Murali: I will continue to bowl the doosra

[marc71178]

He went on to say that the 'white' countries are trying to hold back cricketers from the sub-continent.

Is the same white country for whom the only person who allegedly abused him is of Asian origin?

 

[marc71178]

He is right about the pressure being from Australia (umpires calling hm for throwing) and England (Chris Broad).

Which is all well and good if it weren't for the fact that Chris Broad was acting as an independant representative of the ICC.

And he was proved correct...

 

[chicane]

Is the same white country for whom the only person who allegedly abused him is of Asian origin?

He's English. That he's of asian descent doesn't matter anymore.
That said Murali's comments were dissapointing.

 

[Sudeep]

I have just read the cricinfo article, which you mentioned. The exact words used are "The ban is because of pressure from Australia and England. There is no problem in Asia" . He has not said "White countries are trying to hold back cricketers from the subcontinent".

He is right about the pressure being from Australia (umpires calling hm for throwing) and England (Chris Broad).
Just seen another article on Bloomberg which confirms the words he used.(as above) (The article is titled: Murali,Cricket's Leading Bowler, Divides Players, Lawmakers. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100000081&sid=aUPKkHaAZ24&refer=australia
I have also read in 'the Age' an interview by Shane Warne, where he suggests Murali should develop a thick skin regarding the criticism. The title of this article is 'Murali :over-sensitive to criticism : Warne' by Chloe Saltau, Harare. (http://www.the age.com.au/articles/2004/05/21). (This may not be the exact link. But Anyone who finds the age on the net can find it).

I think Warne does have a valid point.

Actually I was refering to an interview that was viewed here on Star Sports' daily SportLines show.

And while, the interview was translated in Hindi, it said, "Paschimi duniya ke log hame niche rakhna chahte hai. Mujhe 2007 hi khelna tha, par hame ein desho ke saamne jhukhna nahi chahiye, is liye me jyada khelunga."

Which mean, "The Western countries are trying to hold us sub-continental countries down. I had wished to play only till 2007, but seeing that it would please those countries, I will carry on even after that."

I may have gone over-board in my post earlier, but I think that is what he essentially meant by using 'Western countries.'

And I think, that is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Sudeep]

Ok, before it gets too controversial, Murali didn't use 'white', but that is what I interpreted. He said, "Western", and then went on to say Australia and England, not sure how Australia comes in the West?

I don't want to cause any confusions, but I do think Murali was trying to level accusations based on racism.

I'm sorry if I caused any problem as a result of my post. But while Murali used 'Western' it sure came out as being equivalent for 'white'. It sounded that way.

 

[Langeveldt]

He went on to say that the 'white' countries are trying to hold back cricketers from the sub-continent.

So not only is he an arrogant cheat (continuing to bowl the banned doosra) but he is also a racist...

Ironic that the majority of these "white" countries champion schemes to get asians and people of other races involved in the game of cricket... Interesting that he has earnt a lot of money and had a great experience playing in a "white" countries competition (Lancashire)

This guy is really getting to me, a real one man walking crisis...

 

[Sudeep]

So not only is he an arrogant cheat (continuing to bowl the banned doosra) but he is also a racist...

Ironic that the majority of these "white" countries champion schemes to get asians and people of other races involved in the game of cricket... Interesting that he has earnt a lot of money and had a great experience playing in a "white" countries competition (Lancashire)

This guy is really getting to me, a real one man walking crisis...

Sorry guys.

'White' is not what he exactly used. He used 'Western', but I think he meant what I intepreted.

 

[Sudeep]

And that intepretation was based on the fact that he did say 'Western' countries are trying to hold the sub-continental players down.

 

[Langeveldt]

Sorry guys.

'White' is not what he exactly used. He used 'Western', but I think he meant what I intepreted.

Unfortunatly I think you are right...

 

[JASON]

Sorry guys.

'White' is not what he exactly used. He used 'Western', but I think he meant what I intepreted.

