*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[luckyeddie]

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.

Before Angus Fraser suggests anything else to improve our fair game, someone tie him up in a sack please.

 

[C_C]

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

What is the basis of this statement of your's ?

he 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.

The cricket laws determine what is a throw and what isnt. But science is necessary to impliment it, for otherwise, you are left ONLY with the naked eye and that is a **** poor way of judging the elbow flexion.

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.

The so-called cricketers have to determine what is a chuck and how exactly to impliment it. Simply stating that Murali is a chucker while others are not has no basis in facts- facts of any sort. For Murali doesnt do anything different than other bowlers do, save for adopt a different style.

 

[Robertinho]

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.

........

No, I'm sorry. It has been proven Murali bowls within legal limits. End of story.

 

[Ikki]

........

No, I'm sorry. It has been proven Murali bowls within legal limits. End of story.

That wasn't the point. It's a shame a lot of people are missing the most important point relating to this issue.

ADD: If you wish to know more of what I meant, please read posts prior to this.

 

[C_C]

That wasn't the point. It's a shame a lot of people are missing the most important point relating to this issue.

ADD: If you wish to know more of what I meant, please read posts prior to this.

I think you are missing the point that there has to be a consistency in any rule that go beyond simple opinions. Its not an opinion whether Federer is serving the ball overhead or underhead-it is a fact. But by observing through the naked eye, its simply an opinion on whether you *think* one is chucking or not- not determining whether they actually are.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

........

No, I'm sorry. It has been proven Murali bowls within legal limits. End of story.

Mate, Elton John would have been deemed straight under the criteria at the University of Western Australia.

 

[TIF]

Another thing, although when the talk of spinners comes, many people just start comparing Muralitharan and Warne and totally forget about a spinner, Anil Kumble of India, who has taken 485 wickets in his 100 tests at an average of 27.98.

Detailed Stats for Anil Kumble -

Career -
Overall - 485 wickets in 100 tests @ 27.98
Home - 309 wickets in 53 tests @ 23.42
Away - 176 wickets in 47 tests @ 36

Career stats excluding BD & Zim -
Overall - 437 wickets in 91 tests @ 28.76
Home - 285 wickets in 50 tests @ 23.81
Away - 152 wickets in 41 tests @38.05

Recent Stats since the Aussie tour in 2003/04 -
Overall - 127 wickets in 22 tests @ 27.33
Home - 74 wickets in 12 tests @ 27.62
Away - 53 wickets in 10 tests @ 26.94

Recent Stats excluding BD & Zim -
Overall - 113 wickets in 18 tests @ 27.81
Home - 74 wickets in 12 tests @ 27.62
Away - 39 wickets in 6 tests @ 28.17

 

[C_C]

IMO, Its Murali >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warne >>>>>> Kumble.

 

[marc71178]

Mate, Elton John would have been deemed straight under the criteria at the University of Western Australia.

ROFLMAO - gold!

 

[C_C]

Mate, Elton John would have been deemed straight under the criteria at the University of Western Australia.

Yeah well if thats so, then you *have* to accept that McGrath is just as much a chucker as Murali is- that is, if you wanna go by facts and not whims.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yeah well if thats so, then you *have* to accept that McGrath is just as much a chucker as Murali is- that is, if you wanna go by facts and not whims.

At one time, the ICC were going to have different tolerance levels for slow bowlers, based upon the fact that it was deemed easier to bowl with less 'flexion' if you had a lower arm speed.

Then Murali's doosra came along and the goalposts somehow got moved - presumably on the grounds that Murali has the arm speed of a fast bowler but the ball 'comes out slower'.

Funny, that - the only way a ball can 'come out slower' yet the arm maintain the same angular velocity is if the arm (from elbow to fingertip) is shortened. The only way the arm can be shortened is for the fingers to be brought closer to the shoulder. Luckily, there's a hinge half way along to facilitate such shortening. It's called an elbow - and it bends (just like Elton John).

 

[Ikki]

Australians called for abusing appeals.

In an enquiry to what is deemed an appeal a scientific approach was adopted to give the cricketing institution an answer for all. The UWA created an index in which took account voice stresses of the voice box, heart rate, and consistancy of appealling. A measure of 1+ indicated a false/abuse of an appeal and a measure of -1 indicated a correct use of appeal.

Later it was found, that 99% of bowlers that had been recorded in their appeals during trials were considered blatant abusers of the appeal.

