*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[honestbharani]

No because most people have success against minnows, very few fail. Murali was one of the few who's had a very bad series against Zimbabwe.

To be honest, I would think a mid 90s New Zealand team was a worse side against spin than the mid 90s Zimbabwean team, with the Flower brothers and Murray Goodwin (he played that series when Murali didn't do well, IIRC). IN fact, nearly the very same Zim team took Warney to the cleaners in the tri series in India in 98. I am sure injury played a part, but Goodwin took Warney on very easily even in the 99 World Cup. I think you will find that that particular Zim line up were an above par side when it comes to tackling spin.

 

[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

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

that is even worse than starting with a bent elbow and straightening it.

 

[honestbharani]

That is how you throw. Nobody can throw with a perfectly straight arm or with a perfectly bent arm. Which is why the old law was extremely flawed and wrong.


BTW, I believe the laws were originally written in that way because everyone knew that you get to do more with the ball when you flex your elbows (either straightening a bent elbow or bending a straight elbow). So if you throw the ball with a straight elbow and then try to bend it and then end up straightening it again, it is obvious that you are getting more advantage than others who only straighten a bent elbow or bend a straight elbow.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Well mate, the approach I proposed was one that was forever enduring. With only very few cases being come up under scrutiny. This new law has made a mock of what we all, supposedly, knew about bowling. Someone bowling out of character with the wrong intent is different to one bowling as he has been shown or learned how to do. In which case the latter would have an argument questioning this 'culture' as I have put.

I emphasised that before the inquiry and the whole Murali fiasco, the cricketing institution had a clearer understanding in what it was to bowl. How Murali rose to starting XI ranks with that action (I'm assuming Sri Lankan's had not done their research done by UWA years after) is a very shady ordeal. In this light, the new laws are there to be abused.

The base of my argument was, that until a law that is well defined in 'numbers and words' correctly defines what it is to bowl, in it's cricketing definition, an unwritten understanding should be adhered to the correct action. However, actions to be later found out to be illegal by this unwritten definition should receive the attention and sanctions as if it were written. If you think this is something new and impossible to achieve. I suggest you look at the English legal/political system.

This can be implented and needs a strict view with equitable survey. Currently, such a definition is flawed in what it means to bowl, rather describing a facet of bowling then the whole understanding. In this it has made a broad assumption and we're left with something of almost useless nature.

P.S I think I made a silly analogy a page or two back regarding this case, sadly it holds a lot of relevance. Read it and tell me what you think.

 

[honestbharani]

Well mate, the approach I proposed was one that was forever enduring. With only very few cases being come up under scrutiny. This new law has made a mock of what we all, supposedly, knew about bowling. Someone bowling out of character with the wrong intent is different to one bowling as he has been shown or learned how to do. In which case the latter would have an argument questioning this 'culture' as I have put.

I emphasised that before the inquiry and the whole Murali fiasco, the cricketing institution had a clearer understanding in what it was to bowl. How Murali rose to starting XI ranks with that action (I'm assuming Sri Lankan's had not done their research done by UWA years after) is a very shady ordeal. In this light, the new laws are there to be abused.

The base of my argument was, that until a law that is well defined in 'numbers and words' correctly defines what it is to bowl, in it's cricketing definition, an unwritten understanding should be adhered to the correct action. However, actions to be later found out to be illegal by this unwritten definition should receive the attention and sanctions as if it were written. If you think this is something new and impossible to achieve. I suggest you look at the English legal/political system.

This can be implented and needs a strict view with equitable survey. Currently, such a definition is flawed in what it means to bowl, rather describing a facet of bowling then the whole understanding. In this it has made a broad assumption and we're left with something of almost useless nature.

P.S I think I made a silly analogy a page or two back regarding this case, sadly it holds a lot of relevance. Read it and tell me what you think.

I get that, Kazo. But the point is, the reason why Murali's action LOOKS bad is because he starts off with a bent elbow and then straightens it. Now, if people actually looked at his action WITH the knowledge that bowling with a bent elbow is as legal as bowling with a straight arm, then you will see that his action is not that bad. Plus, Murali has a problem with hyper extension and you really cannot fault him for not having a few muscles in that region like others do. In fact, I read up at the University website that they used Murali and Shoaib as case studies of hyper extension. Shoaib had a little too many muscles or bones (I am not sure) in that area and Murali had too little, causing their respective actions look worser than they are.


The point is, Kazo, living as we are in a scientific world, abandoning science will not solve the problem. It will only make it bigger.

 

[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.

Here it is.

 

[honestbharani]

Here it is.

yeah, but as pointed out earlier, appealing does not involve any bio-mechanics or any other such specialist scientific field. It is a subjective issue and it always has been. Unfortunately, the bowling laws were flawed in that it was supposed to be subjective but due to the breakthroughs in science, has become objective.

