*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Dissector]

You seem to be under the impression that there was unanimous condemnation of Murali as a chucker before the recent rules changes. That is completely false. There was a great deal of controversy with voices on both sides. For instance Don Bradman defended Murali. That is the problem with vague concepts like "cultural understanding" ; not only is it based on fallacies about bowling actions but everyone has their own understanding of it and there is no good way to resolve disputes if there are differences of opinion. Which is why the current regime of precise rules and measurement is far superior to the incoherent and arbitrary mess that preceded it. And according to current rules and the officials who enforce them, Murali's action is legal. That is all that matters. Ignorant yapping on the Internet doesn't count.

 

[luckyeddie]

You seem to be under the impression that there was unanimous condemnation of Murali as a chucker before the recent rules changes. That is completely false. There was a great deal of controversy with voices on both sides. For instance Don Bradman defended Murali. That is the problem with vague concepts like "cultural understanding" ; not only is it based on fallacies about bowling actions but everyone has their own understanding of it and there is no good way to resolve disputes if there are differences of opinion. Which is why the current regime of precise rules and measurement is far superior to the incoherent and arbitrary mess that preceded it. And according to current rules and the officials who enforce them, Murali's action is legal. That is all that matters. Ignorant yapping on the Internet doesn't count.

There was definitely a great deal of controversy - although using Bradman as an example of those supportive of Murali's action is not exactly a wise thing to do if you want anyone to take that point seriously (he had a definite 'See no evil' approach to certain people with suspect actions when he was a selector).

Use of phrases such as "cultural understanding" are no more than verbal padding and can be ignored.

As far as the current regime of "precise rules and measurement" - when can we look forward to the new version? Because it will happen, you know. Maybe not tomorrow or this year, but sooner or later someone will appear on the scene (possibly through politics, more likely through litigation) and the ICC will bend again (apt choice of words there).

 

[Dissector]

"using Bradman as an example of those supportive of Murali's action is not exactly a wise thing to do if you want anyone to take that point seriously (he had a definite 'See no evil' approach to certain people with suspect actions when he was a selector)."

I don't know about the history you are referring to but if it's true that helps make my point that things like "tradition" or "culture" are useless in evaluating a bowling action. After all Bradman was the living embodiment of cricket tradition while he was alive and if he had a "see no evil" approach obviously "tradition" isn't a very useful guide.

Incidentally here is a link to a report about Bradman's comments:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/12/04/1101923389044.html
Aside from various comments about the controversy his general comments about Murali are also interesting:
"Murali, for me, shows perhaps the highest discipline of any spin bowler since the war. He holds all the guile of the trade but something else, too. His slight stature masked a prodigious talent and what a boon he has been for cricket's development on the subcontinent."


"As far as the current regime of "precise rules and measurement" - when can we look forward to the new version?"
Not sure what your point is. Will there be changes in the rules about bowling actions in the future? I suppose it's possible but that's not a bad thing in itself. Cricket has always been changing and it will continue to change in the future.

 

[luckyeddie]

I don't know about the history you are referring to but if it's true that helps make my point that things like "tradition" or "culture" are useless in evaluating a bowling action. After all Bradman was the living embodiment of cricket tradition while he was alive and if he had a "see no evil" approach obviously "tradition" isn't a very useful guide..

The point I was making (badly) was that he was chairman of selectors for a couple of series when Australia picked as many as FOUR bowlers with suspect actions. England themselves at the time were no saints - they had two confirmed chuckers themselves in Loader and Lock. Eventually, when the picture was drawn in crayon, to his eternal credit he instigated a witch-hunt to get the throwers out of the game.

Once again, there was a stigma attached to 'throwing' - and coaches would spend hours with their charges trying to iron out these kinks. On occasion, mistakes were made - Syd Buller called Harold Rhodes, and his problem was purely and simply over-extension a la Shoaib Akhtar. I never said it was perfect.

Will there be changes in the rules about bowling actions in the future? I suppose it's possible but that's not a bad thing in itself. Cricket has always been changing and it will continue to change in the future.

