*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Tom Halsey]

Nothing imbecillic about that- if the record is relevant, then all record is relevant against the said team- both victory/loss, good performance and bad performance. It is contradictory to froth at the mouth condemning the failure against team X when success against team X is not praised with the same vigour and vice versa.

So you're saying that Australia should celebrate just as hard at beating Bangladesh as Bangladesh did when they beat Australia? That's ridiculous.

Same applies with Murali and Zimbabwe.

 

[Ikki]

Nothing imbecillic about that- if the record is relevant, then all record is relevant against the said team- both victory/loss, good performance and bad performance. It is contradictory to froth at the mouth condemning the failure against team X when success against team X is not praised with the same vigour and vice versa. How Bangladesh reacts in winning/losing to OZ is an entirely different ballgame than OZ reacting to BD, simply because while BD is a minnow, OZ isnt. This example isnt a minnow vs minnow or a major vs major, but rather, minnow vs major, where two teams are evaluated on differing criterias ( performance against minnows are largely irrelevant- performance against every other team is relevant.You cannot take only losses or victories or bad records/good records against a particular team selectively).

PS: You still havn't explained what is 'culturally accepted' bowling method.

Umm, so in regards to many points that you have made: What is the difference between Shane Warne doing well against England compared to the best players of spin a.k.a India? Considering both are teams, regardless of their stature, both sets of statistics should hold no more weighting than each other. So, in your words Warney is the greatest bowler whether or not he bowled well against India, because he also did very well against other teams, there is no difference as you say.

BTW, when implying X as an undetermined variable you're running away from the issue. The whole argument is that X is a variable that changes whether it is Bangladesh or India. With the difference in value comes a different sum to the equation.

I read a few posts back and I see you do not agree with what Doctors had said about Warne's injury? But Wha? How? Wasn't science the be-all and end-all? Why are you arguing with a Doctor who clearly said Warne's injury was worse than previously thought? You're bringing in your own two cents? Wasn't that a no no?

P.S: I thought I did answer you in my posts? Especially in the last one? Nevermind, I'll stick to cricket, you stick to making graphs.

 

[marc71178]

No, they are not tail-end wickets, as most top-order batsmen of even ZIM or BD are superior to the last 4 of most nations.

Some nations.

If Vettori were in either of those sides, he'd bat 3, likewise someone like Giles would be a top order player.

 

[C_C]

Umm, so in regards to many points that you have made: What is the difference between Shane Warne doing well against England compared to the best players of spin a.k.a India? Considering both are teams, regardless of their stature, both sets of statistics should hold no more weighting than each other. So, in your words Warney is the greatest bowler whether or not he bowled well against India, because he also did very well against other teams, there is no difference as you say.

Try to take some time and read what i've said. I said that one cannot be criticised for poor performance against a said team, if one isnt being rewarded/praised for good performance against the same team. That is contradictory.

BTW, when implying X as an undetermined variable you're running away from the issue. The whole argument is that X is a variable that changes whether it is Bangladesh or India. With the difference in value comes a different sum to the equation.

The whole point is, if X = a particular team, the criticism for failure against the said team must match the praise lavished for success- else it is not an balanced opinion.

I read a few posts back and I see you do not agree with what Doctors had said about Warne's injury? But Wha? How? Wasn't science the be-all and end-all? Why are you arguing with a Doctor who clearly said Warne's injury was worse than previously thought? You're bringing in your own two cents? Wasn't that a no no?

I've never heard or read a doctor categorically confirming the nature of Warney's injury in 1997 and from all i've seen and remember from watching it back then ( amazing how some people have such short memory), there was no indication of a career threatening injury during the test series or before it. Warne got evaluated and he left to tour IND while McGrath missed it due to injury. It must be then that McGrath's injury was a life-n-death injury for him to be judged unfit but Warne to be judged okay. one cannot bowl 150 overs in 3 tests spanning weeks while carrying a so-called career threatening injury.

P.S: I thought I did answer you in my posts? Especially in the last one? Nevermind, I'll stick to cricket, you stick to making graphs.

No you havnt specified what exactly is 'culturally accepted' bowling style. You've alluded to it but never mentioned what it exactly is. So go on, enlighten me- what exactly is this 'culturally and traditionally accepted' way of bowling ?

 

[C_C]

So you're saying that Australia should celebrate just as hard at beating Bangladesh as Bangladesh did when they beat Australia? That's ridiculous.

Same applies with Murali and Zimbabwe.

No. I said that success and failure vs a certain nation should be treated with same enthusiasm for an individual player. Obviously, it applies differently for a minnow playing a heavyweight and for a heavyweight playing a minnow.

 

[Tom Halsey]

No. I said that success and failure vs a certain nation should be treated with same enthusiasm for an individual player. Obviously, it applies differently for a minnow playing a heavyweight and for a heavyweight playing a minnow.

