*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

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 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'.

What is plain as the day is you are not going by facts.
Firstly, you cannot use your tv screen to comment on anyone's action- you cannot analyse a 2-d projection of a 3d movement without the benifit of a different camera angle simultaneously showing its point of view.Essentially, Murali is being condemned because of having an unusual, yet perfectly legal action- by current standards. He is also being condemned of chucking when it is clear that every single bowler chucked the ball.

And no, no culture is relevant when it is refuted by facts. The culture 600-700 years ago in europe was one of a flat earth.
No one is refuting that Murali chucked the ball by old standards and 'cricketing culture' stuff.
But no one should dispute the fact that other bowlers ( pick a bowler- ANY bowler) chucked by the old standards and 'cricketing culture' as well, only that the human eye was fooled into believing the action to be a 'clean' one.

PS: having lived smack in the middle of the desert for over 4 years, i can assure you that there mirages *DO* exist. I suggest you remember that the next time you are in the desert and you run out of water. Else you would die like countless others who have no clue about desert surroundings.

 

[luckyeddie]

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).

The problem with throwing is never with the 'stock' ball but with the 'effort' one - whether that's (insert anyone's name here) doosra, Tony Lock's effort ball, Shabbir's quicker one or Charlie Griffith's bouncer.

The problem with testing is that invariably the 'effort' ball isn't going to be that - it's going to be what the bowler thinks he can get away with - usually accompanied by the chorus of "Praise de lawd, Hallelujah, I am cured".

 

[C_C]

The problem with testing is that invariably the 'effort' ball isn't going to be that - it's going to be what the bowler thinks he can get away with - usually accompanied by the chorus of "Praise de lawd, Hallelujah, I am cured".

Which is extremely hard to do, given that the bowling speeds, degree of turn and a neutral umpire's opinion ( whether the bowler is trying to fake it or not) are all taken into consideration.
However, the law isnt foolproof- no law is. expecting this one to be foolproof is asking a bit much IMO.

 

[luckyeddie]

Which is extremely hard to do, given that the bowling speeds, degree of turn and a neutral umpire's opinion ( whether the bowler is trying to fake it or not) are all taken into consideration.
However, the law isnt foolproof- no law is. expecting this one to be foolproof is asking a bit much IMO.

Well, the clearest example of what I'm trying to point out is that Shabbir was picked up and sent for testing and remedial 'treatment'. He was deemed fit to take his place in international cricket once more and returned against the West Indies. I nearly choked on my Pimm's as soon as I saw his action - it seemed almost as 'ugly' as before but I guess he had been 'cleared' so it was obviously just 'rust'. A few months later and it looked much better against England - for about 5 overs. It then descended into the worst (or best) demonstration of consistent throwing I had seen since Charlie Griffith 40 years before - every time he tried to put some effort into it.

 

[Ikki]

What is plain as the day is you are not going by facts.
Firstly, you cannot use your tv screen to comment on anyone's action- you cannot analyse a 2-d projection of a 3d movement without the benifit of a different camera angle simultaneously showing its point of view.Essentially, Murali is being condemned because of having an unusual, yet perfectly legal action- by current standards. He is also being condemned of chucking when it is clear that every single bowler chucked the ball.

And no, no culture is relevant when it is refuted by facts. The culture 600-700 years ago in europe was one of a flat earth.
No one is refuting that Murali chucked the ball by old standards and 'cricketing culture' stuff.
But no one should dispute the fact that other bowlers ( pick a bowler- ANY bowler) chucked by the old standards and 'cricketing culture' as well, only that the human eye was fooled into believing the action to be a 'clean' one.

PS: having lived smack in the middle of the desert for over 4 years, i can assure you that there mirages *DO* exist. I suggest you remember that the next time you are in the desert and you run out of water. Else you would die like countless others who have no clue about desert surroundings.

The game was not of facts and neither was the culture based on facts. The earth being flat is of flawed or undeveloped science. It has no cultural bearing. Culture being relevant to laws is like the definition of murder. Where there are divisions as manslaughter and the degree or whether or not it was self-defense. Where this bowling action is considered you think that it is an evolution of understanding, referring to the ignorance of those believing in the world being flat. However, if you were to take this example, take Murali and consider it a step back.

Anyway, lost in that analogy we've lost the plot. That is the problem with unwritten laws, that it is disputable and only a firm comprehension of them will serve any purpose. However, in cricket we have given soverignty to what is written, and to a law that was flawed as well. This also is of a reason why Murali will probably never be considered a true 'great' in Australia and it is because of this understanding. I really doubt anyone watching him bowl during his debut didn't think to himself: "What the f*** is that?".

