Tom Halsey
International Coach
It works both ways though - Warne could be setting someone up and then greedy Glenn gets him out first!
not to forget guys like Lee, Kasper, Fleming, Miller etc. ... They are guys who may have cashed in on the good work done by those two fine gentlemen.Tom Halsey said:It works both ways though - Warne could be setting someone up and then greedy Glenn gets him out first!
Well there's a surprise - the guy who reckons Murali's better is also a statistician - and on top of that, one man's opinion is not the be-all-and-end-all.a massive zebra said:For those of you familiar with pre-eminent Australian statistician, Charles Davis, and his book "The Best of the Best", will be pleased to know that he has written a feature for Australian Wisden 05/06.
After five years, he has finally updated his all-time bowling ratings in a 6 page article on the Murali vs Warne debate.
I read the article in a bookstore today, and from memory Murali rose from 13th place to 2nd (behind SF Barnes). McGrath made the top ten, and more importantly for the debate, Warne rose from 24th to the top ten ( I think from my short memory 8th position)
The issue is summed up by Davis who concludes that, personal bias aside, Murali is undeniably the leading bowler of the modern era - his record is hard to surpass - and that essentially any thorough objective analysis will find that he is better than Warne by a considerable margin.
Hey, don't let reason get in the way of a good argument!Jono said:A whole team of Wisden experts also ranked him higher actually. Again that doesn't make it so, but its just not only one man that rates Murali that highly.
I wondered when you would discover this thread.ClownSymonds said:The difference between Warne and Murali is this: Warne has a ton of wickets because he's a great bowler, whereas Murali has a ton of wickets because he was born with a defective arm. In fact, Warne is the only one of the two who should have any wickets at all according to the traditional Laws of Cricket, because he's the only one of the two who doesn't chuck. I don't care if Murali "was just born that way". He's a chucker, whether he can help it or not, and should be called every time he bowls. The fact that they've changed the rules to accomodate him is absurd. The only Murali known to world cricket should be Murali Kartik.
That was uncalled for. I suppose you are in a very foul mood as a result of the 7th-ranked test team taking apart your beloved English nancies, but there's no reason to take out that frustration in such a malicious manner.luckyeddie said:I wondered when you would discover this thread.
Let's hope you content yourself with depositing all your bile here instead of polluting the rest of the site.
Well what do you expect? The opinion that you hold is in opposition to the findings of various scientific groups on the most tested (and subsequently cleared) bowler in cricket history. They know a heck of a lot about human movement than you, I or Ed will ever know. Ed is a scientist as am I so guess who we're going to decide has more merit?That was uncalled for. I suppose you are in a very foul mood as a result of the 7th-ranked test team taking apart your beloved English nancies, but there's no reason to take out that frustration in such a malicious manner.
As I'm sure you'll agree, Murali bowls with a bent elbow. It's as simple as that. It doesn't take a human movement expert to see it. Not until they changed the Laws to accomodate him was he really cleared.Top_Cat said:Well what do you expect? The opinion that you hold is in opposition to the findings of various scientific groups on the most tested (and subsequently cleared) bowler in cricket history. They know a heck of a lot about human movement than you, I or Ed will ever know. Ed is a scientist as am I so guess who we're going to decide has more merit?
Before you yap, learn the rules first.ClownSymonds said:As I'm sure you'll agree, Murali bowls with a bent elbow. It's as simple as that. It doesn't take a human movement expert to see it. Not until they changed the Laws to accomodate him was he really cleared.
Err no.Tom Halsey said:It works both ways though - Warne could be setting someone up and then greedy Glenn gets him out first!
So no doubt you will also appreciate that bowling with a bent elbow is not in itself an offence.ClownSymonds said:As I'm sure you'll agree, Murali bowls with a bent elbow. It's as simple as that.
So if the Laws say it's fine to bowl with a bent elbow as long as you don't change the flex, I suppose one could still say that Murali has an unfair advantage over others for being able to keep his elbow from flexing while still bowling with it bent, since that makes it a lot easier to spin the ball either way.C_C said:Before you yap, learn the rules first.
The law in cricket has always been that you can bowl either with or without a bent arm, as long as you dont flex your elbow ( ie, change the angle of the bend, if any).
Murali was accused of changing the flex of his elbow.
It was proven that every single bowler in history of cricket has flexed his elbow to some extent or another - including Warne and McGrath.
McGrath's flexion figure is quite close to Murali's while Murali's arm action(ie, the rotation of the arm before delivery) is a whole lot faster than McGrath's ( the decieding factor in determining the torque subjected on the joints).
Therefore, if Murali is a chucker, every single bowler in history of cricket is a chucker.
That is the plain and simple fact and before you shoot off your mouth again, understand that i know what i am talking about - engineering is my degree and analysis is my profession.
ClownSymonds said:So if the Laws say it's fine to bowl with a bent elbow as long as you don't change the flex, I suppose one could still say that Murali has an unfair advantage over others for being able to keep his elbow from flexing while still bowling with it bent, since that makes it a lot easier to spin the ball either way.
No. To be fair (and informed), ICC re-defined its flexion limits owing to the doosra controversy.a massive zebra said:To be fair they did change the rules to allow his doosra - under the old conditions this delivery would have been illegal.