And why is it different for teams and not players? The same logistics and principles remain.

 

[C_C]

And why is it different for teams and not players? The same logistics and principles remain.

Because a player is much likelier to fail than the team overall - indeed, a player has had good series in middle of absolute team disasters and vice versa.

 

[Ikki]

Because a player is much likelier to fail than the team overall - indeed, a player has had good series in middle of absolute team disasters and vice versa.

That's irrelative because Murali is pretty much the whole Sri Lankan attack. That is what you have been arguing? So if Murali fails, for sure his team will as well.

 

[dinu23]

That's irrelative because Murali is pretty much the whole Sri Lankan attack. That is what you have been arguing? So if Murali fails, for sure his team will as well.

well we demolished the South Africans without murali.

 

[displaced]

I suggest this thread be re-named 'pointless circular argument'

 

[Ikki]

well we demolished the South Africans without murali.

According to your mate, Murali carries your team and besides him everyone else is at best a good player, nothing great.

 

[honestbharani]

All true but unfortunately the powers-that-be have left the decision making power in the hands of the umpire but have effectively neutred them when it comes to calling someone for chucking.

What's to stop a bowler from utilising an illegal action?

The threat of a report.

Does anyone really think that that is what's going through a bowler's mind in the middle of a test match?

Fortunately, the pakistanis won the final test of the recent campaign to put the issue beyond doubt. Had they failed to do so, the English could quite rightly have pointed to Shabbir's involvement in the first test and claimed that the series victory was tainted.

This is one area of the game where the rule makers have had an each-way bet.

In all other areas, decision making is made either by umpires on the field or by the third umpire with the assistance of technology. In both cases, it is instantaneous.

IMO, the ICC has simply attempted to remove this controversial issue as far as possible from the cricket field but has left it open to continued abuse.

But so are so many other rules. I still don't see an umpire being 100% sure that a person is flexing his elbow at more than 15 degrees, which is the only scenario in which he can call him. It is obvious that an umpire can only speculate with regards to this issue, and given that fact, I think this law is about as fair as it can be. Putting the issue into the hands of the umpire would complicate this issue even more, if that is actually possible.

 

[honestbharani]

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

if you start off with a straight elbow and then bend it, that is throwing/chucking too. This is the problem. With your definition of chucking/throwing, you would point out only "Murali". But according to the laws of the game and to me, both "Murali" and "McGrath" are chucking/throwing. Murali chucks the way you described chucking and McGrath chucks the way I described it. It is unfortunate that so many fans (and umpires, it seems) didn't know that a guy starting off with a straight elbow and then flexing it is chucking as much as a guy who starts off with a bent elbow and then straightens it.

 

[honestbharani]

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

So, he is the real "God's gift to cricket" then?

 

[honestbharani]

Except that he doesnt play the top team

lol, neither does Warne.

 

[honestbharani]

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 am getting what you meant, but doing what you are suggesting simply means we act against overwhelming evidence in this case. It means we accept the fact that most people involved with the game do not know that a guy who bends his elbow after starting it off in a straight position is chucking as much as a guy who starts with a bent elbow and then straightens it. This is a very fundamental problem and as flawed as the new law may be, I think your approach will be even more flawed.

 

[GotSpin]

if you start off with a straight elbow and then bend it, that is throwing/chucking too. This is the problem. With your definition of chucking/throwing, you would point out only "Murali". But according to the laws of the game and to me, both "Murali" and "McGrath" are chucking/throwing. Murali chucks the way you described chucking and McGrath chucks the way I described it. It is unfortunate that so many fans (and umpires, it seems) didn't know that a guy starting off with a straight elbow and then flexing it is chucking as much as a guy who starts off with a bent elbow and then straightens it.

It's preety hard chucking with a straight elbow and then bending it. Just had a go and only managed a few weak meters . Doesn't prove anything though

edit. But if you try chucking like that, you end up straightening it again just like how i described

 

[honestbharani]

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).

It is funny that you should bring that up, Eddie. If you think that there should be different tolerant levels for quickies and spinners and if you think it is suspicious that inspite of Murali having the same arm speed as McGrath, the ball comes out slower, I wonder what you will have to say about slower deliveries of guys like McGrath and Wasim AKram, because they delivered it at the same arm speed (atleast to the naked eye) and so many players have mentioned that there is no discernible way to pick up their slower deliveries off their hands. Don't you think that Murali might be bowling the same way McGrath or Wasim bowled their slower deliveries? That is, with great arm speed and yet the ball comes out slower?

 

[honestbharani]

It's preety hard chucking with a straight elbow and then bending it. Just had a go and only managed a few weak meters . Doesn't prove anything though

It means you have a lot to learn from McGrath.

 

[GotSpin]

It means you have a lot to learn from McGrath.

Im talking about throwing the ball though. Try throwing a ball with a straight elbow at first then bending it