*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Deja moo]

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

Hes obviously referring to him being in the touring party to India . Yet another jewel from social . To carry on in the same vein, it'd be interesting to know that Shabbir Ahmed has spent time with Michael Holding Is it then any surprise that hes been banned for chucking ?

 

[Jono]

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

Lara, Tendulkar and Warne were all once in the same country as me. Situation is the same with Botha.

I can't see good old Punjabi heat spending time helping Botha learn how to bowl, and I haven't heard that anywhere either.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

So clear up the misunderstandings, stop dodging people and answer the question which has been asked of you half-a-dozen times I've seen; what do you call a 'bowl'? What's this 'culturally-agreed' definition of a bowl that you've mentioned without providing details?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Whether Botha has spent any time with Harbhajan or not, the point is his action is incredibly suspect.

 

[Ikki]

So clear up the misunderstandings, stop dodging people and answer the question which has been asked of you half-a-dozen times I've seen; what do you call a 'bowl'? What's this 'culturally-agreed' definition of a bowl that you've mentioned without providing details?

I’m not going to get into Cricket 101 for you mate. What I see as a throw is defined by the ‘action’ used just before release at the arc. While all bowlers extend their arm to a degree, thank you biomechanics, some bowlers extend it just before the arc that upon release this action becomes a ‘chuck’. While players with good actions like McGrath also straighten their arm, they generate their pace before the release at the arc and not at the point of release itself. My problem with many bowlers currently is that before release at the arc they subtly exert more force and straighten their arm as well which results in a chuck. Forget Murali for a moment, and consider other bowlers with dubious actions. You can see such an abuse in their action and it IS visible to the naked eye.

 

[social]

Hes obviously referring to him being in the touring party to India . Yet another jewel from social . To carry on in the same vein, it'd be interesting to know that Shabbir Ahmed has spent time with Michael Holding Is it then any surprise that hes been banned for chucking ?

So let me see if I can follow your logic.

Tony Greig talks to SA coach.

Coach reveals that Botha has spent time in India with Harby and regards him as type of mentor

Tony Greig reveals this to millions

Social reports this to CW

Jono and DM see "Botha" and "Harbi" in same sentence and throw toys out of cot.

Grow up Deja boohoohoo

 

[Dasa]

I’m not going to get into Cricket 101 for you mate. What I see as a throw is defined by the ‘action’ used just before release at the arc. While all bowlers extend their arm to a degree, thank you biomechanics, some bowlers extend it just before the arc that upon release this action becomes a ‘chuck’. While players with good actions like McGrath also straighten their arm, they generate their pace before the release at the arc and not at the point of release itself. My problem with many bowlers currently is that before release at the arc they subtly exert more force and straighten their arm as well which results in a chuck. Forget Murali for a moment, and consider other bowlers with dubious actions. You can see such an abuse in their action and it IS visible to the naked eye.

So you're claiming that bowlers are intentionally chucking it then?
It seems to me that your definition of a 'bowl' is based purely on what you think looks good....

 

[social]

So you're claiming that bowlers are intentionally chucking it then?
QUOTE]

Given that the biomechanists have proven that it's impossible not to "chuck" a doosra, that this delivery requires a gross distortion of the "normal" bowling action and that bowlers are conciously making a decision to bowl them, it appears obvious.

 

[Jono]

Whether Botha has spent any time with Harbhajan or not, the point is his action is incredibly suspect.

And who the hell is denying that?

We are arguing that social has seemingly blamed Harbhajan for Botha's action. The obvious accusation was that Harbhajan tought him how to bowl, and hence how to 'chuck'.

 

[Jono]

So let me see if I can follow your logic.

Tony Greig talks to SA coach.

Coach reveals that Botha has spent time in India with Harby and regards him as type of mentor

Tony Greig reveals this to millions

Social reports this to CW

Jono and DM see "Botha" and "Harbi" in same sentence and throw toys out of cot.

Grow up Deja boohoohoo

Botha quite clearly didn't learn how to bowl in India with Harbhajan. I think its likely his action has been suspect in SA domestic cricket since he took up off spin, and much before he met Harbhajan in India.

 

[social]

And who the hell is denying that?

We are arguing that social has seemingly blamed Harbhajan for Botha's action. The obvious accusation was that Harbhajan tought him how to bowl, and hence how to 'chuck'.

When did I say that?

Botha has obviously imitated a no. of things about Harbi's action - some badly.

