*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

People are training themselves to do it as we speak.

I find that dubious at best.
The difference between 'no arm flexion' and 14-15 degrees is the thickness of the first two fingers approximately when the line is extended to the fingertips........ Controlling that would require quite a bit of skill and mastery of technique....since simply getting the ball to move,bounce, land on a spot consistently,etc. takes the highest of skills, i doubt those bowlers would be able to divest any concentration/control in elbow movement. But if they are, all the power to them i guess.

 

[Ikki]

Perhaps. But i do know and understand the fundamentals of science and the science behind chucking. Every bowler is a chucker according to the old law. Can you deal with that simple fact ?

This is where you're missing the plot: What constitutes as a bowl can be considered a scientific chuck. However, when we play cricket we are referring to the defined bowl of the game of cricket. Anything other than that is classified as a chuck. From your reply I see you have a serious gap in knowledge when it comes to playing the game itself.

It always used to be the case that a coach, at the most basic level, would provide assistance to youngsters to bowl with a "legitimate" or straight-arm action.

Unfortunately, I get the feeling were entering an era where near enough is good enough because now people can sit back and say "well, theoretically everyone chucks so we'll let the scientists decide down the line."

The latter approach might, in time, prove to be correct. However, in the mean time it's my prediction that we'll see an increasing no. of emerging players with less than traditional-style actions.

That is a worrying prospect. What is more worrying is that we can rest on our laurels now because of what we assume to have 'figured out'. When Murali was bowling at any level, I wonder how didn't a Sri Lankan coach question his action? We only consider it an 'illusion' now, but back then it was not considered as such and the action would have been seen as a unanimous chuck. Knowing this, it seems sinister to allow someone with that action to progress...

 

[social]

I find that dubious at best.
The difference between 'no arm flexion' and 14-15 degrees is the thickness of the first two fingers approximately when the line is extended to the fingertips........ Controlling that would require quite a bit of skill and mastery of technique....since simply getting the ball to move,bounce, land on a spot consistently,etc. takes the highest of skills, i doubt those bowlers would be able to divest any concentration/control in elbow movement. But if they are, all the power to them i guess.

Were talking about juniors here.

These kids will have years to perfect the change.

 

[social]

This is where you're missing the plot: What constitutes as a bowl can be considered a scientific chuck. However, when we play cricket we are referring to the defined bowl of the game of cricket. Anything other than that is classified as a chuck. From your reply I see you have a serious gap in knowledge when it comes to playing the game itself.



That is a worrying prospect. What is more worrying is that we can rest on our laurels now because of what we assume to have 'figured out'. When Murali was bowling at any level, I wonder how didn't a Sri Lankan coach question his action? We only consider it an 'illusion' now, but back then it was not considered as such and the action would have been seen as a unanimous chuck. Knowing this, it seems sinister to allow someone with that action to progress...

Firstly, it's not an illusion - he does chuck. But so, apparently, does everyone else albeit generally to a lesser degree.

The illusion argument was fostered by Murali boosters as an excuse in earlier, less informed days.

Secondly, there's little doubt that he wouldnt have passed muster in some other countries.

Thirdly, at 15 degrees tolerance levels, he's supposedly legal so the world would be poorer off if we hadnt had the opportunity to watch him bowl.

 

[C_C]

This is where you're missing the plot: What constitutes as a bowl can be considered a scientific chuck. However, when we play cricket we are referring to the defined bowl of the game of cricket. Anything other than that is classified as a chuck. From your reply I see you have a serious gap in knowledge when it comes to playing the game itself.

Such law can NOT be sustained and be consistent- simply because even cricketing laws cannot violate the fundamental laws of science and fundamental nature of the human physiology.
If you intend to set a rule that can be consistently followed, it cannot be in violation of science ( ie, a rule that cannot be verified consistently by any logical process).
And if you intend to set a rule purely based on the human eye, then it is a rule set simply by aesthetics and personal preference in mind, which has no place in sport. No player should be barred from playing simply because he is not suitable to your taste(s).

 

[C_C]

Firstly, it's not an illusion - he does chuck. But so, apparently, does everyone else albeit generally to a lesser degree.

The illusion argument was fostered by Murali boosters as an excuse in earlier, less informed days.

Secondly, there's little doubt that he wouldnt have passed muster in some other countries.

Thirdly, at 15 degrees tolerance levels, he's supposedly legal so the world would be poorer off if we hadnt had the opportunity to watch him bowl.

