Murali's reputation in tatters? Check this out.

[DJ]

When did he say it wasn't cheating? Or rather, when did he say it was legal?

 

[asifsheikh]

murali is not a chucker

murali is not a chucker and the bio mechanic experts are the best judges for that

 

[DT8]

When did he say it wasn't cheating? Or rather, when did he say it was legal?

If you had followed the link my in first post....

"doosra' is not excessive and that should not therefore be deemed advantageous"

"Finally it is our considered opinion that Mr. Muralitharan be permitted to continue bowling his `doosra' at least until a valid data base is collected on various spin bowling disciplines"

Its pretty conclusive if you ask me.

 

[DJ]

Yet another reason why I don't trust the testers. They come back saying that Murali was first three times over the limit, then after adjustments that he was twice over the limit, yet their recommendation is that he should continue bowling the doosra. Why? Because they don't 'think' it's cheating. Time and again we are told that the scientists 'base their decisions on the hard facts and that is why they are to be believed,' yet in these instances they disregard the hard facts and just say what they 'think'. Why don't they just say, "Yes, he chucks," or, "No, he doesn't chuck"? Isn't that what they were asked to do?

If it was up to them, bowling as we know it would cease to exist and everyone would just pitch it baseball style.

If this is the way they go about their business, I'd like Murali to be tested all over again, by a different authority, and properly this time.

 

[luckyeddie]

If this is the way they go about their business, I'd like Murali to be tested all over again, by a different authority, and properly this time.

....... until they get it right

 

[DJ]

Until they do it right.

Why is it that whenever I write about why I don't trust the testing and how I would improve on it, no-one comments. But everyone's ready with a wisecrack once the conversation starts to get superficial?

For instance, I post this: "Then what about having the umpires who called him in the first place as observers? If Murali bowls a half-arsed delivery, they can say that they are not satisfied with his effort and it should not be considered in the testing. All we have now is him being whisked off to a secret location with his ex-coach and someone who was accused of being a chucker himself 'assuring' us that the tests were carried out properly. Can you not see how people could be skeptical of their validity?" and no-one has even responded to it yet.

But I post a line on a different thread where I just say I'd like him to be tested properly, and sure enough there's a sarcy comment posted straight afterwards.

 

[DT8]

how can they get it "right" when the ICC has put in place such convoluted regulations

 

[DJ]

What do you mean?

 

[DT8]

All we have now is him being whisked off to a secret location with his ex-coach and someone who was accused of being a chucker himself 'assuring' us that the tests were carried out properly

Not true. Bruce Elliot was the one who first questioned the legality of the doosra (yes even BEFORE Broad) and now he has exonerated it.

Thats pretty compelling evidence you must say.

 

[DJ]

How has he exonerated it? His tests proved it to be chucking.

Not quite sure what relevance your comments have to the quoted post though.

 

[DT8]

No this is what I meant - you are saying that the tests aren't credible because some of those involved in the testing were somehow affiliated with Murali. However, the chief tester was Bruce Elliot, who QUESTIONED the doosra even before it was cited by a match official. So Elliot is quite clearly not biased towards Muralidharan.

 

[DJ]

I never questioned Elliot's bias. I think he's an idiot on the basis that he proves the doosra to be chucked, shares that information with the world and then STILL recommends that Murali continue bowling it. My accusation of bias rests with Bruce Yardley, Murali's ex-coach, who was the 'impartial observer' there to make sure the tests were carried out properly.

 

[DT8]

yeh thats my point. Yardley might be biased but Elliot isn't. And Elliot said it would be almost impossible for Murli to change his action and still keep the same arm speed.

"You would have to say it would be very difficult for someone to actively change their motion in less than one-hundredth of a second"

 

[DJ]

And how does Elliot know if the action Murali's using in the tests is the same action that was reported? I've heard a lot mentioned about 'arm speed,' but there's far more to spin bowling than just the speed of your arm. Having Bruce Yardley there to confirm that Murali's action in the tests was the same as the one that was reported is just laughable in my opinion.

 

[Adamc]

Murali must be very talented to bowl a doosra at the same speed using several different actions.

 

[luckyeddie]

Until they do it right.

Why is it that whenever I write about why I don't trust the testing and how I would improve on it, no-one comments. But everyone's ready with a wisecrack once the conversation starts to get superficial?

For instance, I post this: "Then what about having the umpires who called him in the first place as observers? If Murali bowls a half-arsed delivery, they can say that they are not satisfied with his effort and it should not be considered in the testing. All we have now is him being whisked off to a secret location with his ex-coach and someone who was accused of being a chucker himself 'assuring' us that the tests were carried out properly. Can you not see how people could be skeptical of their validity?" and no-one has even responded to it yet.

But I post a line on a different thread where I just say I'd like him to be tested properly, and sure enough there's a sarcy comment posted straight afterwards.

I thought that you had a very valid point. However, you laboured it too long and far, far too frequently. Consequently, the buzzer went and you were disqualified for repetition.

You are not alone in this trait - you are also not alone in this trait.

 

[DJ]

Surprise, surprise, a smartarse answer from a CW Staff Member (AdamC, not Eddie).

How much did the ball spin? Did it spin at all? Not that it actually matters, as it was proven to be a throw anyway.

Eddie, if you thought it was a valid point, why did you not comment? It sometimes seems you lot are only interested in commenting if there's the opportunity for a wisecrack to be made.

 

[DJ]

I thought that you had a very valid point. However, you laboured it too long and far, far too frequently. Consequently, the buzzer went and you were disqualified for repetition.

You are not alone in this trait - you are also not alone in this trait.

How can you blame me for repeating myself? Every time this comes up, no-one has anything to say about it. You only comment on the points you can take issue with, the rest you just ignore.

 

[Adamc]

Surprise, surprise, a smartarse answer from a CW Staff Member (AdamC, not Eddie).

How much did the ball spin? Did it spin at all? Not that it actually matters, as it was proven to be a throw anyway.

Eddie, if you thought it was a valid point, why did you not comment? It sometimes seems you lot are only interested in commenting if there's the opportunity for a wisecrack to be made.

Thanks for the plaudits DJ. I meant no offence - I haven't been following the debate particularly closely but after reading some of the previous posts I can see why you might be indignant. I have only been a staff member for a week and didn't realise it had such a stigma attached. Apologies again if you took offence to my response.

 

[DJ]

Thanks Adamc. I didn't take offence, I just get frustrated when I try to debate a point while others just seem to be interested in taking cheap shots at me while ignoring the points I make. I do appreciate your reply though, thanks again.

How do you become a Staff Member? Do you get paid? Is there an interview? Is it full-time? What do you have to do?

Who likes Gary Kirsten on here? I think he's a God.