Murali bowling with a astraight arm

[Will Scarlet]

Testing procedures

Why do they test him in an isolated environment which has no other consequences than to prove his innocence. Has the ICC has ever condemned any top level bowler for illegal action via the test labs?

Can't computer analysis be done on the match footage, for this is when he is most likely to push the limits? He bowls enough overs to provide a decent data set.

 

[marc71178]

I don't think the technology as yet exists to do that, unfortunately.

It would then in theory end this argument once and for all.

 

[Richard]

Why do they test him in an isolated environment which has no other consequences than to prove his innocence. Has the ICC has ever condemned any top level bowler for illegal action via the test labs?

Can't computer analysis be done on the match footage, for this is when he is most likely to push the limits? He bowls enough overs to provide a decent data set.

Yes, plenty of bowlers have had illegal actions identified by ICC testing procedures - Jermaine Lawson is a recent example.

 

[Langeveldt]

Yes, plenty of bowlers have had illegal actions identified by ICC testing procedures - Jermaine Lawson is a recent example.

And Blessing Mahwire, Ruchira Perera, Abdur Razzaq (Ban)

 

[Richard]

It didn't take any scientific testing to determine that Perera's action was illegal! One of those few you could tell, almost by watching in quick motion. Nor, bizarrely, was it a problem anywhere except that Lord's match. He's bowled totally without complaint before and since.
I didn't know Mahwire had been identified as definately possessing an illegal action. I just saw those shots that suggested the possibility in VB Series 2003\04.

 

[Langeveldt]

It didn't take any scientific testing to determine that Perera's action was illegal! One of those few you could tell, almost by watching in quick motion. Nor, bizarrely, was it a problem anywhere except that Lord's match. He's bowled totally without complaint before and since.
I didn't know Mahwire had been identified as definately possessing an illegal action. I just saw those shots that suggested the possibility in VB Series 2003\04.

Wouldnt be so sure about Perera.. If it was left to the naked eye I would have dismissed Murali as a chucker straight away..
If scientific evidence suggests otherwise, well I must be the queen of sheba...

 

[Richard]

Plenty of people did dismiss Murali as a chucker without looking properly.
Unless I was very much mistaken every angle showed Perera's arm straightening plenty, every ball. I wasn't aware anything was done, though, because immidiately afterwards no-one saw a problem, and no-one had ever had a problem before, either.

 

[dude]

plenty of people still dismiss murali as a chucker when evidence is conclusive. when i say the evidence is conclusive, the channel4 documentary proves that murali does not chuck. it's only a matter of time the ICC will clear his Doosra and you will still find many iggnorant people find another arguement against him, the question here is not if murali straightens his arm but when will you iggnorant people stop for awhile and think!? forget what team he plays for but think for a moment what he has done to the game of cricket!? this man has been cleared and has done wonders to the game of cricket, when in your wildest dreams would you have ever thought of seeing a bowler bowl a leg spinner with an off spiners action???

 

[marc71178]

That Channel 4 documentary only proves that he can bowl with his arm locked in one position.

It does not show that the arm remains locked when he bowls without it being stuck in one position...

 

[chris.hinton]

Yes, seeing as that's it at the extent of it's straightness.

Murali is a Cheat but gets away with it. END OF STORY

 

[JBH001]

Isnt that the same of any bowler?
They can show that they can bowl without chucking but, that is not to say they may not throw in match situation.
It is unfair to single out Murali for this alone as - to be fair - that same suspicion should then be extended to other bowlers.

I believe also, that that was not the sole point of the Channel 4 Documentary. The point was also made that even in the brace he looks as if he is throwing it - when he is physically restrained from doing so.
They were reiterating the - oft repeated, often forgotten - point that his 'chuck' is a visual illusion.
(Note I still suspend judgement on the doosra)

 

[dude]

Murali is a Cheat but gets away with it. END OF STORY

it's moron's like this with their ignorrant basesless comments that derive cricket from it's gentlemanly stature to a uncouth level.

go watch Wrestling or something mate, leave cricket to the gentlemen.

