*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[luckyeddie]

Interesting to note the Umpires who reported him, as this is unlikely to happen today as any Test in which Lee is involved will have an English/SA/NZ Umpire at the other end - so quite safe for him from that point of view and he is never ever going to be reported as I see it.

Why was he never analysed under same requirements as Murali ? Why is Murali and Shoaib exceptions to the rule and having to be analysed under different criteria ?

I've cut the wheat from the chaff, and distilled your comment down to two points.

The first is a direct and somewhat questionable slur on the neutrality of white non-Australian umpires. The likes of Chris Broad would have no qualms reporting anyone in his duties as off-field match official, and neither would any other umpire, I'm sure. These things tend to get reported (suspect actions) on television first (accompanied by plenty of tut-tutting from commentators, together with the ubiquitous "I'll bet the third umpire would want a look at THAT at the end of the day" comments). The umpires I know take their supposed neutrality VERY seriously - and that's going right back to the days of 'home umpires' too.

The second is obvious - no, when Lee was tested, it was under a totally different set of criteria. The limits were much tighter.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well, newspaper reports suggest that this may have been Dalmiyas fault. Venkat says both Lee and Shoaib were referred to the ICC at that point in time. Allegedly Dalmiya needed the backing of the PCB in pushing through certain proposals in the ICC, and shoving Shoaibs case below the carpet was the price. Of course, letting Lee off the hook too was the pound of flesh demanded by Cricket Australia in return.

Sorry.

The 'conspiracy theories' thread is in off-topic

 

[Deja moo]

Sorry.

The 'conspiracy theories' thread is in off-topic

Well, considering that Murali was cleared by the ICC, this entire thread should have been shifted there as soon as the word 'chucker' was mentioned first.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well, considering that Murali was cleared by the ICC, this entire thread should have been shifted there as soon as the word 'chucker' was mentioned first.

I have defended him long and hard (ooer missus) in the past, and been often criticised for it.

I did suggest the other week though that certain aspects of his bowling - especially the doosra - still looked 'iffy' (boy, that word got me into trouble with some) and that I had also mentioned the 'fact' that match conditions were 'different'. These things were as clear as the pie in Inzy's face.

So if I spotted them, you can probably blame me for the ICC hauling his botty in for tests again. I'm sure some will if it does come to that.

 

[Deja moo]

I have defended him long and hard (ooer missus) in the past, and been often criticised for it.

I did suggest the other week though that certain aspects of his bowling - especially the doosra - still looked 'iffy' (boy, that word got me into trouble with some) and that I had also mentioned the 'fact' that match conditions were 'different'. These things were as clear as the pie in Inzy's face.

So if I spotted them, you can probably blame me for the ICC hauling his botty in for tests again. I'm sure some will if it does come to that.

Some would call the last bit paranoia. But then, what would I know ?

 

[dinu23]

I wonder why they don't show Lee's action is super slow-mo? I guess they foget

 

[luckyeddie]

I wonder why they don't show Lee's action is super slow-mo? I guess they foget

Conspiracy, of course.

All Australian bowlers throw, but of course the television companies, match officials and the ICC (especially that fifth columnist traitor Ehsan Mani) are all in it together in suppressing those facts.

I thought everyone knew that.

 

[Jono]

I have defended him long and hard (ooer missus) in the past, and been often criticised for it.

I did suggest the other week though that certain aspects of his bowling - especially the doosra - still looked 'iffy' (boy, that word got me into trouble with some) and that I had also mentioned the 'fact' that match conditions were 'different'. These things were as clear as the pie in Inzy's face.

So if I spotted them, you can probably blame me for the ICC hauling his botty in for tests again. I'm sure some will if it does come to that.

There is no doubt that Murali's action looks 'iffy', but if by iffy you mean doesn't bowl with a straight arm nor conform to the generic idea of 'bowling' you'd be correct. That being said, Akhtar, Lee, Perera, Botha and Andrew Hall all come under that category IMO.

