*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[aussie]

Well, if he's able to bowl well whilst he's young and not highly regarded, it shouldn't really be held against him should it? Especially considering Sidhu was in the team then, and he murdered spin bowling.

well probably...

 

[Tom Halsey]

I remember it from the last SL tour of England (2002?)

Yep. One of the worst actions I've ever seen (worse than Botha, if that's possible).

 

[social]

Murali/Australia/Super Slo-Mo is not good.

I was at Colonial tonight and, no matter how you look at it, it's not good.

 

[luckyeddie]

Murali/Australia/Super Slo-Mo is not good.

I was at Colonial tonight and, no matter how you look at it, it's not good.

Perhaps there's a bit too much flexion in the screen - or the camera - or the roof - or the atmosphere.

 

[parttimer]

Murali/Australia/Super Slo-Mo is not good.

I was at Colonial tonight and, no matter how you look at it, it's not good.

Overally it was pretty hard to tell bcos Murali was using alot of variety and we didn't get to see too many, but i think one of the slow mo's did look particularly dodgy.

 

[Dissector]

You guys seem to be slow on the uptake but your uninformed opinions on Murali's action based on nothing but slow-motion replays is supremely irrelevant to any rational discussion about the legality of his action.

 

[luckyeddie]

You guys seem to be slow on the uptake but your uninformed opinions on Murali's action based on nothing but slow-motion replays is supremely irrelevant to any rational discussion about the legality of his action.

You seem unaware that the words 'Any rational discussion' and 'Murali' are a contradiction in terms. For every

1. Murali has illegal action.
2. Change the rules.
3. Murali no longer has illegal action.

there is an equal number of

1. Murali's action is no worse than that of Glenn McGrath.
2. GOTO 1

 

[Dissector]

Actually I think rational discussion about Murali's action is entirely possible once you realize that a bowling action is a complicated entity in three dimensions and impossible to analyze with the naked eye or even with a single slow-motion camera. You need four or five cameras and experts with the appropriate training.
This cricinfo article expresses the point nicely:
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/141559.html

Unless some new information turns up, I consider the matter closed and the hilariously uninformed "arguments" by the Murali-bashers in this thread aren't really worth bothering about though they do provide some comic relief.

 

[luckyeddie]

Actually I think rational discussion about Murali's action is entirely possible once you realize that a bowling action is a complicated entity in three dimensions and impossible to analyze with the naked eye or even with a single slow-motion camera. You need four or five cameras and experts with the appropriate training.
This cricinfo article expresses the point nicely:
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/141559.html

Unless some new information turns up, I consider the matter closed and the hilariously uninformed "arguments" by the Murali-bashers in this thread aren't really worth bothering about though they do provide some comic relief.

The fact that Murali's action LOOKS suspect is far more relevant as far as the future of cricket is concerned than any result of any test. Murali is a role-model, and he's got kids imitating his style - kids who no doubt will be making their way through club cricket to first-class and on to test cricket. These kids cannot possibly be tested with 4 or 5 cameras - until, that is, they actually make the breakthrough to the highest level and their appalling actions come to the attention of match referees.

The situation will only get worse.

Incidentally, are you Amit Varma?

 

[social]

Actually I think rational discussion about Murali's action is entirely possible once you realize that a bowling action is a complicated entity in three dimensions and impossible to analyze with the naked eye or even with a single slow-motion camera. You need four or five cameras and experts with the appropriate training.
This cricinfo article expresses the point nicely:
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/141559.html

Unless some new information turns up, I consider the matter closed and the hilariously uninformed "arguments" by the Murali-bashers in this thread aren't really worth bothering about though they do provide some comic relief.

Unfortunately, the laws of our game dictate that the initial assessment of a bowler's action is undertaken with the naked eye.

That being the case, any fair minded person that saw the vision from last night's game has to be concerned.

Even the Sri Lankan fans seated near us were laughing about it.

You call it comical, I just think it's sad.

 

[Dissector]

"Murali is a role-model, and he's got kids imitating his style - kids who no doubt will be making their way through club cricket to first-class and on to test cricket."
Considering that Murali's action is heavily influenced by his deformed elbow with a permanent elbow flextion I highly doubt that there are too many kids who are copying it. It would be nearly impossible for the average person.

"Incidentally, are you Amit Varma?"
No.

"Unfortunately, the laws of our game dictate that the initial assessment of a bowler's action is undertaken with the naked eye."
So what? The initial assessment has already been made for Murali and he was tested. The initial naked-eye assessments are now irrelevant especially since the tests indicated how unreliable the naked eye is.

