*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[marc71178]

All you need to do to show that the players from the past 'chucked' according to the old rules is to show that some straightening of the elbow, however small, took place. Hence you do not need accurate measurement of the actual angle of straightening.

But you do need several views of an action, something not available in a video.

 

[marc71178]

Please. Dont BS me with this media-constructed hype about his career threatening injury.
He wasnt majorly injured for the test series and he got absolutely annihilated.

You get more and more like Richard all the time - knowing more about a player's body than that player does?

 

[marc71178]

Most people are not international class batsmen either and speed is irrelevant without accuracy. Most would rather face Brett lee any day of the week than Murali or Warney.

I doubt that - who is more likely to injure you, the bloke bowling at 50mph or the one bowling 90+ mph?

 

[marc71178]

Old player's footages were studied using mulitple camera angle shots of those said bowlers ( from existing footage, multiple camera angle for various bowlers exist, as there were cameras around the field- not just at one/two locations- in the last 30-40 years and they don't stop recording- what you are shown on tv is determined by the broadcast crew, as they judiciously and sometimes not so judiciously switch from one camera to another).

Yes, and then they dispose of stuff not used as a highlights package - I believe its called the cutting room floor.

 

[marc71178]

The difference between 6 degrees and 14(murali's upper limit vs warney's lower limit) is 8 degrees - about as thick as a cookie and about as thick as a finger when the line of sight is extended to the wrists.

Yes and 8 degrees in 14 using inaccurate recording equipment is absolutely unreliable.

 

[luckyeddie]

Using old footage is not accurate enough to conclude anything.

There's also the possibility that you are going to get different results in a match situation than when the player is being tested under laboratory conditions (Shabbir being the obvious example - squeaky-clean in testing after his remedial work but the worst action I've seen in my life when it all breaks down under pressure soon afterwards).

 

[C_C]

Firstly, so you know better than Warne, the Aus doctor and Warne's surgeon?

Warney is a dubious character, so i know better than to take his word.
Secondly, Warney was carrying a shoulder niggle that developed into a career threatening injury after the Test series and in the ODI series.

Such bias is indicative of why you have no credibility in this discussion.

This comming from a guy who casts doubt over Murali's action in the past, given that it is no different from the 'homeboy' McGrath.

Warne was not fit vs India except for 2004 (and, even then, missed the 4th test where it was "London to a brick" that he'd have cleaned up) and was patently unfit vs WI in 1999.

How very friggin convinient. Whenever Warney gets pasted, apparently he is 'injured'. He was not injured vs India in any single series - He wasnt injured in 97- his injury developed after the series. He wasnt injured in 1999 - he had played several matches on the trot previous to IND series. He wasnt injured in 2001 either. Its just sorry excuses for a bowler who's got absolutely owned by a particular team.
And Warney was fit for the WI series allright- he was dropped because he plain old sucked.

Thirdly, you quote only one series where Warne has been "annihilated" (ignoring the fact that that has never happened to him in his career) that wasnt against India - NZ 2001/2002. If you had watched this series, you'd know that Aus spent the first 2 matches trying to goad NZ into a result in rain-marred fixtures and the 3rd was played on a belter. Added to the fact that the wickets were so good that Warne himself averaged 50 with the bat and this series is nothing but an anomaly.

Irrelevant. Plain old fact is, he got annihilated that series as a bowler. What OZ strategy was, is irrelevant.

Fourthly, Im not sure what those statistics are supposed to prove but mere analysis of no.s will never tell you the whole story.

Numbers dont tell the whole story- just the biggest friggin part of it.
Those stats show that Murali has been hammered far less often than Warney has been.

 

[C_C]

You get more and more like Richard all the time - knowing more about a player's body than that player does?

I know better than to trust a dubious character as Warney. I also know better than to believe the hogwash that a player bowled 50 overs per match despite a 'career threatening injury'.
It is poor justification from the OZ media, who simply cannot handle the fact that Warney has been hammered in the past without any crutch to fall back on.

 

[C_C]

I doubt that - who is more likely to injure you, the bloke bowling at 50mph or the one bowling 90+ mph?

You doubt that a worldclass batsman would rather face Brett Lee than Shane Warne ?

 

[C_C]

There's also the possibility that you are going to get different results in a match situation than when the player is being tested under laboratory conditions (Shabbir being the obvious example - squeaky-clean in testing after his remedial work but the worst action I've seen in my life when it all breaks down under pressure soon afterwards).