I'm not sure how many, if any of those are officially chuckers under the ICC laws though. Apparently none, though Botha is to be tested I guess.

 

[luckyeddie]

There is no doubt that Murali's action looks 'iffy', but if by iffy you mean doesn't bowl with a straight arm nor conform to the generic idea of 'bowling' you'd be correct. That being said, Akhtar, Lee, Perera, Botha and Andrew Hall all come under that category IMO.

I'm not sure how many, if any of those are officially chuckers under the ICC laws though. Apparently none, though Botha is to be tested I guess.

I don't wish to become embroiled in any further debate with anyone, for the simple reason that I have stated my position right from the start and have remained entirely consistent.

Suffice to say, this thread contains more rubbish than any other I have witnessed on CW in my few short years on here.

Let's both try not to add any to it.

 

[Jono]

I have no intention on getting in on the debate either, but I do feel that Murali isn't the only player with a fairly 'dodgy' action. By dodgy I don't mean "chucker", because I don't believe all of those I've mentioned illegally bowl (only Perera and Botha actually), but they do all have relatively ugly actions. However the thing is (and its not a race issue like others are tyring to infer) Murali does get more attention than the others. Maybe its because his is more overtly different with the obvious bent elbow. Maybe its because he has been much more successful than all the other bowlers combined. I'm not sure.

But whilst Lee does get some no-ball chants from the Barmy Army, and there has been comments here and there in regards to Akhtar, and Botha is even getting some no-ball chants recently, Murali does receive far more attention. All I'm pointing out is inconsistencies I'm guessing. This has nothing to do with 10 degrees, 15 degrees or whatever. Just from looking at these bowlers on replays, they all have some flex which isn't pretty.

 

[Ikki]

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.

That's the difference between us C_C. The letter of the law will rule with you and with me the good of the sport. I'd rather want a firm understanding on appropriate 'style', as you put it, and not have the sport split into two because some care to abuse it and some do not. As I exemplified earlier in the thread by how Rugby evolved from football (soccer). Such differences will eventually split the sport if there is no strong understanding.

 

[Sanz]

Well, newspaper reports suggest that this may have been Dalmiyas fault. Venkat says both Lee and Shoaib were referred to the ICC at that point in time. Allegedly Dalmiya needed the backing of the PCB in pushing through certain proposals in the ICC, and shoving Shoaibs case below the carpet was the price. Of course, letting Lee off the hook too was the pound of flesh demanded by Cricket Australia in return.

Yeah Moo, Blame Dalmiya for the Tsunami also..

 

[JASON]

The second is obvious - no, when Lee was tested, it was under a totally different set of criteria. The limits were much tighter.

Lee was not tested but merely the panel reviewed slow motion TV footage and passed him as OK over a telephone hook up, which is what i have stated.

Why not get him tested by the proper super speed frame by frame analysis and current technology available by an independant testing facility , since this technology is now available and there are facilities capable of doing it.

Since Shoaib and Murali are constantly slurred by certain countries I feel it is only fair that these countries(and individuals) should also be assessed by the same criteria without being given a special priviledged position, so that they take a moral high ground , sit on the high throne and criticise and pass judgement on others (and constantly slur these 2 - and by this I include Greg Chappell as well as the WA guys and various sections of Aussie Media including buffoons like Robert Craddock etc..)

 

[luckyeddie]

Lee was not tested but merely the panel reviewed slow motion TV footage and passed him as OK over a telephone hook up, which is what i have stated.

Why not get him tested by the proper super speed frame by frame analysis and current technology available by an independant testing facility , since this technology is now available and there are facilities capable of doing it.

Since Shoaib and Murali are constantly slurred by certain countries I feel it is only fair that these countries(and individuals) should also be assessed by the same criteria without being given a special priviledged position, so that they take a moral high ground , sit on the high throne and criticise and pass judgement on others (and constantly slur these 2 - and by this I include Greg Chappell as well as the WA guys and various sections of Aussie Media including buffoons like Robert Craddock etc..)

