*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Deja moo]

yes, please do. Ask a stupid question, you end up with a stupid answer.

 

[Lostman]

now to continue with this thread all we need is a tendulkar v lara thread...

 

[luckyeddie]

now to continue with this thread all we need is a tendulkar v lara thread...

Chokers.

(Please - that's not to be taken seriously)

 

[SJS]

Okay...so we concur...Shane Warne is the better bowler. You can close the thread now.

You see what I meant KaZoH0lic ?

PS : Boy, its tough spelling your name right

 

[Ikki]

"Kaz" - 3 letters and more precise

 

[Scweej]

Its difficult to say who the better bowler is .. as is obvious by this rambling humongous thread. Sri Lanka will forever remember Murali as their first truly great cricketer, who always gave his most, and carried a sometimes threadbare bowling attack for many years.

Shane Warne is described as the best exponent of leg spin in history, with his continual ability to mesmerise batsman with a combination of skill and psychology.

To those who continue to question the legality of Murali's action, the embarassing and sometimes shameful off-field antics of Warney should not be forgotten . ..

 

[GotSpin]

Its difficult to say who the better bowler is .. as is obvious by this rambling humongous thread. Sri Lanka will forever remember Murali as their first truly great cricketer, who always gave his most, and carried a sometimes threadbare bowling attack for many years.

Shane Warne is described as the best exponent of leg spin in history, with his continual ability to mesmerise batsman with a combination of skill and psychology.

To those who continue to question the legality of Murali's action, the embarassing and sometimes shameful off-field antics of Warney should not be forgotten . ..

I don't see how Warney's off-field antics affect who is the better out of the two bowlers

 

[luckyeddie]

To those who continue to question the legality of Murali's action, the embarassing and sometimes shameful off-field antics of Warney should not be forgotten . ..

I'm sure there's a tenuous link there.......

somewhere.....

Perhaps Warney is Murali's best mate and he has deliberately utilised these tabloid-friendly antics in order to draw some of the fire away from his friend?

 

[GotSpin]

I'm sure there's a tenuous link there.......

somewhere.....

Perhaps Warney is Murali's best mate and he has deliberately utilised these tabloid-friendly antics in order to draw some of the fire away from his friend?

 

[Anil]

Chokers.

(Please - that's not to be taken seriously)

the thread should be titled "fan, fan, fan on the terrace, who is the biggest choker of them all?"

 

[Dissector]

Your first point is a bit silly. I was posting in this thread before you were a member of Cricket Web, so how on earth did I 'burst into the thread'? When did it carry your name above the door? Incidentally, we have had many of these threads before. Anything that ever includes the name 'Muralitharan' acts as a loony magnet and attracts them from evenywhere. It usually ends with the thread being locked and the intolerant trolls being banned.

I know my last post didn't answer anything - it merely asked AGAIN how do we prevent a whole generation of chuckers coming to the fore? This last 12 months has seen about half a dozen making it all the way to the test arena before questions were raised - what is that, just the advance guard, or just a statistically insignificant blip?

I have been offline for a while; hence the delayed response. "Burst into the thread" was a bit of hyperbole but my main point still stands: if you want to trash the current rules you might want to think about what you would put in their place. As for preventing a future generation of chuckers let's not forget that the old system did nothing to prevent past generations of chuckers since it could not even accurately measure chucking in the first place. At least we now have a system where suspect bowlers can be subjected to a common set of standards and reliable testing. That alone is a huge improvement. As for prevention as I mentioned before probably more should be done to extend monitoring and testing at the junior and first-class levels. No reason why that can't be done under the present system.

 

[honestbharani]

Just wondering - from what point and till when does the 15 degrees apply? Like, is it from when the bowling arm is parallel, or perpendicular to the ground? And between then and the release of the ball, or when the arm travels so far, etc.?

From the initial positioning of the elbow. The flex from the initial positioning of the elbow while starting the process of bowling a ball to the time when the ball is released.

 

[honestbharani]

As you well know, Murali's doosra is at the outermost extremes of the current tolerance levels. Conventionality or otherwise doesnt come into it.

BTW, it is only comparable in any way shape or form to McGrath in that both are "supposedly" below 15 degrees ( I say supposedly because McGrath has never been tested).

As for Imran and Lillee, there is no reliable means of identifying whether they were "legal" or not - check the ICC web-site (as your so fond of saying). You'd be better off keeping them out of it.

Social, it is not in the outermost levels. HIs doosra's flex is only around 10 degrees now. McGrath is 13 and Gillespie is 12.

 

[luckyeddie]

I have been offline for a line; hence the delayed response. "Burst into the thread" was a bit of hyperbole but my main point still stands: if you want to trash the current rules you might want to think about what you would put in their place. As for preventing a future generation of chuckers let's not forget that the old system did nothing to prevent past generations of chuckers since it could not even accurate measure chucking in the first place. At least we now have a system where suspect bowlers can be subjected to a common set of standards and reliable testing. That alone is a huge improvement. As for prevention as I mentioned before probably more should be done to extend monitoring and testing at the junior and first-class levels. No reason why that can't be done under the present system.

S'ok - a delay often is good, because it allows for reflection and a measured response.

I've never advocated trashing the current rules at all - I just don't want to see any further relaxation with respect to flexion from the current 15%. Further creep or slippage or whatever tomorrow's buzzword will be is just taking us a stage nearer a free-for-all when bowling really does become throwing.

