Razzak banned

[zaremba]

http://3lib
.ukonline.co.uk/
cricket/

 

[Matt79]

hmmm, hard to judge without a 3D view. Not having ever heard any of the players or observers who saw him bowl question his action, I'd wonder whether its the rotation of the back/arm giving the illusion of the elbow bending and then straightening there.

That one bit of footage doesn't look good, but I'd think it strange that someone so close in time to the Meckiff and Griffith dramas could chuck to the extent that video might be interpreted to show without anyone questioning it.

 

[zaremba]

hmmm, hard to judge without a 3D view. Not having ever heard any of the players or observers who saw him bowl question his action, I'd wonder whether its the rotation of the back/arm giving the illusion of the elbow bending and then straightening there.

That one bit of footage doesn't look good, but I'd think it strange that someone so close in time to the Meckiff and Griffith dramas could chuck to the extent that video might be interpreted to show without anyone questioning it.

All your points are well-made. I must admit that my casual reference to him being a chucker was a little mischievous.

 

[silentstriker]

It's not possible to see a throw from a side on angle like that. As shown here by Holding. Plus, you can't trust raw footage, it can easily mislead.

 

[zaremba]

It's not possible to see a throw from a side on angle like that. As shown here by Holding. Plus, you can't trust raw footage, it can easily mislead.

I agree that before you can be sure, you need to have a wider selection of camera angles. That said, I'm not persuaded that Holding's analysis proved much. On the contrary, the most revealing angle he showed of Shoaib's action was the side-on view (which is the one we have of Lindwall); it was the front-on view of Shoaib that was truly misleading.

I'd be interested to see if anyone else can come up with some other angles of Lindwall's bowling because, as I say, I do take your point that you can't be sure without seeing more.

 

[Richard]

That one bit of footage doesn't look good, but I'd think it strange that someone so close in time to the Meckiff and Griffith dramas could chuck to the extent that video might be interpreted to show without anyone questioning it.

Not to mention Griffin as well.

Mind, Lindwall was certainly not sans-suspicion. Even Fred Trueman wasn't. As far as I've read, the only bowler who pretty much never came under the scanner around that time of suspicion was Alec Bedser.

 

[Matt79]

There was a lot of talk that Lindwall would be no balled for excessive dragging, in the end, Bradman told him to bowl from a yard behind the crease to avoid the issue.

 

[chaminda_00]

Just saw some of his wickets in the WC07 group match against India. He action doesn't look that bad, until the last moment when he has a massive flick to get more spin and pace on the ball. He could fix quite easierly, but I doubt he will be anywhere near as effective. Looks like that last flick is where he gets action on the ball from.

Also the main reason for the high reading is that he goes back and forth with his extention. Whereas most bowlers who have issues generally just extend one direction.