*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

Some people tend to forget that Vaas has taken 300 wickets at the other end.

Hadlee, in particular, had no-one of equal standing.

Vaas is a good bowler, not a great one - Murali's situation is slightly better than Hadlee's - Vaas is better than any kiwi bowler barring Hadlee( Bond may have something to say to that in the future, but not now) but the rest of SL bowlers are significantly inferior to NZ journeymen in the 70s and 80s IMO.

 

[C_C]

C_C never lets the facts get in the way of his opinion.

Trouble is, i've corrected you on facts several times on this thread ( a few you've admitted yourself and the other you refuse to admit, despite you not having a clue on this matter and me being otherwise) and you habitually make comments - such as about the validity of a scientific experiment- without knowing the basics of scientific analysis principles.
And unfortunately for you, most posters here seem to spot that quite easily.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

However, a pretty good indicator can be found in the way that his returns deteriorate from the 1st to the 3rd test of a series. Seems like pretty substantive evidence that once teams get used to him - he's nowhere near as difficult to play.

The same thing happens to Warne.

His average jumps from 22.41 to 31.62 in third Tests.

 

[social]

Didnt say they were just above BD - but it is no secret that ENG's ability to play quality spin is significantly inferior to any other test established test nation - atleast in the 90s.

Yes you did.

As usual you think before you type.

 

[C_C]

Yes you did.

As usual you think before you type.

I said 'England is' , not South Africa/ NZ. Or perhaps someone needs a refresher course in English 101 ?

 

[social]

If you bothered reading what UWA said ( the study is one of the most accurate ever undertaken), you'd shut up and let the ones who actually know whats involved do the talking.
As usual, your twist facts and come up with BS without understanding an iota of whats on hand ( ludicrous notion that a +/- 2 degree range is 'inaccurate and insubstantial' data ).

Read it, digested it, and still youre wrong.

In one breath, you contradict the findings of the UWA, in the next you rely on them for support.

Give up whilst youre behind.

 

[C_C]

Read it, digested it, and still youre wrong.

In one breath, you contradict the findings of the UWA, in the next you rely on them for support.

Give up whilst youre behind.

You read it but you didnt digest it - dont try to BS on this - you wouldn't be commenting on the accuracy of the survey if you had an iota of knowledge on uncertainty analysis. The data is the most accurate data ever gathered on this matter and is accurate within 3 degrees in the least advanced study. Given the range of motion for the elbow, that is approx 98.33 % accurate, which is more accurate than many data used in the field of scientific research.

I said that the survey is the most accurate that's ever been done - UWA has said that more work needs to be done on this, but that does not translate to ' this report is inconclusive/inaccurate' as you seem to claim.

Give up, instead of making a total fool of yourself in matters you have no comprehension of.

 

[social]

The same thing happens to Warne.

His average jumps from 22.41 to 31.62 in third Tests.

And in the 5th test it comes back to 24.

What's it prove in relation to Murali?

Nothing.

Which are about all the assertions that he would perform as consistently in 5 test series are worth.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

What's it prove in relation to Murali?

Nothing, really, much like the original point.

 

[social]

You read it but you didnt digest it - dont try to BS on this - you wouldn't be commenting on the accuracy of the survey if you had an iota of knowledge on uncertainty analysis. The data is the most accurate data ever gathered on this matter and is accurate within 3 degrees in the least advanced study. Given the range of motion for the elbow, that is approx 98.33 % accurate, which is more accurate than many data used in the field of scientific research.

I said that the survey is the most accurate that's ever been done - UWA has said that more work needs to be done on this, but that does not translate to ' this report is inconclusive/inaccurate' as you seem to claim.

Give up, instead of making a total fool of yourself in matters you have no comprehension of.

Once again, blah, blah, blah.

Please show me where Ive ever said that it's inaccurrate/inconclusive?

What I have said, if you could read English, is that every relevant body decrees it as being invalid for the purpose of accurately defining a bowlers' action and not accurate enough for their purpose without lab testing.

And, btw, I can almost guarantee that I have several more letters behind my name than you do.

 

[Top_Cat]

C_C vs social

When you guys are done, can we get back to Murali vs Warne?

 

[C_C]

What I have said, if you could read English, is that every relevant body decrees it as being invalid for the purpose of accurately defining a bowlers' action and not accurate enough for their purpose without lab testing.

Who are the relevant body(ies) ?
Is the relevant body a host of biomechanists, who are experts in this matter or ICC/various cricketing idiots, who presume to think more about the human arm and its motion than medical experts ?