 

[Ikki]

I get that, Kazo. But the point is, the reason why Murali's action LOOKS bad is because he starts off with a bent elbow and then straightens it. Now, if people actually looked at his action WITH the knowledge that bowling with a bent elbow is as legal as bowling with a straight arm, then you will see that his action is not that bad. Plus, Murali has a problem with hyper extension and you really cannot fault him for not having a few muscles in that region like others do. In fact, I read up at the University website that they used Murali and Shoaib as case studies of hyper extension. Shoaib had a little too many muscles or bones (I am not sure) in that area and Murali had too little, causing their respective actions look worser than they are.


The point is, Kazo, living as we are in a scientific world, abandoning science will not solve the problem. It will only make it bigger.

I totally agree with your view. My problem is sanctioning something that is so heavily steeped in science makes it harder to enforce because, one cannot know a small part of biomechanics then legislate with it. Unfortunately, I can't give you a detailed discussion regarding what I do not know of the human physiology and, furthermore, those that do will later find some reasoning yet again to possible disapprove their actions.

What I have a problem with is creating a law that is open enough for interpretation that while future actions may qualify under the physical restraints it may not be at all a cricketing bowl.

Personally, I've watched Murali's action from many angles and tried to be open about it, yet I do not buy the illusion reasoning because to me, one who was taught how to bowl, such an action is a chuck.

 

[Ikki]

yeah, but as pointed out earlier, appealing does not involve any bio-mechanics or any other such specialist scientific field. It is a subjective issue and it always has been. Unfortunately, the bowling laws were flawed in that it was supposed to be subjective but due to the breakthroughs in science, has become objective.

I beg to differ, I think they've gone in the right steps to make it as such. Yet I think it's more up for question now than it ever was. While I think they should continue to formulate a perfect piece of legislation, they should not implement such an open definition as exists.

 

[Ikki]

Why I made that analogy is because what was once a generally accepted tradition had been put into question where it really did not apply to everyone. I think bowlers like Shane Warne had been taught to restrict themselves and have shaped their action according to the previous understanding. Yet someone like Murali who does not adhere to this is getting the advantage of this muck up. While he could reshape his action and reform it to global acceptance, the controversy has given him a handicap in regards to everyone else.

 

[social]

Why I made that analogy is because what was once a generally accepted tradition had been put into question where it really did not apply to everyone. I think bowlers like Shane Warne had been taught to restrict themselves and have shaped their action according to the previous understanding. Yet someone like Murali who does not adhere to this is getting the advantage of this muck up. While he could reshape his action and reform it to global acceptance, the controversy has given him a handicap in regards to everyone else.

See Botha - a product of the new environment

 

[Ikki]

See Botha - a product of the new environment

Pardon? You've lost me.

 

[social]

Pardon? You've lost me.

Look at his action.

Started bowling spin a couple of years ago and was mentored by Harbi.

Classic manufactured, dodgy action.

 

[Ikki]

My bad, I see what you mean't now.

 

[social]

Anyway, youre barking up the wrong tree by complaining about the "individuality" of actions.

Champions are not all the same.

If anything, complain about the degree of latitude available under the new legislation.

IMO, that's where the problem lies.

 

[Deja moo]

Look at his action.

Started bowling spin a couple of years ago and was mentored by Harbi.

Classic manufactured, dodgy action.

excuse me ?

 

[honestbharani]

Look at his action.

Started bowling spin a couple of years ago and was mentored by Harbi.

Classic manufactured, dodgy action.

I am pretty sure Harbhajan had as much to do with Botha as I did. Botha may have modelled himself on Bhajji, but Bhajji didn't never mentor him, methinks.

 

[marc71178]

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

Except when he talks about the only great attacks of the past decade or 2, when apparently they become one.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Botha is an absolute shocker as far as I'm concerned. There is such a huge visible flex in his action it's ridiculous. He's significantly worse than Shoaib Malik or Harbhajan.

 

[Tom Halsey]

To be honest, I would think a mid 90s New Zealand team was a worse side against spin than the mid 90s Zimbabwean team, with the Flower brothers and Murray Goodwin (he played that series when Murali didn't do well, IIRC). IN fact, nearly the very same Zim team took Warney to the cleaners in the tri series in India in 98. I am sure injury played a part, but Goodwin took Warney on very easily even in the 99 World Cup. I think you will find that that particular Zim line up were an above par side when it comes to tackling spin.

Whether NZ were worse or not I'm not sure, but Zimbabwe were certainly very bad.

As for Warne, injury played more than a part in that ODI series (and even C_C's admitted that) and he was going through the worst run of his life during the early phases of the 1999 WC (no excuse for that).