*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[luckyeddie]

I didn't realise that during the tests Murali was only bowling at 65-72 mm/h - that's ridiculous, he's always been at least 80 during matches, they should have noticed that. I had noticed that Murali's been bowling a bit quicker, but didn't really think much of it, to be honest.

65-72 mm per hour - that IS slow.

At that rate, it would take 5 months to bowl an over.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Sod off.

 

[social]

Social is Aussie, I presume ? I wasnt referring to the umpires, rather the poster.

Take a chill pill!

I wasnt having a go at Shoaib or Murali - I was simply questioning the timing of statements by scientists involved with the testing procedures and questions being raised about certain bowlers actions again.

The cynic in me tells that the scientists' comments could well be used as justification for future reports of these bowlers. If Brett Lee gets reported as well, then he'll also have to face the music.

 

[luckyeddie]

Sod off.

I never thought that I would extract that sort of reaction from you, Tom.

Do you have any New Zealander in you?

/resists temptation to take it any further

 

[JASON]

Which i think is a fundamental contradiction. All the biomechanists say that given how the elbow joint can move sideways and 'open and close normal way' and how fast the arm is moving at the point of delivery, there is no way of knowing who is flexing by how much through the naked eye and optical illusions caused by the compound effects ( the shoulder moving a bit, the arm comming down from a different angle, wrists snapping, etc.).
So it is a bit of a fundamental contradiction for the rule to be ' a bowler is reported if he is 'percieved' to have a suspect action'. Umm...the whole 'percieved' is the problem here because you cannot percieve a chuck ( or degree of flexion) through the naked eye. Someone with a dodgier looking action could infact be flexing less than someone with a pristine looking action. Therefore, i see no reason not to adopt the 'random testing for ALL bowlers once a year' clause into the rules, apart from the financial aspect of it.

I agree with most of that post.

I also have no issue with the ICC Testing the bowlers once a year or as many times a year as they want .

But I believe in the case of Brett Lee , if he is to be tested, it would be very appropriate if he is tested by a neutral Biomechanist and not within Australia for the sake of ensuring the validity of these "so called " Tests.

Murali , Shoaib and others were tested (are constantly analysed) in a Neutral Country so the same should be applied to Brett Lee and as far as I know the only other place where Murali was tested was at the University of Hongkong (which is the only other facility capable of doing such tests) .

On another issue altogether, the ICC should also be subjecting all International Cricketers to random Drug Tests (Blood /Urine Tests) a few times a year as well. Since this is standard practice in most sports now including soccer and I cannot understand why the ICC seems to be holding back on this .

 

[marc71178]

Are you sure they're not though?

IIRC, didn't a certain leg spinner get a ban for failing one?

 

[luckyeddie]

Are you sure they're not though?

IIRC, didn't a certain leg spinner get a ban for failing one?

There is random testing - Graham Wagg was picked up with half a Colombian blizzard up his nose. Same with Ed Giddins.

 

[Deja moo]

Are you sure they're not though?

IIRC, didn't a certain leg spinner get a ban for failing one?

I'm not sure, but I think the WC2003 was the only international cricketing event ever to incorporate drug testing.

 

[luckyeddie]

I'm not sure, but I think the WC2003 was the only international cricketing event ever to incorporate drug testing.

It's only down to the ICC to perform testing at tournaments like the World Cup - and in that, they have taken their lead from both the South African sporting authorities and UK Sport in using WADA-approved laboratories. Every team now has 2 players selected at random. It's true that 2003 was the first time that drug testing occurred at an international cricket event (I recall Malcolm Speed saying something about it beforehand).

As far as out-of-competition or domestic testing, that is, I believe, down to the indvidual cricket boards. Players are certainly tested in English county cricket and during internationals - I can't speak for the others but I would assume so.

 

[Deja moo]

Yeah, what I was saying is that theres no testing during test series and other international cricketing events (other that the ICC events ?).

 

[luckyeddie]

Yeah, what I was saying is that theres no testing during test series and other international cricketing events (other that the ICC events ?).

I very much doubt that is the case - certainly not in England. I should imagine that all home boards have to put something in place for series now (no guarantee on that, of course).

It will be interesting to hear what Jack has to say on the subject regarding the U-19 WC.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I never thought that I would extract that sort of reaction from you, Tom.

Do you have any New Zealander in you?

/resists temptation to take it any further

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, what I was saying is that theres no testing during test series and other international cricketing events (other that the ICC events ?).

Nope, drug testing happens from 2nd XI matches upwards.

 

[honestbharani]

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/235693.html



I hope it is satisfactory now.

 

[Ikki]

Off-topic slightly: I had been watching NFL games recently, and something struck me while I was watching the quarter back throw to his wide receivers. Watching more TV and coming accross practices and slow-mo replays it shows that the quarter backs are able to propel the ball a long distance yet release the ball before their arm straightens. I thought to myself that this was VERY similar to Murali's bowling action. Flexion limits and hyper-extension aside, his bowling was very similar to a throw of a quarter-back. They both have very fast arm-speed but seem to let the ball flow out of their hand, (in NFL they do it to keep the ball in a constant spiral motion which in a way is similar to the revolutions Murali produces from this action). The big difference with Murali is his wrist moves much more with the ball than an NFL quarter-back but almost the same technique applies. Food for thought...It would be interesting if someone (If I'm free I'll try) to get slow-mo recordings of both actions.

Personally, with the restrictions being legislated to define a bowl, I see bowl's that I would not consider legitimate in a cricketing sense. I think we're being led astray maybe by this argument...what isn't a bowl is the question? And should there be a broad interpretation for even more unorthadox actions to appear. Should they be allowed just because they meet the physical requirements? Or should the laws change?

 

[Ikki]

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/235693.html



I hope it is satisfactory now.

All that aside, I really question how much stick he gets. Probably more than his compatriots, but really? In Ashes games and in India vs. Pakistan games there are way more insults and taunts by the crowd. Or will someone vouch for Murali? I kind of see it as whinging now. If you want to hit-back just keep taking wickets and do it here in Australia. That's the best retaliation.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I have to say, I wasn't impressed when Murali pulled out of Australia in 2004, this is much the same.

 

[C_C]

According to the rules ( not just the modern one, even the old one), Murali or anyone, can be bowling with an action that looks like a dart player's for all it matters. As long as their flexion is within the limit,everything is legal.
Some people are too much slaves to styles to consider alternate perfetly legal ones.

 

[C_C]

I have to say, I wasn't impressed when Murali pulled out of Australia in 2004, this is much the same.

I for one think Murali pulling out of OZ is perfectly reasonable. I would've done the same if i were him. Hell, i would probably have not come back after 95/96.

 

[luckyeddie]

I for one think Murali pulling out of OZ is perfectly reasonable. I would've done the same if i were him. Hell, i would probably have not come back after 95/96.

The cretins have certainly been out in force at the matches this series, with the 'No ball' calls EVERY delivery.