Murali: I will continue to bowl the doosra

[Sehwag309]

Of course there is nothing wrong with it. It is the Media mongerel's fault for giving it the degree of publicity it got . Afterall no one asks Brad Fittler if he thinks the Middleeast war was justified.(No would they give publicity for his opinions on the matter). Howard is no cricket expert just as Srilanka PM's expertise on Litigation law. Howard, however by initiating this exchange, converted it into a political issue and gave the Srilankan PM little choice but to support his embattled countryman.

By repeating the comments again he has shown that he has total disregard for the hurt he is causing the Sri Lankan spinner. (or that his initial comments were deliberate and intended to create as much damage as possible. Hence I wonder if this was all stage managed and scripted by some spin doctor in Canberra.)
To their credit, I did not see a single comment from any SriLankan politician when Shane Warne claimed the diuretics he took were his mothers and that he took them to look nicer!! They all believed him just as the hearing panel appointed by the ACB!!

Am I the only person thinking that this is getting a bit out of hand or what?
I think polititians should leave the cricket fields to us the fans and the cricket achievers. Afterall any donkey can become a polititian but not everyone can become an International Cricketer let alone a spinner or leading wicket taker in Test cricket.(chucker or not)

I agree with u.

 

[Wazim]

if there is a bigger baby that i have seen then muli....cricketweb will closed down but since it is running..muli is the biggest :P

like it is game and get on with it, u know bowling with your action is going to bring up comments...so dont cry about it....

like the srl board taking legal action like come on, this is someones opinion, u cant change that and those comments mean nothing as they have no barring on the icc's desiciion

then the srl pm taking action on ICC...erm icc didnt say anything about muli, they r just following the rules and not letting players like muli cheat...or hell y dont i do it too!

there is a line of paranoy somewhere and the sri lankans have passed it

 

[JBH001]

But that's the problem, the rest of his action has been cleared as legal, and until people accept that fact then this argument will not go away.

If he bowls the Doosra again then I hope he is reported for it, but if he doesn't then there is no case to answer...

Its funny. Everyone is willing to accept the Uni of WA verdict on the doosra as proving he is a chucker, whilst not accepting the 96 and 99 verdicts clearing the legality of his other deliveries. Talk about bias!

If he is banned for a year, it may be a good thing. Murali's action has become increasingly ragged over the last year or so caused by a mixture of repeated injuries and a heavy bowling toll. A year off helped Warne, it may do Murali too. It will give him time to rest, recover, recuperate, work on the action and maybe even a modified doosra - if he returns that is.
(On a personal note I hope he stops bowling the doosra, or keeps it to a minimum. He has come to rely on it too much and to base his attack around it, not the standard big spinning stock off spinner. His whole bowling has declined somewhat as a result)

I still hope Murali keeps making a stink about all this. The ICC in banning the doosra only want to sweep the whole issue under the carpet - not just Murali, but the chucking issue as a whole. We know that a large proportion of bowlers do 'throw' the ball thus contravening the existing Laws. The setting of random degrees of flexion is not going to solve anything - a proper long term solution is required so that some other bowler down the track is not going to have to go through all this again, let alone Murali. The Laws regarding this need to be looked at again, and perhaps overhauled.

To be fair the ICC in requesting that he stop bowling the doosra should also begin looking at other doosra's, as delivered, for example, by Harbhajan and Saqlain. The doosra may be a perfectly legitimate, and revolutionary, delivery especially if modification is possible. Something that could be added to any good Off spinners arsenal and a great addition to a bowlers arsenal in these batsman dominated times.
Fast bowlers should also be tested, especially as they would benefit most from chucking. The whole chucking issue needs to be investigated as Bruce Elliott and Daryl Foster have suggested.
Simply banning the doosra just puts the issue away for another day.
Besides it is fair to Murali, other bowlers, and the game itself. If we only ban the doosra without looking at other bowlers too - especially in the light of knowing that not many bowlers actually bowl with a straight arm - Murali would be justified in believing that he is being unfairly victimized.
And who could reasonably hold otherwise?

 

[JASON]

Its not a controversial issue it is plain and clear that Murali chucks. Some people deny that he throws and sling mud at people who say he does. But it still remains proven that Murali throws. He was called by the match referee and this was proven in tests so Howard saying yes to the question is nothing out of the ordinary. I notice some take the high moral ground and call Howard names to prove they are right.

I have not called "Honest John" the Prime Minister of Australia names. I will not and have not committed such an offence.
Tests have proven in 96 ,99 and again in 2004 at two different Universities (Western Australia, Hongkong) that his bowling was legal. The delivery in question is the "Doosra"- which has been deemed illegal. Therefore to blanketly label him as a chucker is both dumb and stupid. In criminal law the accepted wisdom is that you are innocent until proven guilty. Murali was called but tested in 96 ,99 and 2004 and cleared with regard to majority of his bowling (not once, not twice but three times!!). Of course if he brings out some other newer delivery this issue may need to be re-addressed again.

