*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[shaka]

not everyone can have a straight an arm as Shaun Pollock.

 

[Deja moo]

Its surprising how the ump has managed to bull***** his way through this, and people actually fall for it.

 

[Anil]

Another one who kisses the behind of S_L.... how many others are out there who knows

why? because i disagree with your demonstrably false and blatantly biased views?

but then you really can't expect anything better from someone who can't see beyond the tip of his own nose....

 

[parttimer]

Yes that comment was a bit out of order.

 

[marc71178]

And yet again, thats irrelevant. Old law is utterly irrelevant and whether he was guilty by old law or not does not matter one iota.

If the discussion is about whether a decision made at a sett ime under certain laws was correct then it does matter.

 

[C_C]

If the discussion is about whether a decision made at a sett ime under certain laws was correct then it does matter.

No it does not matter.
Which is why older verdicts are overturned in courts of law in light of 'new evidence'.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No it does not matter.
Which is why older verdicts are overturned in courts of law in light of 'new evidence'.

Yes, but older verdicts aren't overturned based on a posthumous change in the laws.

Murali has, to an extent, been vindicated by research and changes to the laws after his original strife over his action. I disagree with the changes in the laws, but they've been made and as such his action is now considered to be legal, and he can't be called for throwing.

Hair, however, was completely justified in his original decision, and it was the correct one under the laws at the time. It was his judgement that Murali straightened his arm in his bowling action, while he could not see that, say, Vaas did. It may be that both of them do, but Hair was not required to make a judgement regarding specific degrees of flexion at the time he made his call... it was a far more general law, and he applied it correctly as it was written, and was vilified and had his career all but ruined because of it.

 

[C_C]

Yes, but older verdicts aren't overturned based on a posthumous change in the laws.

Murali has, to an extent, been vindicated by research and changes to the laws after his original strife over his action. I disagree with the changes in the laws, but they've been made and as such his action is now considered to be legal, and he can't be called for throwing.

Hair, however, was completely justified in his original decision, and it was the correct one under the laws at the time. It was his judgement that Murali straightened his arm in his bowling action, while he could not see that, say, Vaas did. It may be that both of them do, but Hair was not required to make a judgement regarding specific degrees of flexion at the time he made his call... it was a far more general law, and he applied it correctly as it was written, and was vilified and had his career all but ruined because of it.

My position is simple. Hair was right in calling Murali. However, Hair's decision is completely irrelevant today and based on both evidence and reason, the old laws were found unsatisfactory and flawed. Thus the old law was changed for a better one.
Ultimately, the conclusion that Murali chucked and others did not before the law was changed is irrelevant and incorrect. Simply because even if one were to forget for a minute that the old laws were flawed, Murali still wasnt the sole chucker- infact everybody else were as well. Therefore, Murali deserves an apology for the way he's been treated and doubts are being cast to this day about the validity of his action, despite categoric evidence pointing out that Murali is no more a chucker than the rest.
Obviously that doesnt construe to vilification of Hair automatically - it merely shows that Hair was wrong in his judgement just like everyone else - he was in error since he detected only one offender (due to optical illusions and not because this said offender is a lot worse than others) while he/they did not detect the other offenders due to an erroneous viewpoint as well as equipment( human eye in real-time motion) being incompetent.
Therefore, the old verdict is null and void and irrelevant.

Its a bit like finding genetic data on the crime weapon, that leads to your conviction but later on, through further research and advances in the field, it is determined that the reason you were incriminated was purely based on coincidental ( and legal) facts and the level of genetic data recovered is equivalent to that of 100 other people present on the crime weapon.
This represents an error in judgement and any errors in judgements should be corrected owing to a better understanding and detection mechanism in the law.

 

[Ikki]

I don't see how members can argue as if Murali's action is nothing but a sight to behold. I'm sure most people, watching his action back in '96 must have been thinking to themselves "What on Earth is this guy doing still bowling at this level?".

When trying to defend Murali and his action many compare his action to Mcgrath and Pollock's. What I have trouble understanding is that they're comparing a spinner who's straightening of the arm is, in most cases, of a higher degree than the pacers. This law I assume was made mostly for pacers so as to deter them from 'chucking' which is done by straightening the arm.