I don't think we should interpret more than what he said. From what I have seen all he has said was that the ban of the doosra was because of pressure from Australia and England. It may be that the translation into Hindi may have got wonky, because neither Cricinfo or Bloomberg have mentioned his comments as suggesting White counries stopping Subcontinental players. I think we have to be cautious in reading too much into comments made.

Remember the context in which he said it as well. He was playing to the audience who had turned up to meet him at the airport.
I would be very disappointed too if he had meant what you are interpreting from his comments. That's the last thing we need in cricket, a racial divide.

 

[Sehwag309]

I think it was out of frustration and pressure as no one from the sub-continent/africa is accusing him, thus the term: western/white, or whatever.

But that doesn't take away the fact if he does or does not chuck!.

 

[anzac]

Liar, cheat and coward??? and yet the best criticism you can come up with is that he, in your words "exploited" phase 1 of the reporting rules??? what a load of illogical rubbish! What he did was perfectly within the rules.

Also, how do you explain the 8 year hounding of Murali by your countrymen when the first time he did something unsporty (in your opinion) was in the first test against Zimbabwe just this month. Thank you for confirming that all the attacks on Murali until now by Australia was based on their own prejudices and had nothing to with any real evidence of throwing. So his first act of unsportmanship (not even illegality) was committed just this month. The cover is blown mate! .....and what the rest of can us see inside is sheer hypocrisy!

if you had botheed to read my previous posts I used to admire him for his skills prior to this latest incident & was prepared to give him the benefit off the doubt re some of the statements attributed to his camp.............

now he has seemingly taken more of a hands on approach re speaking out himself & as far as I'm concerned he has done himself no favors by doing so........

liar = claiming that he had not been told to stop using the delivery re his illegal action & continuing to do so after the response from the ICC that this was not the case, illiciting a further & perhaps plainer statement from the ICC emphasising when & how this had been done & prior to the 1st Test as I understand it! Subsequently attacking PM Howard re his statement & claiming that he (Howard) was not aware of the facts of the matter - the facts are that his delivery action for the Doosra is illegal - & Howard referred to that as the basis for his response - end of story.

cheat = defying the ICC, SLCB & good sportsmanlike behaviour by bending the rules of cricket by continuing to bowl the Doosra knowing his action to be illegal, when in the 1st Test v ZIM. As a result of which he obtained wickets that enabled him to gain the record & then his camp used the status of being the record holder as a reason as to why he should not be receiving any criticism for his actions!!!!!

coward = mouthing off in the press about how he will continue to use the Doosra in defiance of the current criticism, and then as soon as the 1st Phase ends he no longer uses the delivery & I've not seen any explanation offered as to why.

like so many of his supporters you seem to be quite content to forever rant on with you catch crys of 'conspiracy' or 'bias', to the extent that you fail to see their irrelevance to the current situation. Nor do you seem capable of admitting any wrong doing on Murali's part when his action has been proven to be illegal, yet you are still content to champion him as a model citizen, great champion of sportsmanship etc. No question as to where the hypocracy lies......

I suggest you may need to see a Dr to have your rose coloured spectacles surgically removed so as to prevent permanent damage to not only your sight, but also your thought processes!!

 

[Langeveldt]

Fully agree Anzac.. Okay you can go into whatever detail and argument about the legality of its action... Thats been done to death everywhere, and everyone has their thoughts..

But their is no excuse whatsoever for his bowling of the doosra when told not to. Its acting "bigger than the game".. Its cheating and its arrogance.. If I was him, I would keep a bit quiet... Maybe do a Shane Warne who kept his mouth shut and get on with life when there was all hell breaking loose around him... He would do well to change his thought processes...

 

[anzac]

I don't think we should interpret more than what he said. From what I have seen all he has said was that the ban of the doosra was because of pressure from Australia and England. It may be that the translation into Hindi may have got wonky, because neither Cricinfo or Bloomberg have mentioned his comments as suggesting White counries stopping Subcontinental players. I think we have to be cautious in reading too much into comments made.

