*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[luckyeddie]

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

Good man.

The problom is, none of the people arguing that one is better than the other can prove anything one way or the other without resorting to the practice of dropping certain 'rogue' statistics that don't support their positions.

 

[luckyeddie]

excuse me ?

Harbhajan's action is no better than it ought to be, and no worse than it could be.

In the 1970's or before, he'd have lasted a week - and that's 6 days longer than a few I could mention.

 

[Deja moo]

Harbhajan's action is no better than it ought to be, and no worse than it could be.

In the 1970's or before, he'd have lasted a week - and that's 6 days longer than a few I could mention.

So you agree with his assertion that Harbhajan has been mentoring Botha ? That seems a tad impossible, don't you think, considering that the first time they met face to face was when SA landed here a month or so back ?

And the 70s were a period when you could get away with ruining a players career just because you 'felt' his action was dodgy. Fortunately you cannot have your way nowadays unless you scientifically prove it is indeed illegal.

 

[honestbharani]

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).

Actually, I am talking about a certain Zim line up which only existed for a year or two, I think. It is when they had Campbell, Grant Flower, Goodwin, Andy Flower, Carlisle and a few others. Certainly, that top four were more than reasonable against top quality spin, which is more than I can say for the NZ side around the same time.

 

[Top_Cat]

Good man.

The problom is, none of the people arguing that one is better than the other can prove anything one way or the other without resorting to the practice of dropping certain 'rogue' statistics that don't support their positions.

Add me to the list of people who can't be bothered arguing either way and just enjoy watching them both. Christ, it's like arguing over who has the highest exam mark; the guy who got an A+ or the guy who got an A++ (extra points for neatness).

 

[vic_orthdox]

I reckon anyone not from the subcontinent who looks suspect will be in trouble WRT 15 degrees, because genetics have decided that our limbs just aren't as flexible and supple.

Hence, Botha will be in a bit of strife.

 

[SJS]

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

far the most meaningful post in this entire miserable thread
​

 

[luckyeddie]

So you agree with his assertion that Harbhajan has been mentoring Botha ? That seems a tad impossible, don't you think, considering that the first time they met face to face was when SA landed here a month or so back ?

And the 70s were a period when you could get away with ruining a players career just because you 'felt' his action was dodgy. Fortunately you cannot have your way nowadays unless you scientifically prove it is indeed illegal.

I don't agree with the assertion that Harbhajan has been mentoring Botha at all - and I don't know why you should.

As far as the 70's approach being 'having my way', where do you get your insight into what I feel and how I think?

 

[Deja moo]

I don't agree with the assertion that Harbhajan has been mentoring Botha at all - and I don't know why you should.

As far as the 70's approach being 'having my way', where do you get your insight into what I feel and how I think?

What was the procedure in dealing with suspect actions in the sevemties ?

 

[Ikki]

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.

Looking at Botha's bowling today and comparing it to other dubious actions, then comparing them to those that are more traditional, I think you're spot on there.

 

[luckyeddie]

What was the procedure in dealing with suspect actions in the sevemties ?

Well, the umpires were the sole arbiters. I appreciate that it wasn't perfect, but remember that the technology you accept as part and parcel of the game today just didn't exist.

For the most part, people with the shockingly suspect actions (like at least 6 top line players today) often didn't make it past county cricket until they sorted things out.

What's happening today is nothing short of scandalous - someone like Botha or Shabbir wouldn't have got a bowl in club cricket 30 years ago. Why are questions only asked in a test match?

 

[social]

Well, the umpires were the sole arbiters. I appreciate that it wasn't perfect, but remember that the technology you accept as part and parcel of the game today just didn't exist.

For the most part, people with the shockingly suspect actions (like at least 6 top line players today) often didn't make it past county cricket until they sorted things out.

What's happening today is nothing short of scandalous - someone like Botha or Shabbir wouldn't have got a bowl in club cricket 30 years ago. Why are questions only asked in a test match?

Youre absolutely right, LE.

When we were boys (long time ago, I must admit), if we'd have turned up to the nets with actions like some going around today, we wouldnt be able to bowl in a match until we got it "right."

Nowadays, it's anything goes and the game is poorer for it.

I feel sorry for Botha - he's a product of the environment and will suffer much angst for it.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, the umpires were the sole arbiters. I appreciate that it wasn't perfect, but remember that the technology you accept as part and parcel of the game today just didn't exist.

For the most part, people with the shockingly suspect actions (like at least 6 top line players today) often didn't make it past county cricket until they sorted things out.

What's happening today is nothing short of scandalous - someone like Botha or Shabbir wouldn't have got a bowl in club cricket 30 years ago. Why are questions only asked in a test match?

Because it gets more coverage? I personally know that here in India, some of the umpires talk to kids with suspect actions all the time. Heck, a friend of mine was even told to "perfect" his action because even the perfect actions have more than 10 degree flex and the limit is only 15. The day domestic cricket gets really good TV coverage and stuff will be the day when bad actions will be reported in domestic cricket itself. ATM, while a FC umpire can report a guy for suspect action, nothing will stop the guy from altering his action a little bit during the test and getting away with it. But due to the fact that test matches are televised, he cannot get away with the same in a test match environment.


The current rule has its flaws but it is definitely less flawed than the old one. And with time, the current law will be amended to make it more water tight. We just have to accept things the way they are. Wanting to go back to the old days and forget the breakthroughs that have been made in the "bowling" science is like saying let us go back to the age without computers because computers are getting hacked these days. A new problem crops with every new innovation. But we have to deal with it, instead of running away from it by going back to "the way it was".