And, btw, I can almost guarantee that I have several more letters behind my name than you do.

Perhaps. Highly unlikely that it is in the relevant field of my discussion- science behind chucking.

 

[C_C]

Please show me where Ive ever said that it's inaccurrate/inconclusive?

this is what you said not too long ago in this thread :

social :
So having gas bagged on as per usual, what youre still in fact saying is that the data collected from the Champions Trophy could not be used to determine the exact degree of flexion in a bowler's action

The phrase 'could not be used to determine the exact degree of flexion' is inaccurate from the fact, as it can be accurately determined to 1- 3 degrees ( based on the instruments used) of flexion. In scientific experiments, there are no such things as 'perfectly accurate experiments' as, there are inaccuracies in every single scientific experiments - inaccuracy based on the sensetivity and limitations of the equiment used for the said experiment.

 

[marc71178]

For one, the data collected through testing at the facility is accurate within 1 degree. The data collected from ICC champion's trophy is accurate within 2 degrees and the highest error-range is data from past players( owing to lack of as many camera angles) which is around 3 degrees.

And where does this 3 degrees come from?

How can you say anything about the accuracy of something testing it retrospectively when the cameras are nowhere near adequate enough to provide any data?

 

[luckyeddie]

C_C vs social



When you guys are done, can we get back to Murali vs Warne?

At least with the former, there might be a logical conclusion.

 

[marc71178]

As usual, your twist facts and come up with BS without understanding an iota of whats on hand ( ludicrous notion that a +/- 2 degree range is 'inaccurate and insubstantial' data ).

2 degrees around 50 isn't that significant, but 2 degrees around 15 is a fairly big percentage.

 

[C_C]

And where does this 3 degrees come from?

How can you say anything about the accuracy of something testing it retrospectively when the cameras are nowhere near adequate enough to provide any data?

huh ? what ?

The three degrees was quoted by one article i've read about the analysis of 'former bowlers in the 70s/80s'.
The accuracy can be determined, based on the # of camera angles available and the frames per second / shutter-speed of the camera.
Basically, given the available data and multiple camera angles, one could determine the 'accuracy' of a bowler's action retrospectively.

 

[social]

Who are the relevant body(ies) ?
Is the relevant body a host of biomechanists, who are experts in this matter or ICC/various cricketing idiots, who presume to think more about the human arm and its motion than medical experts ?



Perhaps. Highly unlikely that it is in the relevant field of my discussion- science behind chucking.

C_C,

you only seem to agree when the ICC adopts policies that you endorse.

For example, Ive never once heard you complain about the lifting of the tolerance level to 15 degrees despite all evidence suggesting that more than 99% of all bowlers would be legal at 14 degrees.

The cynic within me might suggest that this is the case because the mean flexion of Murali's elbow has been recorded at 14.2 degrees.

However, I'd like to think that I'm above that.

Unfortunately, to date, neither the ICC, nor the UWA, nor any other body to whom the ICC listens regards the methodology utlilised during the Champship Trophy as being valid for the purposes of accurately recording the degree of flexion in a bowler's delivery.

Yet, you reject this view.

Why?

 

[C_C]

2 degrees around 5 isn't that significant, but 2 degrees around 15 is a fairly big percentage.

???

 

[C_C]

you only seem to agree when the ICC adopts policies that you endorse.

??!?

And ? Do any of us agree with anything we don't endorse ? How the hell can you agree with anything when you don't endorse it ? Does the statement ' I dont agree with rape but i endorse it' make any sense to you ? For that is essentially what you are implying.

For example, Ive never once heard you complain about the lifting of the tolerance level to 15 degrees despite all evidence suggesting that more than 99% of all bowlers would be legal at 14 degrees.

Incorrect interpretation. The error margin of the study, which shows 14 degrees to be the mean average flexion amongst observed bowlers, is 1 degree.
That is, anyone between 13 and 15 degrees would can read as 14 as well.
Hence, the tolerance level is set with the upper and lower limit of the error range in mind( depending on application).

Unfortunately, to date, neither the ICC, nor the UWA, nor any other body to whom the ICC listens regards the methodology utlilised during the Champship Trophy as being valid for the purposes of accurately recording the degree of flexion in a bowler's delivery.

Incorrect. ICC and UWA consider the methodology utilised during the Champion's Trophy to be valid - which lead to the ICC changing the rule to make it 15 degrees flexion for all.
UWA have merely stated ( and incorrectly construed by the media sometimes) that the on-site testing is more accurate than the champion's trophy testing.