All you need to do in that case then is to convince an umpire or official at a test match involving Brett Lee that there is something worth looking at, instead of basically ranting and saying that it's all one big controversy.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other how you go about addressing this problem - within reason, of course.

I was with you until your argument got a little stupid at the end.

 

[C_C]

That's the difference between us C_C. The letter of the law will rule with you and with me the good of the sport. I'd rather want a firm understanding on appropriate 'style', as you put it, and not have the sport split into two because some care to abuse it and some do not. As I exemplified earlier in the thread by how Rugby evolved from football (soccer). Such differences will eventually split the sport if there is no strong understanding.

Sorry but 'good of the sport' is a subjective viewpoint. And my viewpoint on this differs very much from your's. And as i see it, any sport that differentiates on the basis of style has very little to go on in terms of credibility.
And if cricket evolves and splits, it will perhaps be good for all concerned- certainly with rugby and soccer both in the stage, the entertainment field is richer for it, not poorer. Who are you to go against the grain of nature and demand stagnation ? Everything changes. So i suggest you stop resisting the inevitable.

 

[JASON]

I was with you until you got stupid at the end.

What.....you mean the likes of Greg Chapell suddenly learning that they can take pot shots when it suits them... or the well known idiot Robert Craddock of the Aussie Witch Hunt Media Frenzy... that's not stupid - thats the truth - if you don't know it then you are stupid to dismiss it as such.

 

[luckyeddie]

What.....you mean the likes of Greg Chapell suddenly learning that they can take pot shots when it suits them... or the well known idiot Robert Craddock of the Aussie Witch Hunt Media Frenzy... that's not stupid - thats the truth - if you don't know it then you are stupid to dismiss it as such.

Confrontational little fellow, aren't we?

You can rage against the machine as much as you like, and rave against every injustice, perceived and real, but you will be hard-pressed to persuade anybody with that method of making your point.

I have never even HEARD of Robert Craddock (unless you are talking about the geologist), so just mark me down as stupid.

 

[JASON]

Confrontational little fellow, aren't we?

You can rage against the machine as much as you like, and rave against every injustice, perceived and real, but you will be hard-pressed to persuade anybody with that method of making your point.

I have never even HEARD of Robert Craddock (unless you are talking about the geologist), so just mark me down as stupid.

Sorry Eddie, did not mean to be confrontational, but you started it by calling me stupid.

And apologies, Craddock is a low life in the Aussie Media world who feels (possibly because of his hero worship of Warne or some such thing like that) he has to get knives out and go hell for leather in finding some dirt /rubbish etc on Murali through his news paper columns or getting others do the dirty work for him.

 

[luckyeddie]

Sorry Eddie, did not mean to be confrontational, but you started it by calling me stupid.

And apologies, Craddock is a low life in the Aussie Media world who feels (possibly because of his hero worship of Warne or some such thing like that) he has to get knives out and go hell for leather in finding some dirt /rubbish etc on Murali through his news paper columns or getting others do the dirty work for him.

I said that your argument got a little stupid at the end - or that was the intention anyway. The missus turned up with ice cream and bananas, and all logical thought went out of the window. I hit enter and that was that.

Came back a few minutes ago and re-worded it but by then you'd obviously answered - or were in the process of doing so (check the time stamps).

It's unfortunate that there are journalists whose sole purpose seems to be making news as opposed to reporting upon it - same things happen here all the time.

 

[JASON]

I said that your argument got a little stupid at the end - or that was the intention anyway. The missus turned up with ice cream and bananas, and all logical thought went out of the window. I hit enter and that was that.

Came back a few minutes ago and re-worded it but by then you'd obviously answered.

It's unfortunate that there are journalists whose sole purpose seems to be making news as opposed to reporting upon it - same things happen here all the time.

If you lived locally, I would send you a box of Chocolates in apology for my error .