 

[Ikki]

Because it gets more coverage? I personally know that here in India, some of the umpires talk to kids with suspect actions all the time. Heck, a friend of mine was even told to "perfect" his action because even the perfect actions have more than 10 degree flex and the limit is only 15. The day domestic cricket gets really good TV coverage and stuff will be the day when bad actions will be reported in domestic cricket itself. ATM, while a FC umpire can report a guy for suspect action, nothing will stop the guy from altering his action a little bit during the test and getting away with it. But due to the fact that test matches are televised, he cannot get away with the same in a test match environment.


The current rule has its flaws but it is definitely less flawed than the old one. And with time, the current law will be amended to make it more water tight. We just have to accept things the way they are. Wanting to go back to the old days and forget the breakthroughs that have been made in the "bowling" science is like saying let us go back to the age without computers because computers are getting hacked these days. A new problem crops with every new innovation. But we have to deal with it, instead of running away from it by going back to "the way it was".

While you make a good point you're using the wrong analogy. This law is not only flawed it is irrelative. It is not evolving the game. Evolve, as is being used by members, is the wrong word for this situation. The fact is that these players are not bowling cricket bowls. For those that know what a cricket bowl is they will understand this point. Those that don't will argue about flexion and hyper-extention and digress unconsciously because of a few misunderstandings.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Well, the umpires were the sole arbiters. I appreciate that it wasn't perfect, but remember that the technology you accept as part and parcel of the game today just didn't exist.

For the most part, people with the shockingly suspect actions (like at least 6 top line players today) often didn't make it past county cricket until they sorted things out.

What's happening today is nothing short of scandalous - someone like Botha or Shabbir wouldn't have got a bowl in club cricket 30 years ago. Why are questions only asked in a test match?

Agreed 100%.

 

[luckyeddie]

Because it gets more coverage? I personally know that here in India, some of the umpires talk to kids with suspect actions all the time. Heck, a friend of mine was even told to "perfect" his action because even the perfect actions have more than 10 degree flex and the limit is only 15. The day domestic cricket gets really good TV coverage and stuff will be the day when bad actions will be reported in domestic cricket itself. ATM, while a FC umpire can report a guy for suspect action, nothing will stop the guy from altering his action a little bit during the test and getting away with it. But due to the fact that test matches are televised, he cannot get away with the same in a test match environment.


The current rule has its flaws but it is definitely less flawed than the old one. And with time, the current law will be amended to make it more water tight. We just have to accept things the way they are. Wanting to go back to the old days and forget the breakthroughs that have been made in the "bowling" science is like saying let us go back to the age without computers because computers are getting hacked these days. A new problem crops with every new innovation. But we have to deal with it, instead of running away from it by going back to "the way it was".

I'm not totally sure what points you are making here, but whatever you are saying doesn't appear to be working. Suggesting that the current rule is 'better than the old one' ought really to suggest that there will be a continuing improvement in the situation in the middle, but even my old eyes can determine that the likes of Shabbir or Botha should not be bowling in CLUB cricket with their current actions.

Your analogy with 'going back to the good old days' is rubbish - I'm not arguing that at all so I shan't insult anyone's intelligence by countering it. The current system is 'running away' - the ICC's politically correct agenda find that too many players are chuckers under the old guidelines so they move the goalposts by coming up with an arbitrary set of tolerance values that are conveniently more relaxed. You watch - in 5 years it'll be 20% flexion, then in 10 years we'll have baseball pitchers if the current trend continues.

And a doosra isn't an 'innovation' - it's a throw (or every one I've seen so far has looked iffy at best) and therefore cheating. It's also over 50 years old - Tony Lock had one and that was a chuck too - and he got called for it.

 

[Jono]

Look at his action.

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

Classic manufactured, dodgy action.

Wow, if someone being your idol translates into them being one's mentor, I guess we can blame Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara for my poor technique, and Shane Warne for my all over the place bowling.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not totally sure what points you are making here, but whatever you are saying doesn't appear to be working. Suggesting that the current rule is 'better than the old one' ought really to suggest that there will be a continuing improvement in the situation in the middle, but even my old eyes can determine that the likes of Shabbir or Botha should not be bowling in CLUB cricket with their current actions.

Your analogy with 'going back to the good old days' is rubbish - I'm not arguing that at all so I shan't insult anyone's intelligence by countering it. The current system is 'running away' - the ICC's politically correct agenda find that too many players are chuckers under the old guidelines so they move the goalposts by coming up with an arbitrary set of tolerance values that are conveniently more relaxed. You watch - in 5 years it'll be 20% flexion, then in 10 years we'll have baseball pitchers if the current trend continues.

And a doosra isn't an 'innovation' - it's a throw (or every one I've seen so far has looked iffy at best) and therefore cheating. It's also over 50 years old - Tony Lock had one and that was a chuck too - and he got called for it.

Well said.

 

[social]

Wow, if someone being your idol translates into them being one's mentor, I guess we can blame Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara for my poor technique, and Shane Warne for my all over the place bowling.

Has apparently spent a good deal of time with Harbi - slightly diiferent to your situation, wouldnt you say?

 

[Dasa]

Has apparently spent a good deal of time with Harbi - slightly diiferent to your situation, wouldnt you say?

I've never heard of him having spent any time with Harbhajan...he's just said that he wants to emulate Harbhajan.