Johan Botha's action

[silentstriker]

And of course, now that they did the tests and guys like McGrath were showing to bend it by 10-12 degrees as well, Murali and Botha would have an excellent case of discrimination if guys like McGrath weren't banned but they were.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Big if and I'd argue you won't. Like I said, from what I've read, the 15 degree limit is an attempt to strike a balance between allowing for the fact that everybody flexes/straightens to a degree and setting an upper limit so that there's no significant advantage gained. 15 degrees isn't all that much to work with if you're trying to flex and extend without anyone raising any questions. The spirit of the law was to prevent people from gaining an unfair advantage, yeah? That's pretty much the direction the 15 degree limit goes in.

I would definitely argue that the emphasis is still on being as straight as possible. Seriously, have you heard any different in your travels? I've not come across any coaches attempting to coach people into flexing/extending just enough to gain what's likely to be an insignificant advantage anyway.

Yeah, I've been playing around with one for about three years now. If I actually worked properly at it, rather than bowling it for six balls once every month, I think there's a fair chance I could be bowling it.

Having a bent elbow at the point of release helps open up new angles at which you can release the ball, helping get heaps more overspin on the ball. Having a slightly bent arm can allow you to also whip your elbow around your wrist, generating more revolutions.

Coaches rarely actively encourage it, but they sure as hell don't stop it. In the end, the only point that you're going to be pulled up for it is at FC level, so until they've played at that level, there's no concerns. Then, if you do make it that far, and get reported, just hope that the tests clear you.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, I've been playing around with one for about three years now. If I actually worked properly at it, rather than bowling it for six balls once every month, I think there's a fair chance I could be bowling it.

Having a bent elbow at the point of release helps open up new angles at which you can release the ball, helping get heaps more overspin on the ball. Having a slightly bent arm can allow you to also whip your elbow around your wrist, generating more revolutions.

Coaches rarely actively encourage it, but they sure as hell don't stop it. In the end, the only point that you're going to be pulled up for it is at FC level, so until they've played at that level, there's no concerns. Then, if you do make it that far, and get reported, just hope that the tests clear you.

Well that's it, really. I mean, I don't doubt what you're saying but since you'd be unsure whether you'd be under the 15 degree limit, surely it's a career-limiting move to try?

One thing, though, is that the 15 degree part is an ICC policy for international/FC cricketers. It's not mentioned at all in the laws. It's policed in the same way at lower levels as it always has been i.e. if you look dodgy, you'll still be no-balled. And I'd struggle to believe that because the ICC has enacted the 15 degree limit that suddenly we're seeing a rash of bowlers looking to bowl with bent elbow.

There's always been guys who stretch the rules. I'd argue, in fact, that owing to all the press throwing has gotten in the last few years, it's probably rarely been under such scrutiny. I haven't played in a while so I may be talking out of my arse here but, in your experience, have you seen a rise in the incidence of blokes being chatted about by other players? Because, as you'd well know, guys get talked about constantly so there'd be a fair bit of chat associated with someone who was deliberately trying to bend the rules, D-grade club stalwarts and FC hopefuls alike.

 

[vic_orthdox]

There's no-one that comes to mind that has a dodgy action. Brad Hodge comes back to play for Melbourne and bowls a doosra that looks like a blatant throw. But when he comes back and plays District cricket, he can do whatever he wants and no umpire would dare argue with him, I would've thought.

If you want an example of what I'm talking of, Harbhajan is the perfect example. The guy gets more spin on the ball because he has a bent arm. I'm not going to be practicing bowling all my deliveries with a bent arm, but if you can bowl the odd change up like that, and you get an advantage out of it, you'd be mad not to.

Also, it's not the current players who are suddenly going to change their actions so that now they have kinks. It's the people who are 13-14 now, even a tad older, and I've seen a few already that raise eyebrows. But you don't want to coach it out of them; if they've grown up all their life doing it, maybe it's because of a dysfunction or supple limbs. It's harder to coach a kid to be able to do that, than it is to coach them out of it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Murali's arm doesn't straighten, he can't physically get his arm fully straight, and the illusion of him throwing is purely because of the 2D TV image. I've seen Murali bowling with a cast on his bowling arm, which stops him bending his arm and he was able to go through his complete repetoire of deliveries with no problem. What appears on TV to be a bending of the arm is infact the rotation of his shoulders, and the way he manipulates his double jointed wrists iirc. He does not chuck.

Nah, cobblers. Seen him live and, if anything, his action looks worse in 3D.

I don't doubt that he can bowl within the legal limits, but equally I'm sceptical as to whether he always does. His action sometimes looks worse than others and, if there really was no advantage to be gained by increasing elbow flexion, the more cynically minded might wonder why then his action does appear to deteriorate?

 

[Jarquis]

Bowling in 2006 :

YouTube - Johann Botha bowling

Bowling recently :

YouTube - Johan Botha Chucking against Australia?

 

[Evermind]

Bowling recently :

YouTube - Johan Botha Chucking against Australia?

Definite kink there.

 

[Richard]

The point is that now there is no emphasis on trying to maintain as straight an arm as possible; as long as you don't extend the arm that's fine. If you can get an advantage out of rotating a bent elbow, then that constitutes a legal delivery. To me, that's against the spirit of the law from how it was first intended. Ref: the mischief rule.

That's all well and good but unfortunately the original law was, as I've said ad nauseum, based on false ideals - that real bowlers didn't straighten their elbows, at all.

