*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[social]

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

Got no doubt that the guy is knowledgeable - he's a genius bowler.

However, the fact that it took until 2004 to make changes to a technique that had been a source of concern for years is a joke.

Up until that point, he'd obviously been surrounded either by people with no knowledge whatsoever or by "yes men."

 

[C_C]

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.

The hallmark of idiocy : Working under assumptions that are inconsistent and invalid ( like the ones you so dearly hold up to).

As per who is better - Warney and Murali, i would pick Murali 10 times outta 10 over Warney. But hey- everyone is entitled to their opinions and i guess i am blunt enough to say that most arguments used to prop up Warney are bulldust. But i can see your point-you are Aussie and have seen far more of Warney than Murali so Warney's performances would stick to your mind.
I dont have a problem with others opinions-even if they are blatantly one-eyed. But it is interesting to see people be inconsistent with their opinons and changing their standards to suit a player they like.

 

[C_C]

Got no doubt that the guy is knowledgeable - he's a genius bowler.

However, the fact that it took until 2004 to make changes to a technique that had been a source of concern for years is a joke.

Up until that point, he'd obviously been surrounded either by people with no knowledge whatsoever or by "yes men."

So who has McGrath been hanging around ? Or Lee ?

 

[PY]

The hallmark of idiocy : Working under assumptions that are inconsistent and invalid ( like the ones you so dearly hold up to).

As per who is better - Warney and Murali, i would pick Murali 10 times outta 10 over Warney. But hey- everyone is entitled to their opinions and i guess i am blunt enough to say that most arguments used to prop up Warney are bulldust. But i can see your point-you are Aussie and have seen far more of Warney than Murali so Warney's performances would stick to your mind.
I dont have a problem with others opinions-even if they are blatantly one-eyed. But it is interesting to see people be inconsistent with their opinons and changing their standards to suit a player they like.

So you do have a problem then.

 

[luckyeddie]

So who has McGrath been hanging around ? Or Lee ?

I have spent four blooming hours over the last two days trying to substantiate these McGrath figures that have been so widely quoted.

I must have chased down 20 or so 'references' where they have been quoted on message boards, and I just can't find the reports.

They either lead to this report which just appears to be a knee-jerk reaction from Murali

or the The Two Minute Interview , neither of which seem to say anything of the sort.

I did find a report that seemed to be saying that Bruce Elliott considered Brett Lee's action to be illegal, but that was when the limite for everyone was 5%.

So, if you can help me in this quest, please do.

 

[marc71178]

The difference between McGrath's delivery and Murali's doosra at its widest is mere 6-7 degrees and at its lowest 2-3 degrees. Pretty frickin close as far as i am concerned.

Out of a tolerance of 15, how is 2-3 close?

 

[marc71178]

Yes it does. Multiple camera angles are available for some old footages.

Yes, of course they are, when it suits you.

 

[marc71178]

The hallmark of idiocy : Working under assumptions that are inconsistent and invalid ( like the ones you so dearly hold up to).

Hmm...

 

[C_C]

So, if you can help me in this quest, please do

Contact UWA in any official capacity. i think they will oblige you.

 

[C_C]

Out of a tolerance of 15, how is 2-3 close?

What is close and what isnt is directly measured in accordance with the margin of error, ie, the accuracy to what you can measure- you should know that. If the error margin for a study is 1 degree ( which is what UWA on-site study error margin is) or 2 degrees ( ICC champion's trophy studies), 2-3 degree difference most definately qualifies as 'very very close'.

 

[C_C]

Yes, of course they are, when it suits you.

I would like to see the reasoning behind your assumption that no different camera perspective is available for footages that are 20-25 years old.

 

[C_C]

Hmm...

Show me an inconsistency in my arguments and i will try to address it.

 

[marc71178]

What is close and what isnt is directly measured in accordance with the margin of error, ie, the accuracy to what you can measure- you should know that. If the error margin for a study is 1 degree ( which is what UWA on-site study error margin is) or 2 degrees ( ICC champion's trophy studies), 2-3 degree difference most definately qualifies as 'very very close'.