Unfortunately, so many of you guys are so emotional about this issue that any statement that fails to overwhelming in its praise for one of your heores is construed as criticism.

 

[Smudge]

So have we worked out who is better yet?

 

[honestbharani]

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, LE, the doosra is only one or two degrees more of a chuck than McGrath's stock delivery. HOw is it fair if ONLY the guys bowling the doosra are called for chucking and guys like McGrath get away scot-free? The doosra is as much a chuck as any outswinger or inswinger or a bouncer or a yorker. Shouldn't EVERYONE be called for it, then? The 15 degree goalpost is used because it basically encompasses all the current bowlers... We could have a 13 degree limit, but then it would be so easy for everyone to start saying that it is done to given an advantage to McGrath and to give a disadvantage to Murali.


This is the scenario: Almost all bowlers today CHUCK. And almost all of them chuck under 15 degrees. Sure, Murali is probably the maximum because his doosra has a recorded flex of 14.2 degrees. But if they put it as 13, it is obvious that it will only help McGrath and not Murali and as such, would be even more flawed than the current one, where everyone is cleared. And whatever the old definition of bowling is, it is based on wrong foundations, because, as I have been repeatedly saying, so many guys simply think that anyone starting off with a bent elbow is chucking, when it is not necessarily the case. It is even written in the rule book, it is juz that people have the wrong idea about it all.

 

[honestbharani]

So you're claiming that bowlers are intentionally chucking it then?
QUOTE]

Given that the biomechanists have proven that it's impossible not to "chuck" a doosra, that this delivery requires a gross distortion of the "normal" bowling action and that bowlers are conciously making a decision to bowl them, it appears obvious.

The biomechanists have also proven that every single delivery bowled by most people is a CHUCK. The doosra is simply the ball that records the maximum flex. Given that it is only 1.2 degrees greater than some great bowlers' stock deliveries, I don't think there is anything wrong in allowing bowlers to use that particular delivery.

 

[social]

Well, LE, the doosra is only one or two degrees more of a chuck than McGrath's stock delivery. HOw is it fair if ONLY the guys bowling the doosra are called for chucking and guys like McGrath get away scot-free? The doosra is as much a chuck as any outswinger or inswinger or a bouncer or a yorker. Shouldn't EVERYONE be called for it, then? The 15 degree goalpost is used because it basically encompasses all the current bowlers... We could have a 13 degree limit, but then it would be so easy for everyone to start saying that it is done to given an advantage to McGrath and to give a disadvantage to Murali.


This is the scenario: Almost all bowlers today CHUCK. And almost all of them chuck under 15 degrees. Sure, Murali is probably the maximum because his doosra has a recorded flex of 14.2 degrees. But if they put it as 13, it is obvious that it will only help McGrath and not Murali and as such, would be even more flawed than the current one, where everyone is cleared. And whatever the old definition of bowling is, it is based on wrong foundations, because, as I have been repeatedly saying, so many guys simply think that anyone starting off with a bent elbow is chucking, when it is not necessarily the case. It is even written in the rule book, it is juz that people have the wrong idea about it all.

Except that the same bio-mechanists that determine whether a bowler's action is legal or not (and, btw, who were instrumental in having tolerance levels raised to 15 degrees) have also determined that it is impossible to bowl a doosra with what is commonly accepted as a bowling action, i.e. irrespective of the degrees of flexion, it is delivered with a throwing rather than bowling action.

 

[honestbharani]

Except that the same bio-mechanists that determine whether a bowler's action is legal or not (and, btw, who were instrumental in having tolerance levels raised to 15 degrees) have also determined that it is impossible to bowl a doosra with what is commonly accepted as a bowling action, i.e. irrespective of the degrees of flexion, it is delivered with a throwing rather than bowling action.

What you refer to as a "throwing action" basically means that a bowler starts off with a bent elbow. The old laws stated that "a bowler starting off with a bent elbow should bowl with a bent elbow and a bowler starting off with a straight elbow should bowl with a straight elbow" (this is not an exact quote, but the law's jist was along these lines) and since it has been proved that bowlers starting off with straight elbows invariably flex their elbows to some extent while delivering the ball, it is as illegal as a bowler starting off with a bent elbow and then straightening his arms.