 

[dude]

bruce elliot and other experts on this matter have clearly mentioned that alot of bowlers have a degree of straightening of their arms, the point of channel 4 experiment was to prove that when the brace was put on his arm it (the brace) was bent to the degree of his arm's natural deformity and furthermore it was proven that with the brace the arm could not be straightend, therefor it proves that he does not straighten his arm(or chuck) and that it's an optical illusion.
furthermore it was stated that he bowled his doosra as well as his normal delivery at his regular pace with the brace on.

 

[Langeveldt]

Murali is a Cheat but gets away with it. END OF STORY

For once I agree with you.. Although not with those words!
I think he gains an unfair advantage due to a biomechanical abnormality, and the results are obvious to see...

 

[Top_Cat]

Personally people who say things like 'end of story' prove that the debate is indeed far from over.

In my view, Murali doesn't chuck and even if he did slightly, he's still a great enough bowler to take wickets. Even if proven conclusively to be a chucker (which I don't think will happen), it only detracts slightly from his tally of wickets and reputation as a great bowler. You don't take wickets at the rate he does without being something truly special. I don't think he outstrips Warnie (Warnie has a proven performance record in pressure situations with a great bowling attack around him which chews into the available overs he can bowl in a given innings whereas Murali's record when the chips are down isn't quite as good in my opinion) but there's very little between them and he's still a freak.

Who cares if he's proven to chuck slightly? It doesn't automatically invalidate every wicket he's ever taken. It certainly takes the gloss off his achievements for sure but as it stands, I don't think he chucks. So while you all squabble over technicalities (which are yet to be clearly defined or determined to be a correct measure of anything as yet), I'll sit back and watch an obvious genius at work because I doubt we'll see anyone as good for a LONG time.

 

[marc71178]

Isnt that the same of any bowler?
They can show that they can bowl without chucking but, that is not to say they may not throw in match situation.
It is unfair to single out Murali for this alone as - to be fair - that same suspicion should then be extended to other bowlers.

I believe also, that that was not the sole point of the Channel 4 Documentary. The point was also made that even in the brace he looks as if he is throwing it - when he is physically restrained from doing so.
They were reiterating the - oft repeated, often forgotten - point that his 'chuck' is a visual illusion.
(Note I still suspend judgement on the doosra)

That doesn't change a thing for me. The doosra is the only ball under suspicion, and as it stands, it is illegal - the rest is definitely an optical illusion, and that has been said on many an occasion!

 

[marc71178]

it proves that he does not straighten his arm(or chuck) and that it's an optical illusion.

That's never been doubted though.

That "test" doesn't prove anything we didn't already know, either about his legal balls or his doosra.

 

[chris.hinton]

it's moron's like this with their ignorrant basesless comments that derive cricket from it's gentlemanly stature to a uncouth level.

go watch Wrestling or something mate, leave cricket to the gentlemen.

Dude

You think that Murali Action is " Gentlemanly"

 

[dude]

That's never been doubted though.

That "test" doesn't prove anything we didn't already know, either about his legal balls or his doosra.

Thats the thing mate! he bowled the Doosra with the brace on!

 

[dude]

Dude

You think that Murali Action is " Gentlemanly"

and why not i ask you?? the term "deformity at birth" is usually considered a handicap but in this man's case he's turned a handicap into something special, people look at blokes like lance armstrong and other sportsmen and women who go through that extra special barrier in life to acomplish the un acomplishable and cheer them on. but in this man's case a few people sit and read and listen to biased stories and make their own minds up, i ask you to do two things. one is look at the chucking law my friend. it was designed to prevent harm to the batsmen in a case a fast bowler ran down the pitch and threw the ball at top speed. secondly, i ask anyone....anyone to try chuk or throw the ball and attempt to spin the ball and land it on length and take 500+ wickets! i doubt anyone can chuck and still spin it as half as much as murali can.
the fact is, that a few if not all who doubt and brand him as a chukcer are biased and have no love for the game of cricket. this is the truth.