I am yet to be convinced that the current changes will do anything but harm to the integrity of the sport, because as I have pointed out on so many occasions, Murali is only the small picture. The big issue is how do we prevent more and more bowlers with actions
like Botha, Shabbir and Malik getting as far as the test arena before anyone even decides that they need to be looked at?

There's no longer any stigma attached to having a jerky or suspect action - and once you remove that, you are one step away from making the unorthodox desirable. Show me one bowler who was able to bowl a doosra as the regulations stood a few years ago. Go on - just one.

 

[Dissector]

The solution to cases like Botha would be to expand monitoring and testing at the junior and first-class levels. No reason why that can't be done under the present rules.

I think the important point is that the old system was just a bunch of opinions masquerading as fact. There is only a very rough co-relation with "looking jerky" and actually straightening the elbow. There were bowlers who looked good who were probably straightening their elbow more than others who looked jerky. The naked eye is such a horrendously bad tool for analysing bowling actions that we actually know very little about who was really chucking before the advent of proper testing.

So whatever problems exist in the current system seem small compared to the old system which was really just guesswork. Also there is the question of what do you do with an action whose legality is disputed. If there is no precise measurement system there is no real way of resolving such disputes: just an endless round of accusations and counter-accusations. The present system with precise rules is far more conclusive.

As for the doosra the relevant question isn't whether it would have been possible with the rules of a few years ago but whether it's good for cricket.IMO the answer is definitely yes: it has revolutionized the art of off-spin bowling. That is far more important than whether the limit is 10 degrees or 15 degrees.

 

[luckyeddie]

As for the doosra the relevant question isn't whether it would have been possible with the rules of a few years ago but whether it's good for cricket.IMO the answer is definitely yes: it has revolutionized the art of off-spin bowling. That is far more important than whether the limit is 10 degrees or 15 degrees.

Wow - now that is one hell of a statement.

Why stop there? I'm sure that with an angle of 19 or 20 degrees, we can turn the ball much sharper. Let's go for 25 degrees next - boy, that top-spinner'll bounce over the keeper. No, let's go for 30, then 45 degrees - or even 60. Not all at once though - a bit at a time. Every time someone gets cited, just move those pesky goalposts a bit more. We can call it 'evolving' - now we all agree that evolution is better than intelligent design, because that implies science. Get the bowler to be able to spin the ball back to himself - it only counts as a ball if it passes the return crease.

Extreme? Sure. However, what you are seemingly advocating is nothing but the next logical step in that direction - and the erosion of the game as we know it comes a step at a time.

Go and revolutionise your own sport - leave mine alone.

 

[C_C]

.I defined what I consider a chuck

Have you ? Please point me to the post where you have. For i seemed to've missed it.

 

[C_C]

There's no longer any stigma attached to having a jerky or suspect action - and once you remove that, you are one step away from making the unorthodox desirable. Show me one bowler who was able to bowl a doosra as the regulations stood a few years ago. Go on - just one.

Look- Jerky action is NOT a crime in cricket and neither should it be. Flexion has been ( whether you want it to be any flexion or flexion beyond a certain point).
McGrath doesnt have a jerky action, yet he flexes about as much as Murali does ( 2 degree difference, which is insignificant, especially considering that Murali has a faster arm speed).
And i don't have a single problem making the unorthodox desirable. I am not a slave to orthodoxy and unorthodox players widen the horizon of the game. As per one bowler who bowled doosra well with the former regulations, you have Saqlain Mushtaq.

The current system is far more credible, because it is based on facts, not perceptions and a narrowminded view on what bowling should be like.

 

[C_C]

Wow - now that is one hell of a statement.

Why stop there? I'm sure that with an angle of 19 or 20 degrees, we can turn the ball much sharper. Let's go for 25 degrees next - boy, that top-spinner'll bounce over the keeper. No, let's go for 30, then 45 degrees - or even 60. Not all at once though - a bit at a time. Every time someone gets cited, just move those pesky goalposts a bit more. We can call it 'evolving' - now we all agree that evolution is better than intelligent design, because that implies science. Get the bowler to be able to spin the ball back to himself - it only counts as a ball if it passes the return crease.