However, in the nature of your arguments, keep it dubious: say it is an illusion. Conclude that because of 'facts' he is justified to bowl the way he does, and on goes the argument...

 

[luckyeddie]

However, in the nature of your arguments, keep it dubious: say it is an illusion. Conclude that because of 'facts' he is justified to bowl the way he does, and on goes the argument...

Gives a few people something to talk about. Many of the older and wiser members have long ago come to the conclusion that this is an argument where there are no winners (don't let us stop you trying though - it's often fun to just drop in and say hello)

 

[C_C]

The game was not of facts and neither was the culture based on facts. The earth being flat is of flawed or undeveloped science. It has no cultural bearing. Culture being relevant to laws is like the definition of murder. Where there are divisions as manslaughter and the degree or whether or not it was self-defense. Where this bowling action is considered you think that it is an evolution of understanding, referring to the ignorance of those believing in the world being flat. However, if you were to take this example, take Murali and consider it a step back.

Anyway, lost in that analogy we've lost the plot. That is the problem with unwritten laws, that it is disputable and only a firm comprehension of them will serve any purpose. However, in cricket we have given soverignty to what is written, and to a law that was flawed as well. This also is of a reason why Murali will probably never be considered a true 'great' in Australia and it is because of this understanding. I really doubt anyone watching him bowl during his debut didn't think to himself: "What the f*** is that?".

However, in the nature of your arguments, keep it dubious: say it is an illusion. Conclude that because of 'facts' he is justified to bowl the way he does, and on goes the argument...

Whatever the 'cultural' definition of chucking, one cannot make a pronouncement based solely on prejudice of a pathetic media and the inaccuracy of an instrument ( the human eye). Whatever the 'cultural' crap you come up with, fact remains, the only reason McGrath appears to have a perfect action and Murali does not is because the eye is fooled easily and isnt accurate enough to tell that McGrath is just as much a chucker as Murali is.
And if Murali isnt considered great in OZ, perhaps the said OZ folks should learn a thing or three about cricket, its laws and the capabilities of the human body. For obviously they know very little of it all to come to that conclusion.

 

[social]

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).

Incorrect.

The ICC uses 2 criteria.

1. In the case of Murali, whether he turned the ball in lab testing.

2. The speed at which the ball is delivered.

However, the stresses are plainly different between match and lab-testing.

In the former, you are trying to get someone out.

In the latter, you are trying to keep your arm "straight."

Lab testing is simply the closest anyone has come to producing a reliable scenario and, as such, is given some credibility.

However, even the ICC admits it is open to abuse.

 

[Ikki]

Gives a few people something to talk about. Many of the older and wiser members have long ago come to the conclusion that this is an argument where there are no winners (don't let us stop you trying though - it's often fun to just drop in and say hello)

Actually, as you can tell from my post count that I do not get involved much with arguing. I appreciate the reading time I get here and the diverse opinions. I am biased, I will not deny that, but it's still nice to read different people's opinions, might I add, especially yours Eddie. They're usually witty .

 

[C_C]

Incorrect.

The ICC uses 2 criteria.

1. In the case of Murali, whether he turned the ball in lab testing.

2. The speed at which the ball is delivered.

However, the stresses are plainly different between match and lab-testing.

In the former, you are trying to get someone out.

In the latter, you are trying to keep your arm "straight."

Lab testing is simply the closest anyone has come to producing a reliable scenario and, as such, is given some credibility.

However, even the ICC admits it is open to abuse.

Indeed. So is every law ever devised on the face of this planet.
So there is no point in trying to expect the otherwise.
And given the stress levels insisted upon by the ICC, i highly doubt that you could 'fake it' in the labs.

 

[social]

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.



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.



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.



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



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.

1. Id rather take his doctor's word for it.

2. McGrath's action is significantly different from Murali's.

Your repeated reference to the degree of flexion in McGrath's action is not supported by valid data.

3. Deal with the facts.

He's recovered from a no. of career-threatening injuries and, as such, has been hampered in a no. of series.

Warne himself admits that the Indians are the world's best players of spin and that India is the hardest environment for him to take them on.

However, to say that he's been anything approaching fully fit in any series bar 2004 is self-serving nonsense.

4. I could make comments regarding your ability to interpret statistics with an unbiased eye but it's New Years Eve and frankly Warnie Murali and myself have better things to do.

 

[C_C]

1. Id rather take his doctor's word for it.

I have heard his doctor say that the injury was career threatening, but i dont think he's made any statement about Warney's injury being career threatening while he continued playing.

