C_C said:
Yes you did make such a claim. You claimed that its ridiculous that arm speed is the main determining factor for chucking and that Murali's arm action is faster than someone like McGraths.
As per faulty interpretations - please state what faulty interpretations you apparently found- for i find it hard to believe that someone can find fault in something they dont really know or havn't really bothered reading up on.
Please. The treatment of Murali from the OZ press and the OZ crowd has been absolutely abyssimal until very late - its one thing being heckled by the crowd, quite another being downright abused by it.
Like i said, it is the Aussie public's loss, not having seen Murali in OZ - not Murali's.
Regarding faking injuries - i am sure you'd like to say that but mind if i point out to you that OZ players seem to have 'miraculous' injury recovery and tend to miraculously get niggles to miss a tourney they dont wanna attend ?
Good. But he is still representative of the people - that is what democracy defines his role as. And while it obviously doesnt mean that he represents the viewpoint of every single OZ, a derogatory comment by the head of a state is reason enough for most people not to give a toss about that foreign nation.
And thats where you are utterly and totally wrong.
Most of the subcontinent takes it rivalry pretty fiercely and i dont see any reason why IND-SL is less 'intense' than the Ashes, apart from a simply anglo-centric cultural viewpoint and ethos.
To the OZ/English, Ashes may be the biggest thing and attract all the fanfare and hoopla of two developed nations and their medias, but it is no more pressure inducing than the IND-SL rivalry for example. Especially if you actually talk to Sri Lankans and how much stock they put in beating India, its patently obvious that to the SL, IND-SL is every bit as important as Ashes is to an OZ/Englishman.
What i find most troubling, is that i've backed up my viewpoints with facts and logical extrapolations, you on the other hand, have not. And before you try to question my credibility in matters of science,i suggest you atleast study enough of it to hold your own.
Before then, you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking re: the science of bowling actions.
You've been told on this thread, by several people,that not only is your information wrong, your 'logic' is highly flawed as well.
The basic fact is, Murali is statistically a greater bowler than Warney is overall. One clear demonstration of that is the fact that without his vaunted comrade in arms McGrath present to scythe out the top order, Warney drops to Kumble-esque 27-ish average while Murali, who has far less support than even McGrath-less Warney averages 24-ish.
Obviously there are areas where Warney scores higher than Murali but i believe that overall, the stats point to Murali, not Warney.
1. Wtf are you talking about?
The debate on this topic arose because you made the erroneous claim that Murali had a quicker arm action than McGrath. You were obviously confused about the difference between arm action and internal humerus rotation.
As usual, youre trying to cover your tracks by making something up.
2. And how exactly do you know how Murali was treated by our press?
Live here do you or maybe you have a subscription to one of our papers? Or maybe you accessed non-existent internet sites or satellite tv stations at the time?
Unfortunately, this is typical of your posting style - make an outrageous claim without any evidence to back it up.
3. Very few Aus give a toss about what John Howard has to say about ANY issue. The fact that you claim his views on Murali had any impact whatsoever on the typical cricket fan shows how precious little you know about this country.
4. I'll take your word that SL - India is as big to SL as the Ashes.
However, makes you wonder why bugger all people turn up to watch it.
5. Finally, why dont you show me where Ive said that Warne is better than Murali or visa versa.
Cant do it, huh? What a surprise.
Unfortunately, because you are irrational and emotional in your defence of Murali, you jump to erroneous conclusions in a misguided attempt to justify your position.
Example
Social: Darrel Hair was correct to call Murali in "96
CC: How dare you criticise Murali, he's much better than Warne, Warne fakes injuries, Murali has a quicker arm action than McGrath, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Social: And how does any of that change what happened in '96?
CC: How dare you criticise Murali, he's much better than Warne, Warne fakes injuries, Murali has a quicker arm action than McGrath, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
In summary, much of what you say on this topic is utter nonsense and in no way justifiable.
)
