Murali bowling with a astraight arm

[Tom Halsey]

trust me..it twisted... that is one of the major points of his doosra

That is what HE SAID is one of the major parts of his doosra. It didn't look like it twisted to me.

Also, don't forget we're accusing him of straightening his Off Spinner too here.

 

[Swervy]

That is what HE SAID is one of the major parts of his doosra. It didn't look like it twisted to me.

Also, don't forget we're accusing him of straightening his Off Spinner too here.

if you can get a recording of the film, then have a look there is a twisting of the arm from the shoulder.

As I say, its no good just looking from the side angle to see if it is straightening, you need to see all angles ranging from the side angle through to him being face on, with the camera following the same points all the way through the action, (as Dave Richardson said in the interview)

 

[Tom Halsey]

Sorry, but I looked at it too, it didn't twist, as far as I can see.

 

[Swervy]

Sorry, but I looked at it too, it didn't twist, as far as I can see.

maybe i am not explaining myself well enough... if you look from side on, you will not get to see the same parts of the arm all the time, ie. at the start of the action the elbow maybe pointing down, later on in the action there was a time when the elbow was pointing at the camera....so the camera wasnt getting to see the same parts of the arm all the way through.

For example, if you get 2 CD covers,and put them at right angles to each other but touching each other, to form an 'L' shape....look at them from the side...you will see them at 90 degrees to each other.

now turn the L shape away from you so that the vertical back bit is coming towards you....the angle between the two covers appears to be closing, when in actual fact they are still at right angles...however if we had a camera that followed that rotation (similar to Muralis arm), the camera would not pick up any change in angle...it is an optical illusion that the angle had closed up...same principle applies to Muralis arm...his arm is being viewed at slightly different angles through out the action and so SImon Hughes rather simple way of measuring the angles just doesnt work

 

[marc71178]

Except I don't believe that any view of his "fully locked" arm has as shallow an angle as was displayed when he bowled without the brace...

 

[Richard]

yes i saw it...

it is really hard to explain with out actually showing you what I mean, it was what Dave Richardson was trying to say as well.

When Simon Hughes was showing those side on shots showing the arm angles, it did appear to show that the angle of bending in the arm decreased from the start of the action (arm at shoulder height) to the release of the ball.

But if you looked carefully, the arm also twisted, so if you can imagine the illusion of straightening could occur due to the fact that as the action takes place we are seeing (and therefore measuring angles) different parts of the arm.

In order to get an accurate picture of the angle of the arm through the action, the camera really needs to swing around towrds the front, following the twisting of the arm, so that the same 'face' of the arm is directed towards the camera, and I would guess if that was possible, the amount of straightening would be negligible..thats why Simon Hughes analysis was a bit too simplistic. (which as I say,Dave Richardson tried mentioning in his interview with Nicholas).

I know i probably havent explained it very well, but it is very hard to explain without showing what I mean

I understand exactly - I've thought the exact thing.
Many a time I've watched side-on footage of Murali in matches - every single one, frozen, appears to show a difference in angle from start and release.
I've thought the thing through - from what I can gather reading this thread, what Simon Hughes has demonstrated is something I noticed 4 years ago - and I decided I was prepared to accept the findings of the UWA physicists - who did cover all angles with some incomprehensible technology that most of us can't even begin to dream of - and who tested him without any brace, and found the stock-ball to be legal and, 8 years on, the wrong-'un to be illegal.
I don't see that there's any reason to change my view that this finding is sound.

 

[JBH001]

Damn havent seen this documentary or these interviews.
(the game sure does bend over backwards to keep him in the game, doesnt it?)

Question: Is it possible for a thrower/chucker to consistently bowl with flight, loop and dip?

 

[Richard]

I can't conceive that it's not possible - personally I can't bowl either Murali ball with or without chucking - no-one can, you need a double-jointed wrist and double-joints\hyperextension is a rare thing.
But equally you just need to take your arm over slower than full speed to "flight" a ball, however straight it is.
Believe me, Franklyn Stephenson could and Chris Cairns can loop and dip deliveries at 70mph. I would think they could have done it while straightening their arms too.

 

[nookie_lk]

Muraaalllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tom Halsey]

Another questioning point is indeed the brace.

With the brace, he was decidedly poor. He was bowling wide, etc. etc.

Now, without the brace, he was bowling a hell of a lot better - plus what I think is straightening, as found by Simon Hughes. Make of it what you will.

 

[Swervy]

Another questioning point is indeed the brace.

With the brace, he was decidedly poor. He was bowling wide, etc. etc.

Now, without the brace, he was bowling a hell of a lot better - plus what I think is straightening, as found by Simon Hughes. Make of it what you will.

he only bowled the odd poor ball with the brace on...he got better later on. The brace was heavy it was bound to take some getting used to.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Except he should already be used to it, because he'd bowled with it alot already before Lords.

 

[marc71178]

The brace is bound to have a negative effect on his bowling

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yes, but not to the effect it did though.

I understand it's heavy, and he can't run in the way he usually does, and am not expecting his bowling to be the same. Still, it was a lot poorer, not just a bit.

 

[JBH001]

Arm speed as it comes over is a big part of Murali's bowling - as advised by the UWA it comes over at a rate close to a pace bowler.


As I said I have not seen the documentary nor the comments by Mark Nicholas, Simon Hughes or Dave Richardson.
(Is it available on a website somewhere?)

Did Murali bowl without the brace before or after bowling with the brace?

In the opinion of those who did see the documentary, was the degree of perceptible straightening markedly more than with the brace on?
(Also it would be interesting to compare other spinners and pace bowlers with a similiar device on their arms)

I still find it hard to believe that a consistent chucker (if that is what he is) can consistently spin a ball with flight, loop, dip and guile.
Wouldnt they just spear it in?

 

[marc71178]

In the opinion of those who did see the documentary, was the degree of perceptible straightening markedly more than with the brace on?

At usual speed it was impossible to tell owing to the fact it takes next to no time for the arm to go over.

When snapshots were taken, it was fairly clear to me (and before the documentary, I was 100% behind him bowling everything except the Doosra)

 

[Richard]

If what Simon showed is what it seems to me it was, I can't believe someone who clearly watches as much cricket as you do has never noticed it before.

 

[marc71178]

Watching it live and watching it with snap-shot are completely different things.

Till then I had not seen his action with snap-shots.

 

[Richard]

I had.
I'd used film, even if it wasn't UltraMotion\4Sight, and frozen it using my computer.
There always appeared to be a good deal of difference, but I just thought to myself "they must have cleared him for a reason".

 

[JBH001]

Were these shots taken post brace exhibition or pre brace exhibition?