*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[social]

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).

BTW, whilst I hate to be a nit-picker , Murali's doosra was measured at 14.2 degrees.

Having said that, Murali was "mortified" (UWA transcript) at having been proven a "chucker" and it was he alone that persuaded the Sri Lankan CB to accept the banning of this delivery. From my perspective, he gained a lot of credit for this action.

 

[Ikki]

I do not think there is any doubt whether Murali is a great bowler or question his character. In fact he isn't really to blame for anything.

 

[social]

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



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.



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.

Most cricketers are not men of science.

They see things in black and white, i.e. youre a chucker or youre not.

I subscribe to this theory and have always regarded Murali as the most blatant thrower of a cricket ball in history.

However, the game is evolving and, as such, the ICC, for a no. of reasons (not least amongst them, political expediency), determined to be more scientific about the process.

As a result, new tolerance limits were introduced and Murali conforms.

Until proven otherwise, this is not open to debate.

He is legal.

 

[Dasa]

Most cricketers are not men of science.

What is interesting is that those cricketers on the panel formulating the new chucking laws were conservative ones who universally agreed after they saw the evidence that the new laws were the way to go....people liek Michael Holding, Angus Fraser et al...surely this counts for something.

 

[Jono]

Yes, and for the last time, you could remove all of those minnow wickets from his career stats, and he would still have a lesser proportion of tailender wickets than Warne ( get it ? not a single minnow wicket included in the analysis this time ).

LOL! I can't believe its taken like 2 pages or something and people still don't understand what you are saying.

Anyway this thread has over 1000 replies. Crazy. I still think we should just all go back to what occurred on the first place. Naming mediocre spinners and declaring them better than Murali and Warne

 

[C_C]

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.

I am sorry but again, in no sport, is style a legislative factor when it cannot be accurately defined.
Styles such as bowling ( arm comming around), serving ( ball tossed over the head and smashed down), etc. can be accurately defined and held accountable to by the naked eye.
However, a style such as 'this seems like a correct bowling style' cannot be held to, since the defining factor for this style ( the elbow flexion) cannot be verified simply with the naked eye.
Therefore, it has to be precisely defined and measured.
ICC has to make a stand about the question of 'chuck' - if chucking is allowed or illegal. If it is allowed, then there is no controversy. If it isnt allowed, ICC has to define what a 'chuck' is.
A chuck has always been defined as any flexion of the elbow, be it starting with a bent one and straightening or vice versa. This has been subsequently changed to 15 deg., as it is the mean flexion level for a wide array of bowlers surveyed.
Whatever the figure it is set to, that has to be accurately measured to determine if there is a chuck or no chuck - and the human eye is not competent enough to determine that.
The eye is easily fooled by complex motions ( which is why you see the spokes spin back when a car accelerates) and bowling is a complex motion.
You need a scientific equipment to detect that,which is precisely what has been done.

But as long as cricket has an 'elbow rule', that rule has to be implemented to the best of its ability - which is not the human eye and therefore, the umpires should not have an opinion about it.

PS: I don't care one toss what professional cricketers, even alltime great cricketers think about the whole chucking issue. This is simply a question of implimenting a rule, which exists for whatever reason(s) which directly concerns biomechanics.
I would rather take the word of a biomechanics expert than a cricketer on what the human arm is capable of and what isnt ( which is directly tied to the chucking rule in cricket). Its just that simple.

People uneducated in biomechanics have no business judging on biomechanical topics.
What i have no objection arguing to however, is whether the chucking rule should exist or not ( ie, should bowlers be allowed to chuck or not). Leave the 'who flexes his elbow and who doesn't' to the experts- and let proper knowledge make the decision, instead of an illusion.

 

[social]

What is interesting is that those cricketers on the panel formulating the new chucking laws were conservative ones who universally agreed after they saw the evidence that the new laws were the way to go....people liek Michael Holding, Angus Fraser et al...surely this counts for something.

Of course, and that's why it's now somewhat accepted that there was aneed for a change.