As a percentage of the tolerance it is not anywhere near close (except when it suits you)

 

[marc71178]

I would like to see the reasoning behind your assumption that no different camera perspective is available for footages that are 20-25 years old.

I would like to see all these supposed multiple angles that you claim to exist when highlights packeages retained only have one reel of tape...

Or are they just now invented to try and prove something that is inconclusive due to lack of evidence?

 

[C_C]

As a percentage of the tolerance it is not anywhere near close (except when it suits you)

% of tolerance is secondary. Primary factor is your error limit. If your error limit is 1 degree, 2-3 degrees is very close. If your accuracy is 10 km, 15 km is bloody close. That is the primary factor and that is the prime factor in any scientific(mathematical) endavour - comparisons are irrelevant if you dont know how sensetive your equipment is and what is the error range correlation to the discrepancy you are observing.

 

[C_C]

I would like to see all these supposed multiple angles that you claim to exist when highlights packeages retained only have one reel of tape...

Or are they just now invented to try and prove something that is inconclusive due to lack of evidence?

If you would like to see those tapes, i suggest you contact BBC or other broadcast firms. Those tapes usually are haphazard ( but available) - ie, they dont exist for all the matches( since tapes are often deleted and re-cycled) but do for some.
And if by inconclusive you mean the degree to which players from the older times chucked, you'd be in the ballpark- it is relatively inconclusive if you are talking w.r.t ICC champion's trophy or UWA findings. But they are far more conclusive than the human eye perception.
However, if by inconclusive you are referring to the fact that older players bent their elbows, then you are in grave error.

 

[social]

I would like to see all these supposed multiple angles that you claim to exist when highlights packeages retained only have one reel of tape...

Or are they just now invented to try and prove something that is inconclusive due to lack of evidence?

Before the early 70s, a maximum of 1 camera angle was used in cricket broadcasts.

Unfortunately, a substantial no. of series were not televised at all and footage of those is distinctly amateur hour.

As a result, the ICC has no conclusive evidence re flexion angles of old-time players.

 

[social]

I have spent four blooming hours over the last two days trying to substantiate these McGrath figures that have been so widely quoted.

I must have chased down 20 or so 'references' where they have been quoted on message boards, and I just can't find the reports.

They either lead to this report which just appears to be a knee-jerk reaction from Murali

or the The Two Minute Interview , neither of which seem to say anything of the sort.

I did find a report that seemed to be saying that Bruce Elliott considered Brett Lee's action to be illegal, but that was when the limite for everyone was 5%.

So, if you can help me in this quest, please do.

Given that McGrath has never been lab-tested and figures from Champions Trophy testing have not been released, I can only assume that the figure has it's origin in a cricinfo aticle of November 17, 2004.

In it, they were quoted as saying that they had been made aware that their actions (and Shaun Pollock's) contained flexion in the range of 10 - 12 degrees.

Article was focused on merits of in-match testing of bowlers' actions.

McGrath and Gillespie expressed support for in-match testing (if available) and scepticism of lab-testing as it was open to abuse.

 

[C_C]

Given that McGrath has never been lab-tested and figures from Champions Trophy testing have not been released, I can only assume that the figure has it's origin in a cricinfo aticle of November 17, 2004.

Err no it doesnt.
Like i said,try contacting the relevant authorities ( ICC or UWA) in official capacity. You forget that i do enjoy *SOME* perks, being affiliated to one of the most reputed universities in Canada.

 

[social]

Err no it doesnt.
Like i said,try contacting the relevant authorities ( ICC or UWA) in official capacity. You forget that i do enjoy *SOME* perks, being affiliated to one of the most reputed universities in Canada.

Blah, blah, blah

And I assume those same "contacts" have informed you of the secret cameras that were placed around the grounds in all test matches since 1908 with a view to recording flexion in bowlers' actions (despite this term not having been invented at the time). The resultant films were then sealed in a time capsule and are due to be released upon the sale of the first"Happy Meal" following the toss of the 2015 World Cup Final.