Indeed. But that again, proves or insinuates nothing barring the obvious - any player can chuck under match conditions.

 

[C_C]

Yes, and then they dispose of stuff not used as a highlights package - I believe its called the cutting room floor.

Not all the time actually. Some camera angle footages are left intact.

 

[C_C]

Yes and 8 degrees in 14 using inaccurate recording equipment is absolutely unreliable.

Every recording equipment- even an electron microscope- is inaccurate. As long as your minimum range value remains over the margin of error, the values are acceptable.
For example, the equipment can have an error margin of 20 degrees, but if you are recorded to chuck it at 80 degrees ( minimum range 60 deg, max 100- both over 20), the result is very much valid.

 

[luckyeddie]

Indeed. But that again, proves or insinuates nothing barring the obvious - any player can chuck under match conditions.

Yes, but some have made a career of it.

 

[C_C]

Yes, but some have made a career of it.

Maybe some, maybe all. It is not known who has made a career of it and who hasnt ( beyond simply one's perceptions) until every footage is verified.

 

[C_C]

Thirdly, you quote only one series where Warne has been "annihilated" (ignoring the fact that that has never happened to him in his career) that wasnt against India - NZ 2001/2002

I mentioned that Warney has been hammered ( 40+ ave. in a series can be considered hammered) 8 times. Warney has played vs IND in 5 series, 4 of which he got pasted in. That i didnt directly quote the other series, doesnt mean that it is only in one series that he's been creamed.

 

[Ikki]

The old laws were flawed. So, we found out years later that the laws that were written indicated that everyone 'chucks'. However, there are unwritten laws as well, and cricketers growing up and learning to bowl have generally understood what is 'chucking' and what isn't. Frankly, I dismiss the illusion excuse and really, Murali IS chucking the bloody ball. Then using the flawed law to compare his action to Glenn McGrath's makes the scenario even more dubious. Whereas in the cricketing culture, we all know Glenn probably has the cleanest action around. However, the previous written laws have failed us and now the whole trouble is coming out and admitting that Murali is a chucker whether the laws were correct or not. Such a blunder has continued his career...personally I think it's to the detriment of cricket.

 

[luckyeddie]

Maybe some, maybe all. It is not known who has made a career of it and who hasnt ( beyond simply one's perceptions) until every footage is verified.

The point I am making though is that trying to justify or otherwise a bowler's action retrospectively by studying old videotape is not valid because the conditions are different - nowadays, a player is reported then he is studied under controlled conditions - conditions when the player is more concerned with keeping his elbow straight and 'proving' to the tester that he is squeaky-clean rather than trying to take wickets.

 

[C_C]

Frankly, I dismiss the illusion excuse and really, Murali IS chucking the bloody ball.

That is a bit like saying ' i dismiss the mirage excuse smack in the middle of the desert and there IS bloody water near the horizon'.

Whereas in the cricketing culture, we all know Glenn probably has the cleanest action around.

Culture is irrelevant. Facts are however, not.

 

[C_C]

The point I am making though is that trying to justify or otherwise a bowler's action retrospectively by studying old videotape is not valid because the conditions are different - nowadays, a player is reported then he is studied under controlled conditions - conditions when the player is more concerned with keeping his elbow straight and 'proving' to the tester that he is squeaky-clean rather than trying to take wickets.

It is extremely hard to bowl much different from your 'matchplay' deliveries, given that ICC puts rigid conditions on the whole 'what constitutes a proper delivery for chuck-testing' thing.

And i think it is a valid analysis since the entire objective is to determine whether there is flexion at the elbow ( which is what the old law specified as illegal in absolute terms) without bothering about the intent of the bowler ( which is irrelevant, as intent was not part of the old law).

 

[Ikki]

That is a bit like saying ' i dismiss the mirage excuse smack in the middle of the desert and there IS bloody water near the horizon'.



Culture is irrelevant. Facts are however, not.

No, there is no mirage. When trying to match the so-called chucker with flawed laws, maybe. It is plain as day, no matter what angle you watch him bowl. Culture is relevant, it determines the laws of countries, and cricketing culture SHOULD be determining laws of the game as well. As I said...no one can refute that he is chucking or no, just the fact that the laws were written incorrectly and in this definition he isn't 'chucking'.