Murali's reputation in tatters? Check this out.

[Langeveldt]

More like 55mph (maybe someone could clarify this but that is typical speed for a spin bowler, Kumble would be over 60mph though)

Id be very very surprised if Murali ever bowled at 40ish though..

 

[DJ]

Oh, I wonder what on earth it could be?

I don't know. You make it sound as though he has some money riding on the result.

Un-neceessary outside influence on the testers.

What's he going to do? Give the science nerds wedgies and threaten to steal their lunch money if they don't conclude that he chucks? How is he going to influence the results of the tests, other than make sure Murali actually bowls at a proper speed (which, to answer your question, is usually around 55mph) among other things?

 

[DT8]

Ross Emerson, Broad

are you kidding...? Ross Emerson called him for chucking leg breaks! Emerson deserved what he got.

 

[DT8]

Id be very very surprised if Murali ever bowled at 40ish though..

He bowls around 50 in a game but i don't know about the doosra. That could well be slower because its out of the back of the hand.

 

[marc71178]

I don't know. You make it sound as though he has some money riding on the result.

A bit more than that.

Are you telling me you really can't see why he'd want him to be found guilty?

 

[DJ]

No, I can't. And even if he did, how would his presence at the tests make sure that Murali would be found guilty?

 

[DT8]

I don't think Broad could accurately tell. What he sees is video footage - not live action from close range. He could easily make a mistake because of this.

 

[marc71178]

No, I can't.

Well let me spell it out for you.

He reported Murali, so if Murali is cleared, who is left with egg on his face?

 

[DJ]

Oh no, not egg. Heaven forbid that should ever happen. Although if that really was a concern of his, would he have reported him in the first place, knowing full well that he wasn't going to have any part to play in the testing?

Anyway, back to the original question - how would he have influenced the final results?

 

[marc71178]

If he has no influence, then there is no reason for him to be there.

 

[DJ]

So you're not going to answer the question then. Fine. Why didn't you just say that three days ago?

 

[marc71178]

Well it's an irrelevant question - why should he be there - there is absolutely no reason for him to be.

 

[twctopcat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/default.stm
Any body seen the feature on the doosra on this beeb page?
I don't know what to make of it to be honest, any views?

 

[DJ]

Well it's an irrelevant question - why should he be there - there is absolutely no reason for him to be.

How is it irrelevant? You're the one who said that his presence there would practically guarantee Murali being found guilty. I asked you to justify your comment, and you still haven't done so.

There's a very good reason for himto be there: to validate the action tested was the action reported? You know, to make sure that Murali is bowling quicker than 40mph off more than just a half-arsed 3 pace run-up while actually spinning the ball more than a centimetre?

 

[Adamc]

The action reported was the action in the Test series. There is video footage of the Test series, and numerous other witnesses with just as much, if not more, credibility than Broad. There is also video footage (I assume) of the UWA tests. Hence I don't see why it is necessary for Broad in particular to verify that the actions were the same. Maybe I am misinterpreting your posts... meh.

 

[DJ]

But why shouldn't he? Marc is saying that his presence would guarantee a guilty verdict. I'm asking why.

Like I said earlier, I wasn't the one who suggested Broad be there, although I think that in terms of ensuring the credibility of the tests that it is a good idea for him to be present rather than anyone else.

Certainly the tests need the presence of someone who would ensure that they are carried out properly. The nature of these last tests shows that clearly. And even though he was still found to chuck, would the margin have been even greater had he bowled properly? Not to mention that if these, heavily-publicised tests were still performed in such a farcical way, just what happened at the original tests? 20mph underarm lobs off no run-up?

 

[Adamc]

But why shouldn't he? Marc is saying that his presence would guarantee a guilty verdict. I'm asking why.

Like I said earlier, I wasn't the one who suggested Broad be there, although I think that in terms of ensuring the credibility of the tests that it is a good idea for him to be present rather than anyone else.

