Agent Nationaux
International Coach
I wouldn't have a problem with that.All the bowlers. The extension does not depend on how clean the action looks. McGrath and Pollock extended more than murali's off break.
I wouldn't have a problem with that.All the bowlers. The extension does not depend on how clean the action looks. McGrath and Pollock extended more than murali's off break.
Glad I could educate you.mmmmmkkaay.
What were Graeme Swann and Michael Clarke hiding then??They need to ban bowling in long sleeve shirts. It lets the cheats hide the 45 degree flexion/ extension in their actions.
That's part of the fun.What were Graeme Swann and Michael Clarke hiding then??
These chucking threads should just be banned IMO, I've seen them across multiple forums and they never end well. Seems it is an impossible subject to discuss rationally and without emotion and both sides of fence end up letting themselves down.
Essentially I'm pro these "suspect" bowlers, a bit like a little ball tampering to get the ball reversing........gets everyones knickers in a knot but at the end of the day the game is all the better for it. I'm sure some of these bowlers are pushing the envelope but I just can't care about it like some of you seem to.........I would hate to see any of Ajmal or Senanayake etc banned from the game.
And Miagra, seriously........you need to lose that chip on your shoulder son.
Yeah, testing in a lab is a complete waste of time.What I'd like to understand is what controls there are over testing to ensure that the bowling action displayed during testing is similar enough to the one used in match conditions to enable the test to be fair. I'd imagine it's all to easy to tweak your action to reduce your flexion whilst undergoing testing to sneak under the radar; if one was so inclined.
The whole thing seems unsatisfactory to me. Too arbitrary. Some hawkeye type device needs to be invented to test actions during matches so we can avoid the feelings of unfairness around reporting of suspect actions and to ensure that suspect actions are reported on a timely basis.
I don't recall saying only blokes from the SC should wear short shirts. It should apply to everyone. If they're worried about skin cancer they can whack sunscreen on or field in long sleeves when they aren't bowling.What were Graeme Swann and Michael Clarke hiding then??
These chucking threads should just be banned IMO, I've seen them across multiple forums and they never end well. Seems it is an impossible subject to discuss rationally and without emotion and both sides of fence end up letting themselves down.
Essentially I'm pro these "suspect" bowlers, a bit like a little ball tampering to get the ball reversing........gets everyones knickers in a knot but at the end of the day the game is all the better for it. I'm sure some of these bowlers are pushing the envelope but I just can't care about it like some of you seem to.........I would hate to see any of Ajmal or Senanayake etc banned from the game.
And Miagra, seriously........you need to lose that chip on your shoulder son.
On what part of their body?Anyone who wants to bowl in long sleeves has to wear some sort of measurement device.
You don't need much more evidence of a powerful clique advocating for Murali than the changing of a rule to suit a bowler based on a report (that I don't think has ever been released - has it?) that conflates the bend of the arm when bowling with that achieved while throwing to justify the change. Australia's desire to have the world's highest wicket taker had nothing to do with it.Shane Warne would now be the leading wickettaker, no?
So wouldn't have in been in Australia's interests to keep Murali banned, so they could claim the greatest batsman and greatest bowler? And Australia had quite a lot of power in the 1990s ICC.
Not much logic behind a pro-Murali conspiracy, and even less evidence.
I think he bowls with a bent arm, so a lot of uninformed viewers think that it's an automatic throw. That said, I do think he should stop bowling his "effort-spin" ball - he doesn't actually get much more turn from it, and that's possibly over the degree of tolerance. His regular off-spinner and carrom ball don't seem any different from what Ajmal would bowl tbh.I have no problem believing scientists if these bowlers pass, and I also have no problem with someone like Satchi being cited. Can any SL fan honestly look at his action and say he isn't very suspicious on a few of his variations?
You don't need much more evidence of a powerful clique advocating for Murali than the changing of a rule to suit a bowler based on a report (that I don't think has ever been released - has it?) that conflates the bend of the arm when bowling with that achieved while throwing to justify the change. Australia's desire to have the world's highest wicket taker had nothing to do with it.
Very true, and I believe it is to our detriment. The day the county system embraces these mystery spinners will be a huge step forward for English cricket IMO.while Aussie/NZ/English boards tend to kill any spinner who tries something remotely questionable.
No, this would mean players couldn't field.The only clear and infallible way to prevent throwing in a match setting is to have a comfortable, adjustable arm brace that doesn't allow any flex above a threshold - if such a thing was invented (I think it should be possible), the ICC could require all bowlers to wear it => no more action issues in the game.
Good point - I forgot about the fielding part. Your suggestion sounds good but it would be quite hilarious if it's faulty. It definitely sounds like it's workable - maybe 5 years from now?No, this would mean players couldn't field.
The solution is for lightweight, stick-on monitors to be placed above and below the flexion points of the elbow, and to have software that monitors the change in flexion through the bowling action. Once a ball is bowled, the software gives a green light, or a red light - in which case it's a no ball.
of course, that would require a lot of investment, so it's not going to happen.
Can't agree with this tbh. I'd prefer players to play and cyborgs remain the provenance of sci fi.No, this would mean players couldn't field.
The solution is for lightweight, stick-on monitors to be placed above and below the flexion points of the elbow, and to have software that monitors the change in flexion through the bowling action. Once a ball is bowled, the software gives a green light, or a red light - in which case it's a no ball.
of course, that would require a lot of investment, so it's not going to happen.