How would Shane Warne feel if he was consistently tarnished as a drug cheat.When you are accused of something you have a chance to clear your name. Murali was tested 3 times (thus becoming the most tested bowler in Test History) in 96, 99 and 2004 . All three have cleared the majority of his bowling. So he is allowed to walk freely and proclaim his innocence (except the doosra) . He is innocent until proven guilty. In the case of Shane Warne, he pleaded guilty and was banned (for 1 year instead of 2 years by the ACB- Richard Pound's reservations aside). He served his time and he is allowed to return to International cricket. If someone were to accuse him of being a drug cheat, the ball would be in their court to prove his guilt, and until they prove so he shall be deemed innocent. There will be no justification for tarnishing all his achievements as being due to steroids or other agents. Why then is it difficult to stomach the similar scenario for murali ? He has been proven three times. Why then the mudslinging and the hysteria to discredit him just when the poor fella just reached a milestone ? While others have been hailed, acclaimed and celebrated this fella, stands alone trying to defend himself, despite having been already defended and acquitted three times.

 

[Scallywag]

I have not called "Honest John" the Prime Minister of Australia names. I will not and have not committed such an offence.
Tests have proven in 96 ,99 at two different Universities (Western Australia, Hongkong) that his bowling was legal. The delivery in question is the "Doosra"- which has been deemed illegal.

What do you think JH was talking about Jason, have you read what he said.

 

[kasra]

Prof. Bruce Elliot and his team of scientists from UWA tested and cleared Murali's off spin and top spin way back in 1996. But for 8 years, the Australian media conveniently gave little or no publicity to that conclusion, continuing to question his action. But now that the same group of people have concluded that his three-year old (not a new ball like the "all knowing" Chris Broad claimed) "doosra" is illegal, the Aussie media are happily quoting them.

UWA got it right in 1996 and have got it right now with "doosra". I wouldn't say the same about the extemely biased Aussie media who ignored UWA's findings in 1996 because it went against their bias. There is a word to describe Aussie media's handling of Murali. The word is hypocrisy.

As for Johnny Howard's recent comments, does anybody believe him on anything anymore??

 

[Dasa]

for Johnny Howard's recent comments, does anybody believe him on anything anymore??

Unfortunately, too many do believe him.

 

[Scallywag]

I dont think Howard would care one iota what you people thought.

What he says or does as the prime minister of Australia is between the citizens of Australia and him. He can give his opinion to Australians about whatever he wants and if it upsets anybody then bad luck. What makes anybody think their opinion is more important than Howards or they can decide who has an opinion.

 

[luckyeddie]

Its funny. Everyone is willing to accept the Uni of WA verdict on the doosra as proving he is a chucker, whilst not accepting the 96 and 99 verdicts clearing the legality of his other deliveries. Talk about bias!

To be fair, there are many people who accept it and voice their opinions accordingly - within these threads in particular - but I agree that there are many who have just been waiting for such an opportunity to whine and bleat "See? I told you so." They just make their point so often and so vociferously that the voice of reason is drowned out in the clamour to hang Murali.

Such is life.

 

[marc71178]

Its funny. Everyone is willing to accept the Uni of WA verdict on the doosra as proving he is a chucker, whilst not accepting the 96 and 99 verdicts clearing the legality of his other deliveries. Talk about bias!

Good point - I had never thought of that!!!!

 

[marc71178]

As for Johnny Howard's recent comments, does anybody believe him on anything anymore??

If he's anything like our PM, then no!

 

[Linda]

As for Johnny Howard's recent comments, does anybody believe him on anything anymore??

Yes, I believe there are.

 

[PY]

He can give his opinion to Australians about whatever he wants and if it upsets anybody then bad luck.

International diplomacy is a wonderful thing isn't it?

 

[Kenny]

If he's anything like our PM, then no!

I think he is a lot like your PM actually Marc - unbelievable, basically.
I think Howard was speaking as a fan answering a questiuon put to him - but I think he shouldn't say any more, frankly.

 

[Slow Love™]

As for Johnny Howard's recent comments, does anybody believe him on anything anymore??

Don't worry too much, he'll be gone by November.

 

[Kenny]

I'd certainly like to believe that, Slow Love - he certainly hasn't got the votes of myself and my partner, that's for sure!

 

[Slow Love™]

I'd certainly like to believe that, Slow Love - he certainly hasn't got the votes of myself and my partner, that's for sure!

Put it this way - if the Libs win the next election, my wife and I are fleeing to New Zealand.

 

[Scallywag]

Put it this way - if the Libs win the next election, my wife and I are fleeing to New Zealand.

I vote for Howard.

 

[Dasa]

I vote for Howard.

No surprises there.

 

[Sehwag309]

...and the drama continues

SL seeks Indian help to defend Murali