 

[Ikki]

I am sorry but again, in no sport, is style a legislative factor when it cannot be accurately defined.
Styles such as bowling ( arm comming around), serving ( ball tossed over the head and smashed down), etc. can be accurately defined and held accountable to by the naked eye.
However, a style such as 'this seems like a correct bowling style' cannot be held to, since the defining factor for this style ( the elbow flexion) cannot be verified simply with the naked eye.
Therefore, it has to be precisely defined and measured.
ICC has to make a stand about the question of 'chuck' - if chucking is allowed or illegal. If it is allowed, then there is no controversy. If it isnt allowed, ICC has to define what a 'chuck' is.
A chuck has always been defined as any flexion of the elbow, be it starting with a bent one and straightening or vice versa. This has been subsequently changed to 15 deg., as it is the mean flexion level for a wide array of bowlers surveyed.
Whatever the figure it is set to, that has to be accurately measured to determine if there is a chuck or no chuck - and the human eye is not competent enough to determine that.
The eye is easily fooled by complex motions ( which is why you see the spokes spin back when a car accelerates) and bowling is a complex motion.
You need a scientific equipment to detect that,which is precisely what has been done.

But as long as cricket has an 'elbow rule', that rule has to be implemented to the best of its ability - which is not the human eye and therefore, the umpires should not have an opinion about it.

PS: I don't care one toss what professional cricketers, even alltime great cricketers think about the whole chucking issue. This is simply a question of implimenting a rule, which exists for whatever reason(s) which directly concerns biomechanics.
I would rather take the word of a biomechanics expert than a cricketer on what the human arm is capable of and what isnt ( which is directly tied to the chucking rule in cricket). Its just that simple.

People uneducated in biomechanics have no business judging on biomechanical topics.
What i have no objection arguing to however, is whether the chucking rule should exist or not ( ie, should bowlers be allowed to chuck or not). Leave the 'who flexes his elbow and who doesn't' to the experts- and let proper knowledge make the decision, instead of an illusion.

Unfortunately, you cannot decipher the message I am proposing. You keep reverting back to the same argument and miss the point I'm putting forward, and what a few others have also been gifting. It is not that you do not have a valid argument, but it is irrelative pertaining to the point being argued and that is also not your fault. You are a scientist and not a Cricketer and it is ironic that you lack the knowledge needed at hand.

As you would rather speak to a bioengineer regarding the prose of throwing, it is a good idea for the ICC to converse with cricketers in reference to playing cricket and not this endless search for an answer. I wish they were as smart as you in this regard.

ADD: To think it's a 'style' issue is to really be reading the situation wrongly.

 

[marc71178]

people liek Michael Holding, Angus Fraser et al...surely this counts for something.

Angus Fraser was also involved with the introduction of the Supersub and Powerplays...

 

[Tom Halsey]

LOL! I can't believe its taken like 2 pages or something and people still don't understand what you are saying.

We understand what he's saying, but not why.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I declare Micahael Clarke the best spinnner in the world because of his average against the best players of spin in the World, India.

 

[Jono]

We understand what he's saying, but not why.

Okay.

Step 1: Remove ALL minnow wickets from Murali's record (Warne's too if you like). Now we only have 'worthy' opposition to analyse.
Step 2: Now analyse who takes most tailend wickets compared to top order batsman.

If the findings are Warne takes more (I am not sure but that is what I've read here) then one can't argue Murali takes as much 'lesser valued' wickets than Warne because he takes a lot of minnow wickets, since they aren't part of the analysis. Hence when playing the top teams, Murali takes more top order wickets.

 

[social]

Okay.

Step 1: Remove ALL minnow wickets from Murali's record (Warne's too if you like). Now we only have 'worthy' opposition to analyse.
Step 2: Now analyse who takes most tailend wickets compared to top order batsman.

If the findings are Warne takes more (I am not sure but that is what I've read here) then one can't argue Murali takes as much 'lesser valued' wickets than Warne because he takes a lot of minnow wickets, since they aren't part of the analysis. Hence when playing the top teams, Murali takes more top order wickets.

Except that he doesnt play the top team

 

[Jono]

Who doesn't play the top team?

 

[Ikki]

Murali playing Australia? I think that is what he means...

 

[Ikki]

BTW Tom: Chelsea 3 - 1 West Ham. Damn you blues .