Remember the context in which he said it as well. He was playing to the audience who had turned up to meet him at the airport.
I would be very disappointed too if he had meant what you are interpreting from his comments. That's the last thing we need in cricket, a racial divide.

seemingly yet another example of him opening his mouth and putting his foot in it...........but perhaps not quite so.....

context be damned - he knows damn well what he was saying as he's been well schooled in the Runatunga school for pulic speaking, and the location he chose to make the statement ensures he will recieve home town support for it. The 'context' arguement is his escape clause / defence for a very contrived situation.

further evidence of this is by the re stating of the red herring - the Doosra being banned - it's NOT for crissake - his bowling action in making the delivery is the problem - it's illegal under the current laws of the game - nothing to do with the type of delivery. The more we talk about the Doosra the more we are allowing ourselves to be drawn 'off topic'.

by maintaining this red herring he is also able to maintain the claim that it is all part of the 'conspiracy' against him by his being 'called' / 'reported' each time he comes up with something = they are attacking me by attacking my deliveries - implying that he himself is untouchable or above / beyond question, and can only be 'got at' via a '3rd party'. The emphasis is shifted from him to an inanimate object. When the Doosra is raised people visualise the delivery - what it does / is - a wrong-un etc, they are not visualising / concentrating on the action even if they visualise him bowling it.......

I'm tempted to call him a **** head & 'change channels' / turn the tv off, but that would also play into their hands - as a silent voice is as bad as no voice....if you know what I mean......

 

[Scallywag]

I have never heard Murali or the Lankan cricket chaps call this a racial issue!!
I hope you are not trying to make it one.

Ho humm some take a long time to see the light.

 

[Sudeep]

I don't think we should interpret more than what he said. From what I have seen all he has said was that the ban of the doosra was because of pressure from Australia and England. It may be that the translation into Hindi may have got wonky, because neither Cricinfo or Bloomberg have mentioned his comments as suggesting White counries stopping Subcontinental players. I think we have to be cautious in reading too much into comments made.

Remember the context in which he said it as well. He was playing to the audience who had turned up to meet him at the airport.
I would be very disappointed too if he had meant what you are interpreting from his comments. That's the last thing we need in cricket, a racial divide.

Actually, I did see a re-run of the interview without the translation. And his exact words were 'The Western world is trying to hold us down.'

 

[anzac]

Ho humm some take a long time to see the light.

it becomes easier once the veils are drawn back...............

I must say that I feel that the whole 'Murali-gate' saga seems to have upped the tempo somewhat in this recent round - he himself seems to be more aggressive & outspoken with what he is both saying & doing currently - could we be heading for some sort of final showdown?????

 

[JASON]

Ho humm some take a long time to see the light.

I repeat, from the reports I have read, he has so far not implied or tried to make this a racial issue. He had only said "The pressure for the ban of the doosra is from Australia and England". He had said this was the result of an Anglo- Australian pressure to ban him. That is stating the status quo and not implying racism as far as I can see.

 

[JASON]

further evidence of this is by the re stating of the red herring - the Doosra being banned - it's NOT for crissake - his bowling action in making the delivery is the problem - it's illegal under the current laws of the game - nothing to do with the type of delivery. The more we talk about the Doosra the more we are allowing ourselves to be drawn 'off topic'.

by maintaining this red herring he is also able to maintain the claim that it is all part of the 'conspiracy' against him by his being 'called' / 'reported' each time he comes up with something = they are attacking me by attacking my deliveries - implying that he himself is untouchable or above / beyond question, and can only be 'got at' via a '3rd party'. The emphasis is shifted from him to an inanimate object. When the Doosra is raised people visualise the delivery - what it does / is - a wrong-un etc, they are not visualising / concentrating on the action even if they visualise him bowling it.......

I don't know what you are on about, but it is his Doosra that has been found to be outside current threshold. He has been cleared with regard to his other deliveries over and over again.(in 96, 99 and 2004) . How many times does this need to be repeated before it gets registered?

If you are referring to the "Doosra" delivery in general, there are others who bowl it. The ICC plans to analyse all slow bowlers/spinners with regard to their deliveries and the 'Doosra' delivery of others who bowl it. This includes Harbhajan and Saqlain. So until they come with their analysis we cannot comment on whether they are all legal or illegal.

 

[marc71178]

So what does it imply then?