It *IS* an illusion that makes him look like a blatant chucker. Simply because he starts with a bent elbow in the first place and cricketing laws have never said it was illegal to bowl with bent elbows.
The difference between McGrath's flexion and Murali's flexion is miniscule. Half a finger's width in terms of elbow flexion ( when the angle isextended to the distance of fingertips from shoulder). Yet Murlai appears a blatant chucker while McGrath appears to be a pristine bowler. That is due to optical illusions at play.

 

[sqwerty]

Alright, can we stop at the cold, hard facts?

Warne takes more tailend wickets.

Murali takes more minnow wickets.

These are both results of circumstance - McGrath and co. remove the top order before Warne can, and Murali has played a large chunk of his career against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

These circumstances are beyond both bowlers' control. It does not affect, and is not a reflection on, their innate skill, guile or overall ability.

Murali has been proven to take established wickets and Warne regularly wipes out top orders. In essence, a negative stigma has been created around both tweakers where one cannot justifiably be placed, as there is contradictory evidence by the bucketload.

Can we leave it at that?

Well, this request was about 50 posts ago now........so I guess not

 

[social]

It *IS* an illusion that makes him look like a blatant chucker. Simply because he starts with a bent elbow in the first place and cricketing laws have never said it was illegal to bowl with bent elbows.
The difference between McGrath's flexion and Murali's flexion is miniscule. Half a finger's width in terms of elbow flexion ( when the angle isextended to the distance of fingertips from shoulder). Yet Murlai appears a blatant chucker while McGrath appears to be a pristine bowler. That is due to optical illusions at play.

We've had this discussion before and you still fail to see the point.

Murali was regarded by many as a chucker and was subsequently proven to be so. Therefore, it was no illusion.

McGrath, on the other hand, looks to have the perfect action. Unfortunately for him, scientific testing (such as there was), reveals that this is not the case. Therefore, an illusion exists.

BTW, why do you continually bring up McGrath when he is no better or worse than Holding, Hadlee, Imran, Freddie, etc?

If you think by me being Aus that I'll take some offense, youre sadly mistaken.

Should you care to look it up, you'll find that Ive been one of the few, if not the only, poster to advocate that Warne should've been banned for life after his off-field indiscretions.

I only care about the game and its' rules.

Break 'em and you should suffer the consequences.

 

[luckyeddie]

I find that dubious at best.
The difference between 'no arm flexion' and 14-15 degrees is the thickness of the first two fingers approximately when the line is extended to the fingertips........ Controlling that would require quite a bit of skill and mastery of technique....since simply getting the ball to move,bounce, land on a spot consistently,etc. takes the highest of skills, i doubt those bowlers would be able to divest any concentration/control in elbow movement. But if they are, all the power to them i guess.

I just messed around with a tape measure, a set of vernier calipers, a pencil, paper, the sine rule and some trigonometric tables and I came to the conclusion that your figures (14-15 degrees is the thickness of the first two fingers when the line is extended....) are a little out.

The distance from my elbow to my fingertips is 47 cm and the thickness of my first 2 fingers is 4 cm at the base (and I've got very chubby fingers). If I'm being very, VERY generous, I might give you 5 degrees as the width of two fingers. To get some idea of the displacement 14-15 degrees of flexion gives you, that's equivalent to moving your fingertips a full 11 cm - the width of a CD.

 

[C_C]

Murali was regarded by many as a chucker and was subsequently proven to be so. Therefore, it was no illusion.
McGrath, on the other hand, looks to have the perfect action. Unfortunately for him, scientific testing (such as there was), reveals that this is not the case. Therefore, an illusion exists.

It is very simple.
The two statements are contradictory when applied to the whole case ( whether optical illusion exists in bowling or not - and as has been proven by science, almsot every single bowler is perceived through an optical illusion).

The very fact that McGrath's action being 'perfect' is an illusion shows that what is judged 'good action' or 'bad action' is purely a matter of optical illusions, not facts.

It is the optical illusion, stemming from bowling with a bent elbow that makes Murali look like a very bad chucker. Since almost all bowlers bowl with kinks in their elbows comparable to Murali's but seem to be fine, it is Murali who suffers from a perceived optical illusion, not McGrath.( check the initial testing Murali did with UWA - there are clips showing optical illusions such as the arm being bent when seen from side-on view and straight when seen with back-to-front view)


PS: I dont glance at a poster's name much beyond their names - I mention McGrath because his measured figures are in my memory while others are a bit fuzzy is why i mention him the most often as a parallel case.