In light of this new scientific breakthrough, the ICC has made a new definition in which former 'so-called' abusers were given an equitable decision based on what was found out of the study of their contemporaries.

 

[C_C]

At one time, the ICC were going to have different tolerance levels for slow bowlers, based upon the fact that it was deemed easier to bowl with less 'flexion' if you had a lower arm speed.

Then Murali's doosra came along and the goalposts somehow got moved - presumably on the grounds that Murali has the arm speed of a fast bowler but the ball 'comes out slower'.

Funny, that - the only way a ball can 'come out slower' yet the arm maintain the same angular velocity is if the arm (from elbow to fingertip) is shortened. The only way the arm can be shortened is for the fingers to be brought closer to the shoulder. Luckily, there's a hinge half way along to facilitate such shortening. It's called an elbow - and it bends (just like Elton John).

Incorrect actually.
How fast you are moving your arm is not in direct correlation to how fast the ball comes out. It also depends on how much muscle-force you are exerting. ( one is muscle-contraction producing force, other is simple acceleration)
It also depends on bowling style and form - if the form is same, a more muscular player with same arm-speed will generate higher bowling speeds.
For eg, Agarkar and Akram have/had the fastest arm speeds of all bowlers and neither of them were exactly super-fast bowlers.

The goal posts were moved after it was found that spinners dont necessarily have a slower arm-action than pacers and in several cases, have faster arm actions. Which makes sense really, as pacers depend on their general body momentum and other muscle groups, such as hams, gluetes, back muscles, etc. significantly to generate speeds while spinners rely almost solely on the shoulders to generate speed and turn( snap of the fingers).

 

[C_C]

Australians called for abusing appeals.

In an enquiry to what is deemed an appeal a scientific approach was adopted to give the cricketing institution an answer for all. The UWA created an index in which took account voice stresses of the voice box, heart rate, and consistancy of appealling. A measure of 1+ indicated a false/abuse of an appeal and a measure of -1 indicated a correct use of appeal.

Later it was found, that 99% of bowlers that had been recorded in their appeals during trials were considered blatant abusers of the appeal.

In light of this new scientific breakthrough, the ICC has made a new definition in which former 'so-called' abusers were given an equitable decision based on what was found out of the study of their contemporaries.

Incorrect analogy.
Abuse is something you can learn to control.
The vast majority of human beings *CANNOT* bowl without any flexion at the elbow. Infact, for the overwhelming majority of human beings turning their arms at the shoulder( in whatever direction) at high speeds, it is almost impossible to maintain a fixed elbow.
Behaviour can be adapted- physical limitations of the body cannot be.

 

[Ikki]

Incorrect analogy.
Abuse is something you can learn to control.
The vast majority of human beings *CANNOT* bowl without any flexion at the elbow. Infact, for the overwhelming majority of human beings turning their arms at the shoulder( in whatever direction) at high speeds, it is almost impossible to maintain a fixed elbow.
Behaviour can be adapted- physical limitations of the body cannot be.

Ahh, see you got one point, but missed the argument again. Yes, you're right in your human physiology of the human body. The more than VAST majority were bowling how traditionally acknowledged before this big error. So it IS possible to bowl the way traditionally defined.

Murali is a chucker in that sense. It is in the stuff-up of defining a chuck in cricket that has opened this broad debate. Even the biomechanics you source is not defining what it is to bowl(cricket wise). So you cannot use that as a point to stress. Why? Because the PICTURE is much larger than those variables. The same goes with the analogy aforementioned.

In that analogy one cannot use the human physiology in terms of deciphering whether an appeal is blatant or not. What we DO know is what we determine ourselves in WHAT is wrong and what is right. Since we have not come up with a 'formulae in words and numbers' defining this action yet, there should be no use of this, I've said this a million times, FLAWED law.

 

[C_C]

So it IS possible to bowl the way traditionally defined.

Which is what ?
Traditionally bowling was defined as no flexion in the elbows. Almost all bowlers violate and have violated that.

Murali is a chucker in that sense. It is in the stuff-up of defining a chuck in cricket that has opened this broad debate. Even the biomechanics you source is not defining what it is to bowl(cricket wise). So you cannot use that as a point to stress. Why? Because the PICTURE is much larger than those variables. The same goes with the analogy aforementioned.

In that analogy one cannot use the human physiology in terms of deciphering whether an appeal is blatant or not. What we DO know is what we determine ourselves in WHAT is wrong and what is right. Since we have not come up with a 'formulae in words and numbers' defining this action yet, there should be no use of this, I've said this a million times, FLAWED law.

