Do you think Murali was a chucker?

[uvelocity]

this must be the 4th time ive seen this thread in 12 months

 

[grecian]

this must be the 4th time ive seen this thread in 12 months

Yep the threads have certainly gone down since he retired from Test cricket......

 

[uvelocity]

but no new info. i for one cbf

 

[Ruckus]

Oh really? I did a brief search before I made it, couldn't see anything within the last few years with a poll and stuff. Might not have looked hard enough though. Every time the issue is brought up in unrelated threads always hear mods saying go to the "Murali vs Warne" thread or whatever so I just assumed one didn't exist (or perhaps has been locked haha). See no good reason why it has to be in a vs Warne thread either tbh. Really has nothing directly to do with him.

 

[uvelocity]

there was an akmal one most recently uimm

 

[Top_Cat]

Well according to the link rvd provided:

"CAN BOWLERS ADJUST THEIR ACTION IN TESTING?

The member of the panel assigned to work with the bowler will receive video copies of the match from which the bowler was reported. This means the expert will have another point of reference along with the bowler's action from the laboratory testing to measure any changes. If the expert feels the bowler is not replicating their action from match conditions in the laboratory, they have the authority to recommend the bowler be suspended."

For me though that sounds pretty dubious and almost a token provision. I mean we're talking about a bunch of scientists in a lab here, so other than the technical tests they perform I have doubts about how rigorous the entire process is. I find things like the "bowling in a brace" test to be a joke as well frankly. I mean, what's going to happen if they do actually chuck the ball? They will collapse to the ground and won't be able to release the ball or something? Of course they won't. In all likelihood they'll still be able to bowl like before, but certain qualities (spin, pace etc.) will be reduced. The only valid way to test this stuff is in match situation imo. I don't know how they would do it, but that's another matter.

The only valid way is to test in match conditions? Really? Can't be that hard to look at video footage of a bloke then watch him bowl in the nets + speed measurements, etc. and decide whether he's fair dinkum. It's not particle physics.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, see Murali has two ways to bowl. One where he can replicate the delivery with the same action, speed and spin in testing conditions, and then he will bowl the same delivery in match conditions but this time, he'll chuck it! Why? Just to be evil of course, considering if the action, speed and spin are the same, he's not really getting any advantage from throwing as he would from normally bowling.

 

[Z-Man]

Proof that Muttiah Muralitharan does not chuck - YouTube

 

[Migara]

Yep, pretty much, it always looks different when I see it tested, would like to see how much turn they'd get with that ball. I'm not saying anyone's cheating, BTW. Just think the extra effort in matches may change it up a bit. The ball didn't exist for decades before it started being bold, I suggest there's a very good reason for this.

How are you sure that McGrath with that extra effort doesn't go beyond the limit? And in fact, it was found he do go over the then prescribed limit in some deliveries.

 

[Migara]

It's hilarious that people claiming that ONLY a bowler with suspect action can chuck during match conditions. They a blind to the fact (or just too biased to admit) that even a bowler with "clean" action can do the same.

 

[Ruckus]

The only valid way is to test in match conditions? Really? Can't be that hard to look at video footage of a bloke then watch him bowl in the nets + speed measurements, etc. and decide whether he's fair dinkum. It's not particle physics.

It's an improvement on doing it in the lab, but I don't see why it wouldn't suffer some of the same problems. You don't necessarily bowl with the same intensity in the nets as in a real match. Look, if it was up to me I'd scrap any of this formal testing stuff, and just have a panel of experts review real match footage from multiple angles, in slow motion etc. and come to a conclusion. The reason they settled on the 15 degree limit is because they worked out that's when it becomes visible to the human. If that's the case, then it should be easy - if the players arm bends significantly, then they are chucking it (if need be they could perhaps use some template footage of a bowler bending their arm 15 degrees as a point of comparison). As you said, it's not particle physics, but imo they are doing a good job of turning it into that.

 

[Ruckus]

It's hilarious that people claiming that ONLY a bowler with suspect action can chuck during match conditions. They a blind to the fact (or just too biased to admit) that even a bowler with "clean" action can do the same.

Yeah, they can? But unless they are doing it frequently, then it's not an issue and it won't be reported by the umpire in the first place?

 

[doesitmatter]

It's hilarious that people claiming that ONLY a bowler with suspect action can chuck during match conditions. They a blind to the fact (or just too biased to admit) that even a bowler with "clean" action can do the same.

agreed. One such example is Afridi's fast ball during his early days..

 

[silentstriker]

It's an improvement on doing it in the lab, but I don't see why it wouldn't suffer some of the same problems. You don't necessarily bowl with the same intensity in the nets as in a real match.

You mean he bowls with the same action, speed and spin but somehow the intensity is different? What does that even mean? His eye pops out more?

 

[Ruckus]

yeah can do without the smartass responses thanks. As far as I'm aware they don't measure the spin or speed, just the biomechanics.

Edit: no, actually they do match the speed, but there isn't a spin measurement, just a visual comparison.

 

[silentstriker]

You are wrong.

Those selected satisfied the criteria of breaking the appropriate way off the pitch and being bowled with appropriate intensity by the spin bowling expert.

 

[Ruckus]

yeah see edit. Not without it's flaws, but sounds decent enough...more comprehensive than I initially thought anyway.

 

[silentstriker]

yeah can do without the smartass responses thanks. As far as I'm aware they don't measure the spin or speed, just the biomechanics.

Edit: no, actually they do match the speed, but there isn't a spin measurement, just a visual comparison.

Has to be that way since we don't measure spin in a match environment except visually - so it'd be impossible to know if the measured spin laboratory spin is more, less or the same except via looking at the visual path of the ball and noting its similarity.

 

[Ruckus]

I would have thought they could just calculate revs using ultra slow mo. Spin off a surface is going to be highly variable and dependent on the pitch, ball condition etc. so surely revs would be the only proper way to measure it. Maybe the technology isn't up to scratch though.

 

[benchmark00]

Has to be that way since we don't measure spin in a match environment except visually - so it'd be impossible to know if the measured spin laboratory spin is more, less or the same except via looking at the visual path of the ball and noting its similarity.

What? In high performance coaching there is a way to measure revs on a ball with camera technology. Been doing it for a few years now.

In fact, channel 9 even use it in their coverage.