It's incredibly difficult, in any case, to straighten your elbow as little (yes, little) as 15 degrees, deliberately straightening it, but deliberately making sure it doesn't extend past 15 degrees.

Any bowler who does manage to do that - and I'm dubious any ever will - deserves to be applauded for very, very fine control of their own body IMO.

 

[zaremba]

An awful-looking action, it has to be said. Of course, it may all be a horrible optical illusion, but to my unscientific eye he's up there with Ruchira Perera and Shabbir Ahmed.

 

[JBH001]

Seen him live and, if anything, his action looks worse in 3D.

Murali's action has always looked bad in 3 D.

A little story: even as a school boy cricketer when he was picking up swags of wickets every season, his action was a source of doubt. I can still remember reading an interview with Bruce Yardley way back in 1989, when he had arrived in Sri Lanka to do a spinners coaching clinic, where one of the first questions he had to field was the legality of Mural's action. His opinion at the time, iirc, was that while initially doubtful, he did not - after extensive work with Murali - think it illegal anymore.

I don't doubt that he can bowl within the legal limits, but equally I'm sceptical as to whether he always does. His action sometimes looks worse than others and, if there really was no advantage to be gained by increasing elbow flexion, the more cynically minded might wonder why then his action does appear to deteriorate?

I think there is some truth to this. Certainly at times, especially at the end of long spells, his action has looked less fluid and more ragged - often, for example, where he tends to go searching for something extra, and in doing so may contravene the rules. IIRC a few years ago this was picked up, that due to extensive bowling and a heavy test schedule his bowling action had begun to deteriorate, and he went away and worked on his action and came back a better bowler. However, I dont think Murali is alone in this. Other bowlers also tend to find their actions deteriorating or contravening the rules - especially when searching for something extra. But the fact that scrutiny is pervasive over Murali means that these instances are picked up and worried over more than most other bowlers.

Frankly, I dont think Murali chucks his offie or his toppie. Neither do I believe in the hypocritical sanctity of patently faulty and false rules - despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the 'old boys brigade'. I do, however, as I have voiced many times, have reservations as to his doosra. And certainly, for a while there (mid 2000s), I thought it made him a worse bowler despite his increased penetration at test and odi level. His doosra is, imo, better than it used to be (he seems to have done some work on it) but it is still a cause for concern - especially at the end of long spells and/or the end of a heavy season. Frankly, I am often in two minds about the latter issue.

 

[Uppercut]

 

[Richard]

A little story: even as a school boy cricketer when he was picking up swags of wickets every season, his action was a source of doubt. I can still remember reading an interview with Bruce Yardley way back in 1989, when he had arrived in Sri Lanka to do a spinners coaching clinic, where one of the first questions he had to field was the legality of Mural's action. His opinion at the time, iirc, was that while initially doubtful, he did not - after extensive work with Murali - think it illegal anymore.

WoW, how fascinating. Never had a clue about that.

 

[JBH001]

Ha, opinion in Sri Lanka as to Murali's action (especially in Murali's early years) was always divided. Hell, my school coach regarded Murali as a blatant chucker.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ha, opinion in Sri Lanka as to Murali's action (especially in Murali's early years) was always divided. Hell, my school coach regarded Murali as a blatant chucker.

Blows away the theory that people just unite behind him because he's SL/Asian.

 

[Don Bradman]

Blows away the theory that people just unite behind him because he's SL/Asian.

So true.

 

[Goughy]

Blows away the theory that people just unite behind him because he's SL/Asian.

No it doesnt. Im not saying the theory is correct, but that statement is not relevant to it (let alone blow it away) in any way at all. You are referring to a local issue where nationality and ethnicity are not going to impact the topic.

They become relevant when the situation becomes international.

In fact if anything (which I doubt) can be taken from that, is that the Sri Lankans circled the wagons and the doubters didnt speak out once it became an international issue and many played good company men.

 

[Evermind]

No it doesnt. Im not saying the theory is correct, but that statement is not relevant to it (let alone blow it away) in any way at all. You are referring to a local issue where nationality and ethnicity are not going to impact the topic.

They become relevant when the situation becomes international.

In fact if anything (which I doubt) can be taken from that, is that the Sri Lankans circled the wagons and the doubters didnt speak out once it became an international issue and many played good company men.

Agreed with this.

Personally, I think Murali's action is passable, but Chucktar's is suspect.

 

[Migara]

As far as I see it, he can be both.

The arm can start bent, straighten and continue past straight and hyperextend.

Murali throws the ball as his arm is bent and straightens (has improved though) and his doosra (others are equally bad with this delivery) is dirty.

McGrath also do the same thing so, equally dirty.

 

[Goughy]

McGrath also do the same thing so, equally dirty.

Yes it is exactly the same

Lets just let everyone chuck the ball then.

 

[chaminda_00]

No it doesnt. Im not saying the theory is correct, but that statement is not relevant to it (let alone blow it away) in any way at all. You are referring to a local issue where nationality and ethnicity are not going to impact the topic.

They become relevant when the situation becomes international.

In fact if anything (which I doubt) can be taken from that, is that the Sri Lankans circled the wagons and the doubters didnt speak out once it became an international issue and many played good company men.

I think you will find though once he hit International cricket, there had been mass of anaylse of his action to prove it was legal, that the guys that doubt it intially were convinced it was fine by that time. Basically at every level of cricket he had to prove his action was fine.