhere outside of Australia, and he was just universally more well liked than any Australian to have ever played the game.

Murali represents the decline of Australian cricketing influence and a shift in world cricket away from colonial powers. He showed them up to be the cheating whingers we all know they are, and did it all while being an awesome human being with a smile on his face.

That's why Aussies don't like Murali.

Australia was not a colonial power. Could you also stop projecting your own racial insecurities?

 

[Starfighter]

Australia was not a colonial power. Could you also stop projecting your own racial insecurities?

I didn't see that at first. What a seriously ****ty comment to make.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

This is backfiring for *****.

Hong Kong is still under colonial power, right?

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Australia was not a colonial power. Could you also stop projecting your own racial insecurities?

That was just a truly bizarre comment. ***** has clearly completely taken leave of his senses this time

 

[Bolo]

Would any of those countries have justification? (Hint: no, they're whingers)

Im not sure. I think perspectives on umpiring shifted in the 90s. Maybe not to the standards of neutral umpires, but I dont think anyone else was awarding matches to home sides any more. Other umpires were likely nudging games in the right direction instead of making it clear only one outcome was possible. The level of reactions he prompted suggest this is the case.

Anyway, the anger was there whether or not it was justified

 

[TheJediBrah]

That was just a truly bizarre comment. ***** has clearly completely taken leave of his senses this time

He's been a mess lately. I'm a bit worried about him

 

[Maximas]

It may be that a lot of people thinks it’s over the odds for a bloke to be called under the rules then have those rules changed for him. It’s a very SC reaction to something - when something goes against you, spit the dummy and threaten to go home until you get your way.

C'mon

 

[TheJediBrah]

C'mon

He's not wrong though. You don't hear about non sub-continental teams spitting the dummy and threatening to go home/refusing to come back on to field unless they get their way.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don’t know if it’s either of those things specifically. Hair did exactly what was right. I don’t know if it’s the Warne rivalry either tbh, because when he toured here we’d have been happy to have Murali bowl from both ends - he averaged 70.

It may be that a lot of people thinks it’s over the odds for a bloke to be called under the rules then have those rules changed for him. It’s a very SC reaction to something - when something goes against you, spit the dummy and threaten to go home until you get your way. See also - Pakistan at Lord’s, SL in Adelaide vs England, India any time they don’t like an lbw decision.

This isn't even trolling tbh. Highly annoying how regularly SC teams do this. Obviously India were completely justified in their righteous indignation against the cheats in Sydney 08 but the rest of the incidents were basically just "Give me my bat and ball ima go home".

 

[Bolo]

This isn't even trolling tbh. Highly annoying how regularly SC teams do this. Obviously India were completely justified in their righteous indignation against the cheats in Sydney 08 but the rest of the incidents were basically just "Give me my bat and ball ima go home".

SLs refusal to take the field against WI in protest against the outrageous request from the umpires that they stop ball tampering was the peak for me.

Ya, SC teams do this way too often. I dont think its relevant to the murali situation though.

 

[cnerd123]

This isn't even trolling tbh. Highly annoying how regularly SC teams do this. Obviously India were completely justified in their righteous indignation against the cheats in Sydney 08 but the rest of the incidents were basically just "Give me my bat and ball ima go home".

The West Indies did it in 1980s but can't think of any other time when a non Asian team threatened to quit lol

 

[Migara]

Nah. The naked eye may be a poor tool if you're trying to tell the difference between 14 degrees and 16 degrees, but it's pretty accurate if you're just trying to identify an action that is probably illegal. If someone looks like they chuck, chances are they chuck, or are at least close to the limit.

Nah, that is the exact reason science got involved. Sometimes even it it looks a chuck it is not. However the reverse has not been tested. However it was proven with out doubt, cleanest of actions of McGrath and Pollock recorded extensions up to 13 degrees. These looked at a small sample size, and we know in statistics, your chances of finding an extreme value increased when your sample size increases.

put everything in a nutshell;

1. Definition of a chuck is flawed it self - instead of a limit, a likelihood of a chuck is better
2. Testing procedure is flawed - bias (subjective evaluation) in selection of test subjects, poor quality standards if the tests

First is a simple statistical issue. Second has been backed by criticism of the people who pioneered the technology.

There is nothing to do with Murali or Sri Lanka with this stance.

 

[Migara]

Bloke doesn't understand that the rules for chucking were established well before the advent of technology and on evidence only available to the naked eye.

Rules of diagnosing diabetes included tasting pee, but we don't do it amy more to diagnose it. Face it, things do change, so do rules.

 

[the big bambino]

Rules of diagnosing diabetes included tasting pee, but we don't do it amy more to diagnose it. Face it, things do change, so do rules.

Oh come on. You were just looking for an excuse.