2. McGrath's action is significantly different from Murali's.

Your repeated reference to the degree of flexion in McGrath's action is not supported by valid data.

Au contraire, it is supported by valid data. It is a pity that you do not know what is valid, what isnt, given that you lack the understanding of scientific analysis and uncertainty analysis. The data for McGrath, while being less accurate, is every bit valid as the one for Murali.
And gee, i didnt know that McGrath's action is significantly different tha Murali's.
What you dont seem to know though ( or admit- despite the facts) is that he is no less a chucker than Murali.

He's recovered from a no. of career-threatening injuries and, as such, has been hampered in a no. of series.

Warne himself admits that the Indians are the world's best players of spin and that India is the hardest environment for him to take them on.

However, to say that he's been anything approaching fully fit in any series bar 2004 is self-serving nonsense.

Facts are as i stated, based on irrefutable evidence ( how exactly is a player 'injured' after playing 7 consecutive tests and a year after his 'comeback' ?)
Warney wasnt injured gravely any single time vs IND. The OZ media simply created a notion out of sheer pride.

4. I could make comments regarding your ability to interpret statistics with an unbiased eye but it's New Years Eve and frankly Warnie Murali and myself have better things to do.

You could. Anyone can. Question is, the validity of the said comments. I would not stop you from questioning my credibility but know that thou art disadvantaged, given that my 'analysis capabilities' is recognised by a university.

 

[honestbharani]

Using old footage is not accurate enough to conclude anything.

I think the margin of error was not big enough to rule that they weren't chucking. It may have been to a lesser degree or it may not have been, but I think there were grounds enough to prove that they were chucking. Once we start arguing that the footage isn't conclusive enough, then there is no end to this. All bowlers of today have a flex, so it is reasonable to assume that the past bowlers would have had some degree of flex as well.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

so, ban McGrath too?

 

[honestbharani]

The game was not of facts and neither was the culture based on facts. The earth being flat is of flawed or undeveloped science. It has no cultural bearing. Culture being relevant to laws is like the definition of murder. Where there are divisions as manslaughter and the degree or whether or not it was self-defense. Where this bowling action is considered you think that it is an evolution of understanding, referring to the ignorance of those believing in the world being flat. However, if you were to take this example, take Murali and consider it a step back.

Anyway, lost in that analogy we've lost the plot. That is the problem with unwritten laws, that it is disputable and only a firm comprehension of them will serve any purpose. However, in cricket we have given soverignty to what is written, and to a law that was flawed as well. This also is of a reason why Murali will probably never be considered a true 'great' in Australia and it is because of this understanding. I really doubt anyone watching him bowl during his debut didn't think to himself: "What the f*** is that?".

However, in the nature of your arguments, keep it dubious: say it is an illusion. Conclude that because of 'facts' he is justified to bowl the way he does, and on goes the argument...

The only reason McGrath's flex is not obvious is because he starts with a straight elbow and then bends it. Murali starts with a bent elbow (Which was, is and will be perfectly legal) and then straightens it. Like I have pointed out earlier, for most casual fans, starting with a bent elbow itself constitutes chucking and that is where all his "his action looks worse than McGrath's" is coming from. You cannot argue with numbers and scientific facts. You can, though, argue what they indicate and what they don't, but the fact remains that Murali chucks at 12-14 degrees and McGrath chucks at 10-12 degrees.

 

[honestbharani]

Incorrect.

The ICC uses 2 criteria.

1. In the case of Murali, whether he turned the ball in lab testing.

2. The speed at which the ball is delivered.

However, the stresses are plainly different between match and lab-testing.

In the former, you are trying to get someone out.

In the latter, you are trying to keep your arm "straight."

Lab testing is simply the closest anyone has come to producing a reliable scenario and, as such, is given some credibility.

However, even the ICC admits it is open to abuse.

It is open to abuse. But people should just understand that it can be abused by anyone. So, to that extent, this rule is fair.

 

[Deja moo]

They bowled the same amount of overs even though Warne played more matches. So when they had roughly the same amount of overs, Warne had the record. Its not like you arent wise enough to know this stuff. You're just nitpicking here.

yeah, a record which included more tailenders as a proportion of his wickets than Muralis. So you arent wise enough to get this, after all

 

[marc71178]

I know better than to trust a dubious character as Warney.

Why?

How can you possibly know more about his body than he does?

 

[marc71178]

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

You said most people.

Most people are not worldclass batsmen.

 

[honestbharani]

You said most people.

Most people are not worldclass batsmen.

I think his post did indicate that he was talking about international batsmen.