Extreme? Sure. However, what you are seemingly advocating is nothing but the next logical step in that direction - and the erosion of the game as we know it comes a step at a time.

Go and revolutionise your own sport - leave mine alone.

So whats your answer ? Lie to yourself and pretend that bowlers who your eyes dont pick up as chuckers ( simply because your eye isnt good enough) are not chuckers ?
Just carry on with a baseless whim and total disregard to what the rule states ?

 

[C_C]

I am yet to be convinced that the current changes will do anything but harm to the integrity of the sport, because as I have pointed out on so many occasions, Murali is only the small picture. The big issue is how do we prevent more and more bowlers with actions
like Botha, Shabbir and Malik getting as far as the test arena before anyone even decides that they need to be looked at?

How do we stop bowlers with actions like McGrath getting as far as the test arena before anyone deciedes that they need to be looked at ?

 

[Dissector]

"Go and revolutionise your own sport - leave mine alone."

Huh? The 15 degrees is the ICC rule not mine. Your sport ,whatever it is, no longer exists. And if you think that cricket can be governed by concepts like "looking jerky" where everyone has their own opinion about what that constitutes you obviously don't have much of a clue about how a modern sport is run.

 

[C_C]

"Go and revolutionise your own sport - leave mine alone."

Huh? The 15 degrees is the ICC rule not mine. Your sport ,whatever it is, no longer exists. And if you think that cricket can be governed by concepts like "looking jerky" where everyone has their own opinion about what that constitutes you obviously don't have much of a clue about how a modern sport is run.

I think its more like some people get so enamoured by what is going on, they refuse to rectify it even when proven blatantly flawed/wrong. A bit like religion.I suppose cricket is some people's religion as well.

 

[luckyeddie]

Look- Jerky action is NOT a crime in cricket and neither should it be. Flexion has been ( whether you want it to be any flexion or flexion beyond a certain point).
McGrath doesnt have a jerky action, yet he flexes about as much as Murali does ( 2 degree difference, which is insignificant, especially considering that Murali has a faster arm speed).
And i don't have a single problem making the unorthodox desirable. I am not a slave to orthodoxy and unorthodox players widen the horizon of the game. As per one bowler who bowled doosra well with the former regulations, you have Saqlain Mushtaq.

The current system is far more credible, because it is based on facts, not perceptions and a narrowminded view on what bowling should be like.

I never said that a jerky action was a crime - it is not an asset though and is usually indicative of some basic flaw.

As far as Saqlain's doosra is concerned, yes, it's the only one I've ever seen that's squeaky-clean (in slow motion too) - but every one who has attempted to copy him at the highest level has been reported. Why? And who'll be the next? My money's on Dan Cullen or Alex Louden*, although rumours are that Gareth Batty has been working on the 'devil ball' too in the last few weeks. Anyone heard what Omari Banks has been working on in the nets?

I watched a village match a few months back while I was killing time and if I had been coaching one of the offies on display, I would have kicked him to Lahore and back before I ever let him bowl again - he had a 'doosra' and it was like watching someone do 10 yard throwdowns in the nets.

*names picked out of the air just to emphasise the point - I have never really watched either of them to any extent, but why should they be any different to Botha, Harbhajan, Murali or Malik when it comes to the 'doosra'?

 

[luckyeddie]

I think its more like some people get so enamoured by what is going on, they refuse to rectify it even when proven blatantly flawed/wrong. A bit like religion.I suppose cricket is some people's religion as well.

You have proved little within this thread other than your own prejudices and blind pedantry.

 

[C_C]

I never said that a jerky action was a crime - it is not an asset though and is usually indicative of some basic flaw.

I disagree. A flaw is something that prevents you from optimising your results in a legal way.
Serena William's backhand is definately not out of the textbooks and neither is Virender Sehwag's footwork. But both achieve results and as a result, their styles cannot be classified as 'flaws'. I don't have a problem watching someone with a jerky action- not in the least bit. Aesthetics is a rather temporary notion and almost always changes.