 

[Jono]

Murali playing Australia? I think that is what he means...

If it is, then it wouldn't matter because neither does Warne.

 

[C_C]

Except that he doesnt play the top team

Top team against spin is India and both Murali and Warne plays against them.
.

 

[C_C]

Unfortunately, you cannot decipher the message I am proposing. You keep reverting back to the same argument and miss the point I'm putting forward, and what a few others have also been gifting. It is not that you do not have a valid argument, but it is irrelative pertaining to the point being argued and that is also not your fault. You are a scientist and not a Cricketer and it is ironic that you lack the knowledge needed at hand.

As you would rather speak to a bioengineer regarding the prose of throwing, it is a good idea for the ICC to converse with cricketers in reference to playing cricket and not this endless search for an answer. I wish they were as smart as you in this regard.

ADD: To think it's a 'style' issue is to really be reading the situation wrongly.

Oh i understand the point you are making. My issue is, your response is not practical and not fair - it has no valid basis of forming a rule and there is no way for that rule to be consistently applied. You are essentially advocating ' lets return to the old days of ignorance', which is something i don't see any purpose or use for, save for sentimentalism and 'comfort zone'.
Cricket may wish to make as many laws or whatever laws it wants.
But if it wishes itself to be taken seriously, it has to eliminate the possibility of inconsistent and ambiguous jurisdiction. By simply following a 'culture', which flies in face of facts in this instance, is no more different than ignorance. For there is no way of accurately telling who is chucking, who isnt and simply relying on the human eye is a bit like advocating the gramaphone device over the dvd players.

 

[Ikki]

Oh i understand the point you are making. My issue is, your response is not practical and not fair - it has no valid basis of forming a rule and there is no way for that rule to be consistently applied. You are essentially advocating ' lets return to the old days of ignorance', which is something i don't see any purpose or use for, save for sentimentalism and 'comfort zone'.
Cricket may wish to make as many laws or whatever laws it wants.
But if it wishes itself to be taken seriously, it has to eliminate the possibility of inconsistent and ambiguous jurisdiction. By simply following a 'culture', which flies in face of facts in this instance, is no more different than ignorance. For there is no way of accurately telling who is chucking, who isnt and simply relying on the human eye is a bit like advocating the gramaphone device over the dvd players.

You just proved you didn't understand what I am saying. What you consider not fair and practical is the idea of reverting back to the flawed law pertaining to the bowling action. My argument is that it too was flawed and the jurisdiction was incorrect but what WAS correct was the unwritten assumption of what it was to bowl.

Written Definition = Murali chucks/Everyone chucks
Unwritten Definition = Murali chucks/Others do not chuck

The science you are using to dictate what is a throw or what is not is of no relevance to the CRICKET bowl of the ball. So your question of equity is irrelevant, because you are discussing the scientific variables that are not defining what it is to bowl even now. In trying to put in words a law that described the proper method of bowling the officiating body FAILED. This FAILURE has made a broad assumption of what IS TO BOWL. What I am telling you is that the ONLY people knowledgeable enough to determine that ARE cricketers and NOT scientists. Because a CHUCK in cricket is not actually a chuck in the generic meaning of the word.

However, because when one disects law in words and single definitions, then the definition of a phrase, many have been lost in this assumption, such as yourself. Now what it is to bowl: has cloned the old assumption and added a scientific approach to making it fair to someone like Murali. How did they do that? By the broad interpretation of their own laws. This is what I mean as to when I say, that there has to be a cultural agreeance in what it is to bowl. Such an agreeance DID exist for a very long time, like it or not, and was successful. Now what we have is the proposition of very few bowlers being called because of this revised law so that on paper, there will be less people exemplified, however in reality the game will change and the nature of a bowl will lose credibility.

Until, on paper a proper formula of words and numbers can come together coherently and accurately describing what it is to bowl a cricket ball, as traditionally defined, then a half azzed attempt, like the current situation, is not needed and is causing more confusion to the game. Why don't they revert to thsi situation and give soverignty to an unwritten law which everyone used to agree on? Politics is my best answer...a whole lot of it...and in special favour to Murali.