Certainly the tests need the presence of someone who would ensure that they are carried out properly. The nature of these last tests shows that clearly. And even though he was still found to chuck, would the margin have been even greater had he bowled properly? Not to mention that if these, heavily-publicised tests were still performed in such a farcical way, just what happened at the original tests? 20mph underarm lobs off no run-up?

I am not saying that his presence would result in a guilty verdict. However I don't think he should be the one to judge the consistency of Murali's action/speed/whatever between the Test matches and the UWA tests. I agree with you that Bruce Yardley is not an appropriate choice for this role either.
I don't see why there is a suggestion that Murali 'cheated' in the UWA tests, though, as he has been found to have exceeded the threshold in any case. If he felt so inclined to cheat, I am sure he would have done a decent job of it instead of nearly tripling the limit. In an ideal world, I would not want the doosra banned, but if it exceeds the ICC's limits, then they should at least attempt to uphold their supposed law.

 

[DJ]

Maybe tripling the limit was the best he could do. Maybe his real doosra is five times over the limit. I don't know. But what I do know is that he most certainly did not bowl in the tests in the same way he bowls in matches. Maybe someone should ask him why he did that. What was he trying to hide?

 

[Adamc]

Maybe tripling the limit was the best he could do. Maybe his real doosra is five times over the limit. I don't know. But what I do know is that he most certainly did not bowl in the tests in the same way he bowls in matches. Maybe someone should ask him why he did that. What was he trying to hide?

Well I don't really want to get into a debate about Murali's integrity here. The reason I don't hasten to call Murali a 'chucker' is that: (as i see it)
1) The system of testing is flawed, as there are no sufficient measures in place to ensure consistency of bowling action (as you have argued as well)
2) The ICC's throwing 'law' is based upon false assumptions, i.e. that a fast bowler should have a greater allowance for straightening than a slow bowler because his arm-rotation speed is higher. In Murali's case this is not true, as his arm rotation speed is significantly faster than most slow bowlers, and (apparently, I have no way of verifying this) as fast as many fast bowlers. [i.e. I believe that tolerance levels should be based on speed of arm rotation, not speed of delivery]

So... yeah.

 

[anzac]

ok my 5 cents worth..............

as I said on another post rules is rules and no player is bigger than the game, it's governing body or it's match representatives (umpires etc) - even WG had to face that....

as I understand it the ICC has issued the statement stating that the current tolerances stand until further notice - therefore the comments made by the testers is henceforth irrelevant to the current laws of the game - the only thing that is relevant is does his doosra conform to the current laws - in this case the answer is no and it is therfore an illegal delivery - he stops using it until such time as the law may be changed, or he faces being banned - simple!

anything else is a red herring...........

so far as his being disadvantaged by the outlawing of the delivery - hogwash as he is an 'offie' not a 'leggie' - the delivery in question is not his standard delivery and has proven to be a regular wicket taking delivery in the Home series v England only so far as I'm aware - the Aussies had no problems playing against it recently.........

so far as the presence of Yardley or Broad goes - there is enough video evidence for each not to be required to be present during the tests....
Yardley would be the person who's input would be least required for any authenticity as Murali has been playing Test cricket for years...
a review of the video footage can establish the physical characteristics of his match deliveries such as run up & bowling speed - if he fails to match this during testing then he can be advised of this - I don't know the rules but IMO if the testing is declared invalid for such a reason then his action has not been cleared and as such the delivery remains suspect & should not be used until proven otherwise.....
Broad can identify the specific action 'called' by him from video - similarly the testing video can be compared to the archives to again confirm that it was the same action as tested.....

I have no objection to a player having support, but they should not be present during the testing - the only people who should be there are the player, the testers and the ICC to ensure impartiality & their rules are complied with etc..........

surely by this time the ICC must have a set of rules & regs for such testing & it should be made as clear & impartial as possible.........