As per the current system- it is consistent and can be held accountable. The former one cannot be. And i would rather have matches like PAK-ENG, where a blatant chucker slips through the system to wreck a test match, than prejudice and slavish devotion to aesthetics ruins a player's career simply because it didnt look agreeable to people having a flawed notion of what a chuck is and isnt.

 

[C_C]

You have proved little within this thread other than your own prejudices and blind pedantry.

You are entitled to your opinion and i am to mine. What is pedantic is arguing in favour of a system that is clearly the worse of the two simply because of the sake of tradition. All the questions you raise with the current system are valid - but they are valid with the old system too and whats worse, there is absolutely no way to legislate or implement the old system consistently, save for handing the reigns over to whimsical and false notions of whats a chuck and what isnt.
Whether you like to admit it or not, cricket is better off having more accurately defined one of its most controversial laws and legislating it in a far more consistent fashion than in the past. An endavour cannot be deemed credible without consistency in its jurisdiction.
And if you consider proving the case for Murali to be blind pedantry, you are an even bigger slave to perceptions than i thought.

 

[luckyeddie]

"Go and revolutionise your own sport - leave mine alone."

Huh? The 15 degrees is the ICC rule not mine. Your sport ,whatever it is, no longer exists. And if you think that cricket can be governed by concepts like "looking jerky" where everyone has their own opinion about what that constitutes you obviously don't have much of a clue about how a modern sport is run.

You are the person who spoke about the sport evolving - I am merely adopting your stance and postulating that elbow flexion will 'evolve' beyond 15 degrees, just as soon as it is politically necessary.

I know exactly how a modern sport is run - money and politics, no more, no less. Look at India's decision to basically form a club with Australia and England, and to hell with the rest of world cricket. Now look at the Zimbabwe affair, and the premature decision to accept Bangladesh into the test arena on the back of a result that had Salim Malik choking on his breakfast.

I'd rather you didn't patronise me because of my age ("Your sport, whatever it was, no longer exists") just because I have differing opinions to you.

 

[Dissector]

Three questions:
1)How exactly would you define a chuck?
2)How would you handle differences of opinion about the legality of a particular bowler's action?
3)How would you deal with bowlers who straighten the elbows a fair amount but whose action looks smooth?

 

[C_C]

You are the person who spoke about the sport evolving - I am merely adopting your stance and postulating that elbow flexion will 'evolve' beyond 15 degrees, just as soon as it is politically necessary.

The entire sport exists due to political necessity. Please read Derek Birley's history of English cricket or articles on the genesis of sports- why it was encouraged to anything more than 'Sunday afternoon backyard funtime' stuff.
Sports exist due to political and psychological necessity.

 

[luckyeddie]

And if you consider proving the case for Murali to be blind pedantry, you are an even bigger slave to perceptions than i thought.

Why the hell do you keep suggesting that I'm trying to prove a case for or against Murali? I can only suggest that you fast-forward through most of the post until you find the key word you are looking for without actually reading what's written.

I have never taken the viewpoint that Murali is a cheat, dacoit or whatever (can't remember Bishen Bedi's quote exactly) - I have always maintained that his action is legal, argued his corner if you like, right from the first time I ever saw him, because the ICC told me so. I will, however, maintain that his doosra was a bit iffy - let's call it 'borderline'. Why do you think that he stopped using it for a while? Because it damned well was - hence the fact that with a bit of tweaking, he could knock 5 degrees off the elbow flexion in a couple of sessions.

My only point all the way through this totally pointless argument (as I said it would be - I was quite categoric in stating that this supposed 'Murali v Warne' debate would become a soapbox for secondary agendas) is that kids do not have the benefit of exhaustive testing, and that we are in more than a little danger of producing a generation of off-spinners who will be fast-tracked into the test arena purely because they have a 'wrong un' - and they will all be in equal danger of being cited by the same umpires and officials as the ones who are questioning the legality of others today.

Oh, just forget it. I've had it with the whole pathetic thread.