 

[Ikki]

Well, LE, the doosra is only one or two degrees more of a chuck than McGrath's stock delivery. HOw is it fair if ONLY the guys bowling the doosra are called for chucking and guys like McGrath get away scot-free? The doosra is as much a chuck as any outswinger or inswinger or a bouncer or a yorker. Shouldn't EVERYONE be called for it, then? The 15 degree goalpost is used because it basically encompasses all the current bowlers... We could have a 13 degree limit, but then it would be so easy for everyone to start saying that it is done to given an advantage to McGrath and to give a disadvantage to Murali.


This is the scenario: Almost all bowlers today CHUCK. And almost all of them chuck under 15 degrees. Sure, Murali is probably the maximum because his doosra has a recorded flex of 14.2 degrees. But if they put it as 13, it is obvious that it will only help McGrath and not Murali and as such, would be even more flawed than the current one, where everyone is cleared. And whatever the old definition of bowling is, it is based on wrong foundations, because, as I have been repeatedly saying, so many guys simply think that anyone starting off with a bent elbow is chucking, when it is not necessarily the case. It is even written in the rule book, it is juz that people have the wrong idea about it all.

No one has argued about him bending his elbow first and I don't know why you've brought it up a few times. You're even refuting a point no one has brought up, and saying we all think that. I've already said what I think is the problem and gave my personal view on this wrong 'action':

I’m not going to get into Cricket 101 for you mate. What I see as a throw is defined by the ‘action’ used just before release at the arc. While all bowlers extend their arm to a degree, thank you biomechanics, some bowlers extend it just before the arc that upon release this action becomes a ‘chuck’. While players with good actions like McGrath also straighten their arm, they generate their pace before the release at the arc and not at the point of release itself. My problem with many bowlers currently is that before release at the arc they subtly exert more force and straighten their arm as well which results in a chuck. Forget Murali for a moment, and consider other bowlers with dubious actions. You can see such an abuse in their action and it IS visible to the naked eye.

 

[Ikki]

So you're claiming that bowlers are intentionally chucking it then?
It seems to me that your definition of a 'bowl' is based purely on what you think looks good....

Yes I am claiming some are intentionally doing as such. Upon your assumption of what you think I am basing it on, I request you read my post again.

 

[honestbharani]

No one has argued about him bending his elbow first and I don't know why you've brought it up a few times. You're even refuting a point no one has brought up, and saying we all think that. I've already said what I think is the problem and gave my personal view on this wrong 'action':

Actually, Kazo, I was only directing that to LE and Social. Your point seems acceptable to me, but there is simply no way we can be sure of what the intentions of a bowler is, so it is not very practical, IMHO. Plus, there are guys who whip up arm speed at the point of delivery, like Wasim and Agarkar and a few others, even Gillespie comes to mind. What you would end up doing is banning those guys too. Plus, while bowling slower balls etc., most fast bowlers including McGrath do slow down the release of the ball, which is similar to quickening the release of the ball at the poin of delivery, because both involves elbow flex. There are just too many variables here and it is not "black and white" as the current law is.

 

[social]

Actually, Kazo, I was only directing that to LE and Social. Your point seems acceptable to me, but there is simply no way we can be sure of what the intentions of a bowler is, so it is not very practical, IMHO. Plus, there are guys who whip up arm speed at the point of delivery, like Wasim and Agarkar and a few others, even Gillespie comes to mind. What you would end up doing is banning those guys too. Plus, while bowling slower balls etc., most fast bowlers including McGrath do slow down the release of the ball, which is similar to quickening the release of the ball at the poin of delivery, because both involves elbow flex. There are just too many variables here and it is not "black and white" as the current law is.

IMO, it is similar to the conumdrum faced by golfing officials re putting.

Many years ago, an American golfer by the name of Sam Snead was faced with the twin problems of a dodgy putting stroke and a bad back.

For a time, he successfully combatted these problems by adopting a croquet-like approach , i.e. standing square-on to the hole and using a pendulum type action.

Seeing his success, naturally many others followed.

Eventually, such a practice was out-lawed for no other reason than the powers-that-be determined that it was contrary to the way the game was supposed to be played.

A cricket ball is supposed to be bowled.

Scientists have proven that virtually all bowling actions produce some degree of flexion.

Scientists have also proven that a doosra can only be delivered with a throwing, rather than bowling, action.

It is, IMO, irrelevant whether that throwing action produces a similar degree of flexion to a bowling action.

After all, people would be up in arms if Roger Clemens was declared legal for bowling because the degree of flexion in his action was less than 15.

The doosra, as practiced by many today, should be treated no differently to Sam Snead's putting stroke..