 

[GotSpin]

Maybe you could define what throwing/chucking is...

I have always seen throwing as starting off with a bent elbow, then straightening. I would like to see someone do otherwise

 

[C_C]

I just messed around with a tape measure, a set of vernier calipers, a pencil, paper, the sine rule and some trigonometric tables and I came to the conclusion that your figures (14-15 degrees is the thickness of the first two fingers when the line is extended....) are a little out.

The distance from my elbow to my fingertips is 47 cm and the thickness of my first 2 fingers is 4 cm at the base (and I've got very chubby fingers). If I'm being very, VERY generous, I might give you 5 degrees as the width of two fingers. To get some idea of the displacement 14-15 degrees of flexion gives you, that's equivalent to moving your fingertips a full 11 cm - the width of a CD.

Hmm. Perhaps its a poor example from me then. Or maybe i bolloxed up. I guessed the distance but i may be wrong. Can't be bothered to verify now ( its 4am here).
But i guess its a bad example, as that distance is gonna differ considerably, given that the length of arm is gonna vary considerably amongst the human population.( some correlation with height i guess - taller people do have longer arms than shorter people)

 

[social]

It is very simple.
The two statements are contradictory when applied to the whole case ( whether optical illusion exists in bowling or not - and as has been proven by science, almsot every single bowler is perceived through an optical illusion).

The very fact that McGrath's action being 'perfect' is an illusion shows that what is judged 'good action' or 'bad action' is purely a matter of optical illusions, not facts.

It is the optical illusion, stemming from bowling with a bent elbow that makes Murali look like a very bad chucker. Since almost all bowlers bowl with kinks in their elbows comparable to Murali's but seem to be fine, it is Murali who suffers from a perceived optical illusion, not McGrath.( check the initial testing Murali did with UWA - there are clips showing optical illusions such as the arm being bent when seen from side-on view and straight when seen with back-to-front view)


PS: I dont glance at a poster's name much beyond their names - I mention McGrath because his measured figures are in my memory while others are a bit fuzzy is why i mention him the most often as a parallel case.

In the interests of objectivity, you should probably stick with the results of lab tests rather than quote McGrath's figures as he hasnt been the subject of definitive testing.

In relation to Murali, Ive never seen a clip (UWA or otherwise) that doesnt paint him in a horrible light. For this reason alone, many cant accept that he's any better than a baseball pitcher.

Im prepared to accept that he's legal only because Ive read the test results.

 

[C_C]

Maybe you could define what throwing/chucking is...

I have always seen throwing as starting off with a bent elbow, then straightening. I would like to see someone do otherwise

Actually most fast bowlers when they flex their elbows, start with straight elbows and bend it.
Throwing is defined as any flexion beyond 15 degrees ( excluding hyper-extension) in the elbow, be it bending the arm after starting straight or vice versa.

 

[C_C]

In the interests of objectivity, you should probably stick with the results of lab tests rather than quote McGrath's figures as he hasnt been the subject of definitive testing.

I am using the lower limit of McGrath's figures in contrast to Murali's lower limit ( i tend to give everyone the benifit of the doubt). Since the figure recorded from McGrath carries an error margin ( +/- 2 degrees), i am perfectly fine taking the lower limit of McGrath's figures to contrast with Murali's ( ie, 12 deg. +/- 2 deg. cannot go below 10 deg. if done correctly).

 

[Ikki]

Firstly, it's not an illusion - he does chuck. But so, apparently, does everyone else albeit generally to a lesser degree.

The illusion argument was fostered by Murali boosters as an excuse in earlier, less informed days.

Secondly, there's little doubt that he wouldnt have passed muster in some other countries.

Thirdly, at 15 degrees tolerance levels, he's supposedly legal so the world would be poorer off if we hadnt had the opportunity to watch him bowl.

I do not consider it an illusion either mate, I just humoured those that do to get on with the argument.

Such law can NOT be sustained and be consistent- simply because even cricketing laws cannot violate the fundamental laws of science and fundamental nature of the human physiology.

You fail to see the point AGAIN. This is not about the science dictating what is normal or not, and what is a throw or not. This is about cricket and what we know of it. Such a law WAS sustained through a cultural agreement inside cricketing professionals. Because of the inadequacies of the written law, there has been a redefinition of a proper bowl of the ball which is so open and broad it is allowing balls to be bowled that would have been condemned otherwise.

