Murali bowling with a astraight arm

[marc71178]

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

And he bowled it with the same degree of spin and everything?

If that is so, how come when he bowled it without the brace it contravened the rules then?

That "test" means absolutely nothing, as for one thing, the makers of the program clearly wanted to show he's "legal" or they wouldn't have a program!

 

[Langeveldt]

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.

IMO it detracts totally from his achievements.. I certainly don't recognise them..
If he did chuck, you cant really say "Oh it only slightly detracts".. Rules are very pointless if they can be broken and the offenders reputation remains mostly intact...

 

[Richard]

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...

I think Shoaib gains an unfair advantage due to a biomechanical abnormality - his arm is too fast! Hardly anyone has such a fast arm!
Murali's double-jointed wrist doesn't break the rules so IMO it's not unfair.
And as we've seen many times his not-180-degrees-straight elbow doesn't have any effect on his bowling, it's just terribly unfortunate that someone as gifted has such a thing which causes the optical illusions (indeed, the fuss probably wouldn't be as big if he wasn't so good).

 

[Richard]

Dude

You think that Murali Action is " Gentlemanly"

Anyone who thinks Murali's action for the stock-ball is illegal is refusing to acknowledge evidence as certifying as any can ever be!

 

[Richard]

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.

It doesn't prove anything we sensible viewers don't already know, but it might stuff it in the face of the straw-clutchers that they are in the wrong.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Bowling with brace on

Not sure if anyone has said it already, but if there is doubt then why don't they make him bowl with the brace on in matches to evaluate his effectiveness? And yes, I realise that it wouldn't be too comfortable and he would have to take it off to field.

 

[marc71178]

I don't think it would be practical to be honest.

And then they'd ask why don't every other bowler bowler in one?

 

[chris.hinton]

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.

It still cheating and Warne is miles better then him

 

[Legglancer]

I think Shoaib gains an unfair advantage due to a biomechanical abnormality - his arm is too fast! Hardly anyone has such a fast arm!
Murali's double-jointed wrist doesn't break the rules so IMO it's not unfair.
And as we've seen many times his not-180-degrees-straight elbow doesn't have any effect on his bowling, it's just terribly unfortunate that someone as gifted has such a thing which causes the optical illusions (indeed, the fuss probably wouldn't be as big if he wasn't so good).

ditto !

 

[Langeveldt]

I think Warne is far better, because he doesnt have rubber joints to bowl with I wouldn't call Murali a cheat though now i know he wasnt aware of the doosra ban..
one he cannot help what he does,, and two he is a fair sportsman anyway...

 

[Langeveldt]

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.

Not necessarily so, Im pretty close to a couple of former county players with absolute bags of FC wickets who condemn muralitharan at every oppertunity.. Yet their love and enthusiasm for the game is one of the reasons I enjoy playing it right now... I wouldnt call them biased either, and if a South African bowled like Murali, I hope I could find it in me not to let it cloud my judgement... We will never know though.. or at least I hope not!
And what is the point in trying to justify things by saying "this is the truth"??? Do you know everything in the world?

 

[Richard]

It still cheating and Warne is miles better then him

PLEASE!!!!!
It's not cheating because the people who make the rules say he's not breaking them!!!!
Warne and Murali are both so good, meanwhile, that IMO it's pointless to worry about whether one is better than the other or not. IMO they're equal for all intents and purposes.

 

[dude]

It still cheating and Warne is miles better then him

oh you wee baby.... you have no arguement so you bring warne into the debate.

straw clutcher allright!

 

[dude]

Not necessarily so, Im pretty close to a couple of former county players with absolute bags of FC wickets who condemn muralitharan at every oppertunity.. Yet their love and enthusiasm for the game is one of the reasons I enjoy playing it right now... I wouldnt call them biased either, and if a South African bowled like Murali, I hope I could find it in me not to let it cloud my judgement... We will never know though.. or at least I hope not!
And what is the point in trying to justify things by saying "this is the truth"??? Do you know everything in the world?

i dont know if you followed my post before. i do not know everything in this world but unlike most of you on this board i have been lucky to actually place my hand on his arm...i have been lucky enough to try strainghten that arm.. so in that regard i know more about this than most of you reading the same paper articles and over hearing the same conversation from people who play 1st class cricket and know nothing first hand.
lots of people who have love for the game have commented about murali but try and view the number of people speaking for him. they are all great ex players. do look up all recent articles and weigh the support for and against him.
i managed to change your opinion about your view about him being a cheat because he bowled his doosra even when icc asked him to stop. the reason i managed to change your opinion was to enlighten you on the facts, i'm sure every one else who is against murali just DONT KNOW THE FACTS!