 

[social]

Social, it is not in the outermost levels. HIs doosra's flex is only around 10 degrees now. McGrath is 13 and Gillespie is 12.

Whether it's 14 (the level that testing confirmed), 10 or 0 is largely irrelevant these days.

The fact that a group of bio-mechanists were able to substantially reduce the flexion in his action in a matter of days by doing little more than changing his front arm position and getting him to bowl closer to the stumps, speaks volumes for the lack of coaching scrutiny and administrative will that has been applied to his case in the past.

Unfortunately, given the no. of bowlers being reported at present, it appears that this is not an isolated case.

Bowlers, from all countries, are routinely appearing at international level with actions that flagrantly breach the accepted norm.

As such, it is readily apparent that traditional coaching methods have largely gone out the window (if they even existed in certain countries) in favour of letting the biomechanists decide should the player happen to reach internarional level.

Naturally, this situation cant continue and will only be resolved in one of 2 ways.

a. additional funding for junior cricket - unlikely in some countries; and/or

b. further relaxations in tolerance levels - a blatant cop-out but consistent with the ICC's approach to most issues of any substance.

 

[Dissector]

The fact that a group of bio-mechanists were able to substantially reduce the flexion in his action in a matter of days by doing little more than changing his front arm position and getting him to bowl closer to the stumps, speaks volumes for the lack of coaching scrutiny and administrative will that has been applied to his case in the past.

Actually what it suggests is that Murali is exceptionally knowledgable about his own technique. Let me just quote Darryl Foster who actually worked with Murali:
"For the next five days Murali bowled in the nets twice a day to implement these changes to his technique. Throughout my coaching career at first class level, I have not come across a bowler, with the possible exception of Lillee, who knows his body and his technique better than Murali. He was able to adjust to the technical changes quite easily, as he maintained he used to bowl with this technique earlier in his career."

Here is the link to the full report:
http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2004/may/15murali.htm

 

[honestbharani]

I honestly don't see why so many guys have a problem with the current rule. Kazo, the culturally accepted definition of bowling has been proved to be FACTUALLY WRONG. It is based on wrong assumptions and therefore, it has been done away with. End of Story. Given that all the bowlers are flexing their elbows, the ICC decided to implement this new 15 degree tolerance limit because:

a. It didn't make sense to have different GOALPOSTS for different type of bowlers

b. It was the Lowest degree that encompassed the flexation levels of all current bowlers AND any flex above 15 degrees MAY be picked up by the naked eye.



I know this rule is not bringing about the desired effect of lessening the number of guys emerging with suspect actions, but this is just a start. Things WILL keep improving as we move on. Like I said, I think the testing equipment and a group of biomechanists WILL be available in most of the leading countries' cricket academies and people from the poorer boards can go over there to get their action tested etc. This is, in no way, the perfect rule but this is just a start.

 

[Ikki]

I honestly don't see why so many guys have a problem with the current rule. Kazo, the culturally accepted definition of bowling has been proved to be FACTUALLY WRONG.

Yes, they proved the law was wrong. I never argued that...What I argued was that the definition was incorrect to begin with, so if you're arguing because of that the new laws have a case I cannot oblige. What I labelled as "cultural" was the assumption that was still held by coaches/players, despite the unconscious awareness of this incorrect definition.

This whole understanding I thought had been blurried, and in it's redefinition they've muddied the waters and people are finding 'fools gold' instead of the real thing. As it stands there will be more and more people with suspect actions.

Regarding Murali, however, I think the 'goalposts' have been put to his benefit and no-one elses.

ADD: This issue is not really the point I want to argue. While it holds it's merits, even without...Shane Warne is a better bowler for me, not just better....the greatest spinner of all time. There are many posts in here that allude to the reason...but they've been regurgitated so many times that this thread had lost it's purpose before it began. It was still fun though...

 

[C_C]

What I labelled as "cultural" was the assumption that was still held by coaches/players, despite the unconscious awareness of this incorrect definition.

Then they better change that assumption.

Regarding Murali, however, I think the 'goalposts' have been put to his benefit and no-one elses.

Typical ignorance.

ADD: This issue is not really the point I want to argue. While it holds it's merits, even without...Shane Warne is a better bowler for me, not just better....the greatest spinner of all time. There are many posts in here that allude to the reason...but they've been regurgitated so many times that this thread had lost it's purpose before it began. It was still fun though...

Flim flam reasoning that can potray even Afridi as the greatest batsman of alltime.
Oh well. People are too prejudiced sometimes to look beyond media brainwashing and nationalistic idiocies.

 

[Ikki]

Then they better change that assumption.
Typical ignorance.
Flim flam reasoning that can potray even Afridi as the greatest batsman of alltime.
Oh well. People are too prejudiced sometimes to look beyond media brainwashing and nationalistic idiocies.

The hallmark of idiocy: the assumption made by those that within themselves lie the answers. Funny...you conclude all that because I picked Shane over Muttiah? Give it a break man...even obsessors need lives. To ease you let me say that I am innocent. I can't help if I've been witness to so many dazzling and awing performances. When the chips are down and the head is low, I only see one guy I'd want to bowl on my side...and that is Warney. BTW I was not born in this country nor am I anglo-saxon. Through the years I've seen my fair share of both bowlers...as one mentioned eloquently before..."one is a artisan the other is a tradesman". While the Artisan still compares with the numbers of the tradesman and, in fact, holds the record for wickets. .

Enough with the tug-of-war...you have your opinion...I'll have mine.