 

[social]

"Unfortunately, the laws of our game dictate that the initial assessment of a bowler's action is undertaken with the naked eye."
So what? The initial assessment has already been made for Murali and he was tested. The initial naked-eye assessments are now irrelevant especially since the tests indicated how unreliable the naked eye is.

I was going to ask you to re-think this statement because it makes absolutely no sense but give your bias, there's no point.

 

[Lostman]

I was going to ask you to re-think this statement because it makes absolutely no sense but give your bias, there's no point.

and how exactly does it give his bias?
He is just stating a FACT

 

[Dissector]

"I was going to ask you to re-think this statement because it makes absolutely no sense but give your bias, there's no point."
Thanks. This is a perfect example of the vacuous "arguments" I was talking about earlier. As I said not worth bothering about except as comic relief.

 

[social]

"I was going to ask you to re-think this statement because it makes absolutely no sense but give your bias, there's no point."
Thanks. This is a perfect example of the vacuous "arguments" I was talking about earlier. As I said not worth bothering about except as comic relief.

Every bowler is subject to assessment with the naked eye each and every time they bowl.

There is no one and only initial assessment.

Assessment leads leads to report leads to testing.

If allowed to bowl again, they are assessed every time they bowl.

The results of previous testing is totally and utterly irrelevant.

Comprendez?

BTW, the naked eye is only inaccurate to the extent that it supposedly cannot pick up flexion below 15 degrees.

 

[Dissector]

"The results of previous testing is totally and utterly irrelevant."
Do you seriously believe this? I think it should be obvious that match referees are going to take into consideration the results of previous tests especially when you consider that the definition of chucking involves highly technical distinctions like extension/abduction etc. They aren't going to keep reporting previously tested players just because their actions "look dodgy" unless there is a significant change in the bowler's action or he introduces a new delivery. Neither of these has happened with Murali since his last tests AFAIK.

In any case the point remains that since you are neither an umpire nor a match referee, your opinion about how Murali's action looks remains supremely irrelevant. Unless you want us to believe that you can make accurate measurements and can distinguish between extension, hyperextension, flexion etc. just by looking at a replay.

 

[social]

"The results of previous testing is totally and utterly irrelevant."
Do you seriously believe this? I think it should be obvious that match referees are going to take into consideration the results of previous tests especially when you consider that the definition of chucking involves highly technical distinctions like extension/abduction etc. They aren't going to keep reporting previously tested players just because their actions "look dodgy" unless there is a significant change in the bowler's action or he introduces a new delivery. Neither of these has happened with Murali since his last tests AFAIK.

In any case the point remains that since you are neither an umpire nor a match referee, your opinion about how Murali's action looks remains supremely irrelevant. Unless you want us to believe that you can make accurate measurements and can distinguish between extension, hyperextension, flexion etc. just by looking at a replay.

By way of justification, we are constantly reminded by Murali supporters of how his action is no worse than say McGrath. Unfortunately, replays at 1000 frames per second (4 * the speed of the cameras used in Murali's testing btw), suggest a totally different story altogether. I'd go as far as to say that if Murali was an unknown (as Botha was during the Sydney test), those images wouldve been more than enough to earn a report.

The fact that he wasnt can be put down to one of the following:

a. politics;

b. fear factor (is the heat that such a decision would generate really worth it?); and, by far the weakest consideration of all

c. his test results from 2 years ago.

His test results "may" be relevant (only the umpires could tell you) to a decision whether to report but are totally irrelevant to how he is bowling today. Murali is 2 years older, has had a serious injury and has been filmed in match conditions.

BTW, dont make out that Murali was well under the limit. His average for the doosra was 14.2 degrees. Given that the margin of error with such testing is 1%, its debatable whether such a delivery ever complied.

 

[GotSpin]

"I was going to ask you to re-think this statement because it makes absolutely no sense but give your bias, there's no point."
Thanks. This is a perfect example of the vacuous "arguments" I was talking about earlier. As I said not worth bothering about except as comic relief.

Can you please quote him properly. Its very annoying

 

[Dissector]

"Unfortunately, replays at 1000 frames per second (4 * the speed of the cameras used in Murali's testing btw), suggest a totally different story altogether"
A typical nothing argument. Just looking at a set of replays no matter how slow doesn't mean much. You need multiple cameras, some measurement mechanism and experts who actually understand the distinctions involved. Just asserting that politics and the "fear factor" are involved doesn't prove anything.

"His average for the doosra was 14.2 degrees. Given that the margin of error with such testing is 1%, its debatable whether such a delivery ever complied."
Actually after remedial action his doosra was down to about 10 degrees. I also hope you understand that the difference between between 15 and 14.2 is quite a lot more than 1%.

 

[dinu23]

leave it Dissector, these guys aren't worth bothering.