What I question is how does Murali's action rate compared to other spinners? Particularly off-spinners. Should there be a specific law in relation to each type of bowler? I saw him in 96 and even now, for the life of me it is a mystery why such an action is condoned. How he got to this level is also a questionable occurance. The reason others, with the same straightening, weren't accused was that bowlers like Mcgrath bowled how the game traditionally intended it's bowlers to bowl. The action may have been culturally correct and legally false, but I think in this regard Murali's action is not correct and it is in this flawed law that he bowls legally now.

I'm sure the writers of the cricketing laws would be rolling in their graves if they witnessed Murali bowl...

 

[C_C]

When trying to defend Murali and his action many compare his action to Mcgrath and Pollock's. What I have trouble understanding is that they're comparing a spinner who's straightening of the arm is, in most cases, of a higher degree than the pacers. This law I assume was made mostly for pacers so as to deter them from 'chucking' which is done by straightening the arm.

1. The law was made to prevent/control chucking - which is either straightening of the arm or flexing the elbow.

2. Degree of flexion ( how much you straighten/bend) is not dependent on the speed of the delivery but the speed of the arm action.

3. How much flexion you create is also dependent, heavily, on what you do with your wrists. Which is why a wristier delivery ( such as off cutter/leg cutter) has more flexion in a pace bowler than a faster delivery( yorker/outswinger/straighter one).

 

[social]

What I question is how does Murali's action rate compared to other spinners? Particularly off-spinners. Should there be a specific law in relation to each type of bowler? I saw him in 96 and even now, for the life of me it is a mystery why such an action is condoned. How he got to this level is also a questionable occurance. The reason others, with the same straightening, weren't accused was that bowlers like Mcgrath bowled how the game traditionally intended it's bowlers to bowl. The action may have been culturally correct and legally false, but I think in this regard Murali's action is not correct and it is in this flawed law that he bowls legally now.

I'm sure the writers of the cricketing laws would be rolling in their graves if they witnessed Murali bowl...

The 2000 amendment to the bowling laws allowed fast bowlers 10 degrees of elbow extension, medium pacers 7.5 degrees and spinners only 5 degrees.

Subsequent research and a sense of fairness dictated that these tolerance levels should be modified as:

1. it was unfair on spinners and medium pacers to be treated differently to pace bowlers;

2. it became obvious that degrees of flexion differed markedly between deliveries bowled by the one bowler (say a slower ball delivered with a spinners' grip by a medium pacer); and

3. the tolerance levels were still too low (it was estimated that only 60-odd percent of all bowlers were "legal" at 10 degrees whilst 90-odd were legal at 13 degrees).

As a consequence, the laws were modified again in 2004 to a uniform 15 degrees.

 

[Ikki]

Thank you for the englightening response fellas.

 

[honestbharani]

Funny how anyone who thinks Murali is a chucker is decried by all and sundry round here as totally biased and out of step with reality. I'd say the problem lies with you PC pple out there

So, what are you using to access this from, huh? Wide screen TV?

 

[honestbharani]

Scientifically proven not to chuck? I don't know about that. Quite irrelevant in my eyes anyway, as someone who bowls like that would never make the side of a non subcontinent side.

Their loss.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't see how members can argue as if Murali's action is nothing but a sight to behold. I'm sure most people, watching his action back in '96 must have been thinking to themselves "What on Earth is this guy doing still bowling at this level?".

When trying to defend Murali and his action many compare his action to Mcgrath and Pollock's. What I have trouble understanding is that they're comparing a spinner who's straightening of the arm is, in most cases, of a higher degree than the pacers. This law I assume was made mostly for pacers so as to deter them from 'chucking' which is done by straightening the arm.

What I question is how does Murali's action rate compared to other spinners? Particularly off-spinners. Should there be a specific law in relation to each type of bowler? I saw him in 96 and even now, for the life of me it is a mystery why such an action is condoned. How he got to this level is also a questionable occurance. The reason others, with the same straightening, weren't accused was that bowlers like Mcgrath bowled how the game traditionally intended it's bowlers to bowl. The action may have been culturally correct and legally false, but I think in this regard Murali's action is not correct and it is in this flawed law that he bowls legally now.

I'm sure the writers of the cricketing laws would be rolling in their graves if they witnessed Murali bowl...

Optical illusion does funny things to people. I bet most people here simply think his action is wrong because he starts off with a bent elbow.