 

[marc71178]

Erm, the facts are that his Doosra is illegal.

Thus to an extent he is a cheat.

Granted most of his balls are fair, but there is still that element of doubt amongst some cricket watchers which will almost certainly continue for the rest of his career.

 

[Langeveldt]

And have the ICC not changed their tolerances for Murali's benifit? I heard somewhere they had done, kind of beggars belief, but i stand to be corrected...

Problem is, Murali's legacy is a dangerous one.. I would not be surprised if there are children all over the subcontinent mimicking his style (I know its hard because of his disability but u know what i mean).. It doesnt take a genius to know where Pakistani Off Spinner Tariq Mahmood got his action from...

 

[a massive zebra]

Warne is miles better then him

I think Warne is far better

Instead of making baseless comments that are not well thought out, let us have a look at it properly.

1) Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (29 wickets at 55.44). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94).

2) Murali has a better average, strike rate, economy rate, and takes more wickets per match than Warne; despite the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team.

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 90 5120.4 1366 11998 527 22.76 9-51 44 13 58.2 2.34
Warne 112 5248.2 1478 13425 527 25.47 8-71 27 8 59.7 2.55

3) Murali has a better record against all countries, except Pakistan.

4) Murali is far more consistent. Warne has been known to be hit around occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he has never been smashed around the park.

Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
22 2 107 0 4.86 1st Test v SL in SL 1992 at Colombo (SSC)
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
15.5 2 70 1 4.42 3rd Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Bridgetown
13 1 60 0 4.62 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1999/00 at Sydney
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban

5) Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.

6) Warne takes a lot of his wickets against the same batsman, whereas Murali takes more of a variety. 28% of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; the corresponding figure for Murali is just 16%. What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar, Dravid or Lara?

7) Although Warne has been less effective since his shoulder injury, even at his peak (1993-97) he was not as good as Murali has been this century.

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 2000-2003 37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97 57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24

8) You could take a look at their respective records in the English county championship:

Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 19 1049.1 322 2195 149 14.73 7-39 17 6 42.2 2.09
Warne 20 779.1 226 1996 87 22.94 6-34 6 - 53.7 2.56

9) One reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.

10) Murali was recently voted the best bowler ever in an objective Wisden analysis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2572069.stm

Against this…

1) Murali gets to play half his matches on spin friendly Sri Lankan wickets.

BUT Murali has a better record in Sri Lanka than Warne.

2) Warne has a better average and strike rate away from home than Murali.

BUT This should be the case if the two bowlers were of equal standard because greater pressure is put on the batsman by excellent Australian bowlers at the other end. Murali still takes more wickets per match and has a greater economy rate away from home.

3) Murali has taken nearly a fifth of his Test wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, while Warne has played a combined total of one match against these teams.

BUT Murali still has a better record than Warne if you exclude matches against these two terrible teams. Until recently Zimbabwe were not that bad.

4) Many people think Warne is the better bowler of the two.

BUT This was largely caused by anglo-Australian bias and the fact that Warne plays for a better and more fashionable team.

I rest my case

 

[marc71178]

And just about every case in Murali's favour can be answered with an equally strong reason from the same information.

 

[a massive zebra]

And just about every case in Murali's favour can be answered with an equally strong reason from the same information.

Prove it then.

 

[marc71178]

2 - counteracted by not being a one man attack.
3 - see 2.
4 - he has been hit, but you don't recognise that.
5 - see 2 and 3.
7 - see 2, 3 and 5.
10 - the number of wickets had a skew on this, hence it it is added to 2, 3, 5 and 7.