If the law is flawed, one is not judged by that law. Simple as that.
And what you are missing is, irrelevant how cricket defines chucking, biomechanics havn't changed that definition. All they've done, is gathered the data relevant to how cricket defines chucking in a far more accurate and scientific way.
Its not that old players didnt chuck- they did chuck. The human eye was fooled into beleiving that they didnt.
Return to tradition is akin to return to steam engine trains- it is irrelevant and inferior to the modern method. Simple as that.

 

[Ikki]

Which is what ?
Traditionally bowling was defined as no flexion in the elbows. Almost all bowlers violate and have violated that.

I am talking about the definition not written but the one culturally agreed on. In that case, you're incorrect. Not everyone chucked, and only a few were found out to, including Murali. Once you know what it is to bowl you will understand this point. This is what I was trying to illustrate with that little equatoin before.

If the law is flawed, one is not judged by that law. Simple as that.
And what you are missing is, irrelevant how cricket defines chucking, biomechanics havn't changed that definition. All they've done, is gathered the data relevant to how cricket defines chucking in a far more accurate and scientific way.
Its not that old players didnt chuck- they did chuck. The human eye was fooled into beleiving that they didnt.
Return to tradition is akin to return to steam engine trains- it is irrelevant and inferior to the modern method. Simple as that.

LOL. I feel like I've been talking to a wall. It is relevant. Because we are talking about cricket. We are not talking about biomechanics. We are alluding to biomechanics to improve, but going beyond cricket and inputting such legislature based on biomechanics which does not define the action properly is just asking for trouble.

Now this broad and incorrect definition makes it less fair to those that adhered to the proper opinion of what it is to bowl, whether it was defined properly in text or not, and those who are taking advantage of that are reaping the fruits. Best example, Murali. IMO if he redefined his action he would still be a great bowler, just not in the esteem many hold him in now.

 

[C_C]

I am talking about the definition not written but the one culturally agreed on. In that case, you're incorrect. Not everyone chucked, and only a few were found out to, including Murali. Once you know what it is to bowl you will understand this point. This is what I was trying to illustrate with that little equatoin before.

Which is WHAT exactly ? What exactly is the 'culturally agreed on' definition you are alluding to ?
The appearance that someone doesnt chuck or the fact that someone doesnt chuck ?
Appearances can be deceptive- facts are not. And factually, every single bowler chucks/has chucked.

Oh and another thing- i don't like to toot my own horn, but i do know how to bowl fast-medium.

LOL. I feel like I've been talking to a wall. It is relevant. Because we are talking about cricket. We are not talking about biomechanics. We are alluding to biomechanics to improve, but going beyond cricket and inputting such legislature based on biomechanics which does not define the action properly is just asking for trouble.

Now this broad and incorrect definition makes it less fair to those that adhered to the proper opinion of what it is to bowl, whether it was defined properly in text or not, and those who are taking advantage of that are reaping the fruits. Best example, Murali. IMO if he redefined his action he would still be a great bowler, just not in the esteem many hold him in now.

For the umpteenth time- Biomechanics isnt defining what is a chuck and what isnt. Cricket has always defined so.Biomechanics merely provided the CORRECT tools to measure/verify/analyse that and found that almost every single bowler chucks/has chucked. The law has always been dubious about this and biomechanics only confirmed what some suspected ( and the vast majority of people too caught up in culture and traditions didnt) - almost every single bowler chucks and have always chucked the cricket ball.
And nobody adheres to whatever 'the proper' opinion of bowling is ( appearing to bowl without bending the elbows). If cricketers think that chucking = kink in the elbows, maybe they should take time and learn the laws before they play- the law has ALWAYS been that one can bowl with a bent arm or a straight arm - as long as the said bowler doesn't change the angle of the elbow, it is a legal ball.

 

[Ikki]

I'm sorry sunshine. This debate can go no further. You are a very intelligent person with a big gap in understanding here. If it were a mere difference of opinion I'd have not argued this long. I'm done with trying to explain something here.

 

[C_C]

I'm sorry sunshine. This debate can go no further. You are a very intelligent person with a big gap in knowledge here. If it were a mere difference of opinion I'd have not argued this long. I'm done with trying to explain something here.

Before you go, i would like you to explain what exactly is this 'culturally accepted/traditionally accepted way of bowling' is.