 

[d.gold]

Optical illusion does funny things to people. I bet most people here simply think his action is wrong because he starts off with a bent elbow.

No, I think his action is wrong because he chucks, not because he starts with a bent elbow. He was always a chucker and always will be. It's a blight on the game that he is still playing at this level. An absolute disgrace and a reflection of the politicisation of the ICC that Murali is still playing test cricket.
The laws regarding throwing were changed to accomodate Muralitharan, simple as that, due to the power of the Asian bloc within the ICC at the time.
India have Tendulkar, Dravid and Kumble, who do Sri Lanka have in the superstar class apart from Murali? No-one. That's why he's still playing, because he means money to cricket on the sub-continent.
Naturally, those on the sub-continent will disagree with me, because he's a hero to so many. But the truth is, he's a chucker.

 

[C_C]

No, I think his action is wrong because he chucks, not because he starts with a bent elbow. He was always a chucker and always will be. It's a blight on the game that he is still playing at this level. An absolute disgrace and a reflection of the politicisation of the ICC that Murali is still playing test cricket.

Murali is a chucker. So is McGrath, Warne, Kumble, Akhtar, Pollock, Ntini, Bond and every other bowler out there.
If its a disgrace for him to play, its a disgrace that cricket has bowlers.
Facts prove that.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Murali's bowling for the India tour has finished now, and he's got 16 wickets @ 31 from 3 (or 2 and a bit, in reality) tests. For all the talk about how much Murali would improve his record in India during this tour, he hasn't really done that very significantly. Seems that, like Warne, he was played generally well except by a couple of batsman, excluding one good spell. From reports (I don't know how true these are) the surfaces were also more spin friendly this year than they were in 2004 when Australia toured.

Thoughts?

 

[Ikki]

Someone put it on this board in a very good way about this matter. "It is like comparing an artisan to a tradesman" - Warne = Artisan for clarification

 

[Jono]

Murali's bowling for the India tour has finished now, and he's got 16 wickets @ 31 from 3 (or 2 and a bit, in reality) tests. For all the talk about how much Murali would improve his record in India during this tour, he hasn't really done that very significantly. Seems that, like Warne, he was played generally well except by a couple of batsman, excluding one good spell. From reports (I don't know how true these are) the surfaces were also more spin friendly this year than they were in 2004 when Australia toured.

Thoughts?

It showed just how brilliant the Indian batting line-up is against spin bowling, and hence Warne's failings there shouldn't be excused for injuries or form. They faced a Murali on turning tracks, and played him pretty well. They just face spin bowling with ease, and have comprehensively been on top of possibly the 2 best spin bowlers the world has ever seen. Definitely 2 all-time greats. Rather than saying anything about who is better, Warne or Murali, it just displays the strength of the Indian batsman against spin bowling, home or away.

Overall Murali has done better in India than Warne, but if we are properly comparing Warne's 2004 tour to Murali's 2005, there are factors on both parts which favour each bowler. For Warne, he was facing an out of form Indian line-up bar one batsman, Sehwag. Tendulkar was out for the first 2 tests, and Laxman and Dravid weren't themselves. Dravid in particular got a work over from the pace bowlers. That being said, in 2004 the first test (Bangalore) and particularly the third test (Nagpur) weren't overly spinning tracks. In fact Nagpur favoured seam bowling over spin. For Murali, he had more spinning tracks and didn't have to face Sehwag in the 2nd test and Dravid in the 3rd. Its 50/50 really.

I will say one thing though, I watched the highlights of Murali's spell in the 2nd test, and whilst he was handled well after that, its one of the best pieces of bowling I've ever seen from a spinner against India. If the SL batting team were at least half-decent they could have taken that game by the scruff of the neck after that bowling performance. I don't think Warne has even ever coming close to doing that against Australia.

Yeah exactly, its no coincidence that both of the greatest spinners in modern times have struggled in India. Indians clearly know how to play spin very well, its just a fact. Murali is used to wickets that aid spinners to, and India have many of those yet he still hasn't performed extremely well. I don't think he'll do THAT well when SL play India in the coming test series either. I'd expect (And if I'm wrong so be it) an average around 30-35 odd. Maybe a better average compared to Warne because SL don't have a McGrath or Gillespie to tear them apart (Vaas is good, but not as good as those two were back in 2004) so Murali will have to get the wickets!