Murali's reputation in tatters? Check this out.

[luckyeddie]

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.

I was paying lipservice to your baseball analogy together with the suggestion that 'someone else' (i.e. Broad?) ought to have some input into the testing process.

If it's not TOO much trouble, go back through all the active Murali threads and you will see my position - and funnily enough, it's not too far from yours.

I have said 'enough is enough' with respect to Murali on pretty well a daily basis as far as the doosra is concerned - even today for goodness sake. What I don't agree with is that there's anything wrong with his other deliveries - because no umpires or match referees are calling those into question.

I'm also not BLAMING you for repeating yourself - did you read the second paragraph - the one where I said 'You are not alone in this trait' twice (i.e. repeating myself)?

As far as

It sometimes seems you lot are only interested in commenting if there's the opportunity for a wisecrack to be made.

...

I cannot speak for the rest of Cricket Web.

 

[DJ]

So what do you think about Gary Kirsten then?

 

[Adamc]

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.

Don't worry, I take cheap shots at everyone.
[Back on topic] I do think you have raised some good points, certainly I agree that using Yardley to judge the consistency of Murali's deliveries is flawed at best. Unfortunately, I (and probably most others) don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding the testing to make a particularly educated judgement. Although I would feel fairly confident in saying that a large part of the blame (perhaps the majority) lies with the ICC. If they are going to make rules, even if the rules are flawed, they should at least make an effort to uphold them.

[Off topic again] Staff members are unpaid, at least that's what they told me.

Gary Kirsten is a legend. I saw him make 153 at the SCG once, top knock.

 

[luckyeddie]

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.

Some are born Staff Members (James), others achieve Staff Membership by either being a fully paid-up member of a right-wing political organisation like the Brownshirts, being on an ego-trip (me) or being a good writer (everyone else).

Staff members are not paid (bloody good idea though), there is no interview but you are subjected to an extremely humiliating initiation rite. This involves writing one or more cricket articles for review (one of the reviewers is me so watch it bud), it is part-time, voluntary and involves lots of ***.

Seriously, there are two flavours of staff member - details can be found

here

Gary Kirsten is all right, but Peter was the god.

 

[DJ]

Eddie, you are a man after my own heart (in a buttock-slapping, arm-wrestling sort of way, of course). My first ever cricket hero was Peter Kirsten. Many a Saturday afternoon when at school I would play cricket in the mornings and then trundle off to Newlands to see Peter 'do his thing.' I guess it was only natural progression that I should follow Gary after him. The first time I saw him play live he put 252 on with Peter, Gary making 175 and Peter 128.

They rule Valhalla together.

 

[luckyeddie]

So what do you think about Gary Kirsten then?

I'm always wary of questions like that. A few years ago, I was bowling (tenpin) in a tournament. My daughter was there, being chatted up by a scruff who appeared to have a boorish heavy in attendance. I toddled over, being the protective parent I am and was asked "What do you think of Kenneth Clarke" (UK politician, at the time Chancellor of the Exchequer). I mimed two fingers down the throat. It transpired the scruff was his son, the muscle his tame bodyguard.

Having already ended up debating international captaincy with Ricky Ponting's mum's pet dog, I speak from experience.

 

[luckyeddie]

Eddie, you are a man after my own heart (in a buttock-slapping, arm-wrestling sort of way, of course). My first ever cricket hero was Peter Kirsten. Many a Saturday afternoon when at school I would play cricket in the mornings and then trundle off to Newlands to see Peter 'do his thing.' I guess it was only natural progression that I should follow Gary after him. The first time I saw him play live he put 252 on with Peter, Gary making 175 and Peter 128.

They rule Valhalla together.

Derbyshire fan

 

[DJ]

Really? Sorry about Adrian Kuiper in that case. He was really very good in his prime, I promise.

 

[luckyeddie]

Really? Sorry about Adrian Kuiper in that case. He was really very good in his prime, I promise.

Saw him smite the ball with great aplomb on one or two occasions.

Eddie Barlow was my favourite Derbyshire Seth Efrikan, though.

 

[Slow Love™]

He's talking about the whole action, not just the doosra, and the rest of his deliveries have been cleared.

He's talking about a degree of straightening specific to the doosra (as far as we know), and you asked him what could be masked, seeing as there was nothing illegal about his action. The answer to this is obvious.

 

[marc71178]

Why don't they just say, "Yes, he chucks," or, "No, he doesn't chuck"? Isn't that what they were asked to do?

They're questioning the disparity in these limits, and the qualification of a bowler into one of the 3 categories.

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.

And again, I ask what evidence you have that the tests weren't conducted properly?

 

[marc71178]

I have only been a staff member for a week and didn't realise it had such a stigma attached.

Oh yes, apparently as soon as you become a member of staff you lose all power of thought and knowledge.

 

[marc71178]

He's talking about a degree of straightening specific to the doosra (as far as we know), and you asked him what could be masked, seeing as there was nothing illegal about his action. The answer to this is obvious.

Not the way I read it, coming from someone who has already accused all Murali's balls of being chucks, I thought the masking described all his balls.

 

[DJ]

They're questioning the disparity in these limits, and the qualification of a bowler into one of the 3 categories.

Is that what they were asked to do? No. But every time they test someone they feel compelled to ask for another change to the rules. Why?

And again, I ask what evidence you have that the tests weren't conducted properly?

I've already been accused of repeating myself too much, so I'll have to ask you to read my previous posts on the topic again. The name 'Bruce Yardley' features prominently in them though.

 

[DT8]

'someone else' (i.e. Broad?) ought to have some input into the testing process.

Are you kidding? The people who accuse someone of a crime and the people who judge him should be separate (just like police / courts in the jury system). If this is to be the case, Broad quite clearly should not be involved in the UWA tests.

 

[Slow Love™]

Not the way I read it, coming from someone who has already accused all Murali's balls of being chucks, I thought the masking described all his balls.

But even if he HAD (which I'm not sure, given his specific reference to a 14 degree/10 degree reduction), you argued there would be "nothing" for Murali to mask during testing. But surely, given that he has in his armory an illegal delivery, there would be something for him to mask, yes? For god's sake, it's just not that complicated.

 

[Slow Love™]

Are you kidding? The people who accuse someone of a crime and the people who judge him should be separate (just like police / courts in the jury system). If this is to be the case, Broad quite clearly should not be involved in the UWA tests.

Totally agree with this. And Broad's made many a public statement as to what he thinks of Murali's action. The same of course applies to Bruce Yardley.

The testing process should be as independent and neutral as possible.

 

[DJ]

He's not there to judge, he's there to give evidence, just as happens in a court case.

 

[DT8]

He's not there to judge, he's there to give evidence, just as happens in a court case.

Yeh this is a good point. However if Broad says he isn't bowling properly then what? In a court of law, Murali would be able to say yes he is and both sides could argue. This will not be the case with bowling actions. If the ICC undermine their own match referee by listening to a player they'd look rather foolish.

 

[Slow Love™]

He's not there to judge, he's there to give evidence, just as happens in a court case.

Yeah, but how much evidence can he give? "From where I stand, it looked like he was chucking the ball to me".

He's reported (correctly) the action, and it's been referred to a testing procedure. That's probably about as much input into the process as would/should be required from Broad.