The only proper way to utilise this science is to have it EXACT and correct akin to a mathematical formula which will sum up whether a ball is legal, in cricketing terms, and what is a chuck. I fear you will never understand this point because of your lack of experience in playing the game at a respectable level.

If you intend to set a rule that can be consistently followed, it cannot be in violation of science ( ie, a rule that cannot be verified consistently by any logical process).
And if you intend to set a rule purely based on the human eye, then it is a rule set simply by aesthetics and personal preference in mind, which has no place in sport. No player should be barred from playing simply because he is not suitable to your taste(s).

As I mentioned before: the action of a bowl, meaning how it was intended to be, cannot be properly defined in the realms of science just as yet. In this scenario, there has to be a trust with the officiating bodies of what is the correct method to bowl a ball. This is, essentially, the same trust placed on an umpire to be correct in his decision making.

The bowling method is much more clearer than that analogy. What was written down as a cricketing law to define the measures of a bowl were incorrect before the Murali case. The action itself was adhered to for a very long time withstanding this flawed law. No one knew it was flawed because it had not properly been reviewed. The circumference of the law pertaining to what is acceptable is almost irrelevant. There are now people, who mostly for Murali's case, are arguing about the flawed law in which the incorrect facets of the law (that hindered no one bowling properly at the time) restrict all bowlers from bowling properly in direct relevance to the definition of the law pertaining to bowling.

 

[Ikki]

I think I can try to get my point accross in this illustration:

Chuck defined by human physiology = 1

Chuck defined by Cricket = 1+x

Although borrowing from human physiology, as it has to because we're human . The Cricket chuck is not the human chuck. Maybe that helps...maybe not. Yikes

 

[C_C]

As I mentioned before: the action of a bowl, meaning how it was intended to be, cannot be properly defined in the realms of science just as yet. In this scenario, there has to be a trust with the officiating bodies of what is the correct method to bowl a ball. This is, essentially, the same trust placed on an umpire to be correct in his decision making.

The bowling method is much more clearer than that analogy. What was written down as a cricketing law to define the measures of a bowl were incorrect before the Murali case. The action itself was adhered to for a very long time withstanding this flawed law. No one knew it was flawed because it had not properly been reviewed. The circumference of the law pertaining to what is acceptable is almost irrelevant. There are now people, who mostly for Murali's case, are arguing about the flawed law in which the incorrect facets of the law (that hindered no one bowling properly at the time) restrict all bowlers from bowling properly in direct relevance to the definition of the law pertaining to bowling.
KaZoH0lic is online now Report Bad Post Reply With Quote

Which boils down to only one thing - pure opinion of what constitutes a 'good action' and what doesnt'.
All it does, is not prevent chucking- it simply discriminates against unorthodox styles of bowling.

 

[luckyeddie]

I am using the lower limit of McGrath's figures in contrast to Murali's lower limit ( i tend to give everyone the benifit of the doubt). Since the figure recorded from McGrath carries an error margin ( +/- 2 degrees), i am perfectly fine taking the lower limit of McGrath's figures to contrast with Murali's ( ie, 12 deg. +/- 2 deg. cannot go below 10 deg. if done correctly).

Are these +/- figures absolutes (determining the range), or are they standard deviations?

 

[Ikki]

Which boils down to only one thing - pure opinion of what constitutes a 'good action' and what doesnt'.
All it does, is not prevent chucking- it simply discriminates against unorthodox styles of bowling.

Ahh good you have come to that point. Before this controversy the opinion of a proper bowl was widely accepted EVEN if it was written incorrectly. It is in this that a global/cultural acceptance of a bowl is the only answer. Yet, using science many have muddied the acceptable and unacceptable. All this has caused too much doubt in an otherwise simple case. As SJS said that people will always detract to, if need be, race/religion/country just to protect themselves.

If you cannot trust a body of profesional bowlers and coaches making an agreement on what it is to bowl then we're in worse trouble than that, we can't trust any umpire maybe coming from a country which may not have a good relation to ours because it can alter their 'opinion'...Worse yet why do we trust judicial bodies in law? If one is being judged on whether his/her case is right/wrong why trust the verdict of any judge? Fortunately, the world is a better place than that and I believe such discriminations will not occur.

Thankfully, no matter what circle you're from, it seems the more professional of coaches and players have an understanding of what a bowl is and they're identical to each other. Once you experience cricket at a higher level I'm sure you will agree with what is being said.

EDIT: This isn't to say that EVERY professional agrees. I know myself most do, and the reason they do not voice any concern is either they do not have enough power, or are trying to dodge the controversy.