-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Sri Lanka in Australia thread
- Thread starter marc71178
- Start date
Legglancer
State Regular
By T. Samat
Arguments based on the noble principles of sport would say it is wrong. The contradiction to Pierre De Coubertin's Olympian spirit apart, Muralitharan's refusal to play in Australia, it will be argued, would tantamount to disregarding his moral obligations and responsibilities to the game as
a/ holder of the highest Test wicket taker record,
b/ the most valuable member of his country's team
c/to the host country and followers of the game worldwide.
These lofty principles, one might suspect, are beyond the comprehension of Muralitharan, a young man so totally lost in his love for the game that nothing else quite matters. His life has been all about using his wizardry to trap batsmen and, one imagines, at the end of the day, jotting down each new victim in some ledger _ with about the same delight as a kid adding to his collection of butterflies. He resides in a world of innocence and honest endeavour. So, to be accused of dishonesty can be painfully unnerving. Muralitharan's unwillingness to play in Australia has to be seen from that personal viewpoint.
There's no disguising where Australia lies on Muralitharan's preferred list of Test venues. Past experiences, no doubt, have made it the least likeable country he would want to play in. Those experiences might be old hat, but the scars left by the traumatic experiences of 1995 and '98 are too deep for the passage of time to heal. The humiliation of being ''called" in public, after all, isn't easy to forget _ which is what those who say he should tour Australia want him to do. It is easy to say, as Warne did, that Muralitharan ought to be thick-skinned and just go out there and play _ and not mind past bitter memories.
One thick-skinned to another that might be a bit of sound advice, but human psychology can't be conditioned by anyone's prescription. Your mind is as different as your fingerprint is from the man next door. Clearly, the hurt inflicted on Muralitharan in Australia has left a bad imprint on his mind. Then, any chance the issue might have a "forgive and forget" resolution was sundered by the recent reopening of the old wounds of 1995 and '98 by match referee Chris Broad. On top of that the SLC as good as tells Muralitharan ''go make up your mind yourself". It's not quite the stand a
responsible governing body should be taking, but it suggests
a/ Muralitharan's decision isn't negotiable or
b/ SLC's timidity to argue the bowler's case with the ICC _ or both.
If it is reason A, it's understandable as there's ample evidence to be suspicious of Australia, the source of all his troubles. Only two umpires have ''called" him, and both Australians _ Hair and Emerson in 1995 and '98, respectively. Then, there has been much rumour that match referee Broad's report (leading to the outlawing of his doosra) was influenced by Australia. This rumour ought to be dismissed as. well, only a rumour. But that the doosra was reported to the ICC during a series against, whom else but Australia, and at a moment when the Sri Lankan was poised to surpass Walsh's world record before Warne, inevitably, inspired a theory of conspiracy hatched by two white countries. PM Howard's insensitive remark was fuel to the fire.
Conspiracies, however, are only imagination's deductions. speculations. But this much is certain: it has only gone to deepen Muralitharan's suspicions of Australia. This is not to say it is a good reason why the star bowler shouldn't tour Australia. But his fears that he might be subjected to further humiliation can't be shrugged off as hallucinations. The naming of Broad again as match referee doesn't help dispel his fears, either.
Broad's appointment as match referee, opponents will argue, just happens to be a coincidence. But that is not how Muralitharan, and his supporters, like to see it. Rather, it represents a continuing campaign by his ''enemies" to hound him out of the game and expunge his name from the record books. Try telling them these fears are without foundation and they'll remind you of Australian Ian Healy's recent wish: a re-examination of Muralitharan's other deliveries now that his doosra has been found to bend the law.
Would Broad grant Healy's wish? The question might be mischievously far-fetched, but Muralitharan's suspicion of Australia is so deep that you can't expect his sense of rationality to be the same as ours. He, after all, is the one who has suffered pain of mind.
So opting out of the July series wouldn't be such a difficult decision to make. To make up his mind to revisit the land of all his troubles, however, is a far tougher thing to do. If he does, he would've, in public eyes, climbed to a higher pedestal. It would prove that the mental strength that had helped him battle through past troubles remains unimpaired and that he won't be intimated out of the game, which he suspects is what his opponents wish would happen.
Someone also ought to remind him that his doosra is under only a restraining order, not a ban. As well, that the whole world isn't against him, and that he has two invaluable supporters in the present Australian coach and last captain, no less. Indian players and commentators have come out in his defence, and there's little doubt the Pakistanis would do the same. It won't be very long before the ICC, based on the recommendations of its review committee, rules on the legitimacy or otherwise of the doosra. There's no denying that there's an abundance of sympathy for Muralitharan, which would run the risk of erosion should he turn his back on the tour. More damagingly, his critics would interpret his absence as an admission of his own doubts about his bowling action.
These are traumatizing times for Muralitharan. It is unfortunate that the SLC has left him alone with his problems, though one hopes that, behind the scenes it is doing all it can to persuade him to change his mind and join the tour party _ which is, after all, the right thing to do as the game's governing authority. SLC ought to be working on allaying Muralitharan's fears _ for instance, appoint an advisor, perhaps the likes of Arjuna Ranatunga, to the tour party who can be a confidant to Muralitharan. As well, put in place a plan of action in the event of Muralitharan's worst fears become true.
SLC better face up to the fact that Sri Lanka without its world record bowler would be much like a one-armed boxer. The damage to our image would be incalculable. SLC, so, can't choose to sit on its hands and leave it all to Muralitharan. That is as good as washing its hand off the problem. It better start working on changing the bowler's decision _ because its responsibility is to ensure the best represent the country. And Muralitharan is the best in the world. His doosra as of yet isn't officially banned. So, SLC's hands-off approach is difficult to understand. Should we now hear talk of enemies within plotting Muralitharan's downfall? That wouldn't be surprising.
Arguments based on the noble principles of sport would say it is wrong. The contradiction to Pierre De Coubertin's Olympian spirit apart, Muralitharan's refusal to play in Australia, it will be argued, would tantamount to disregarding his moral obligations and responsibilities to the game as
a/ holder of the highest Test wicket taker record,
b/ the most valuable member of his country's team
c/to the host country and followers of the game worldwide.
These lofty principles, one might suspect, are beyond the comprehension of Muralitharan, a young man so totally lost in his love for the game that nothing else quite matters. His life has been all about using his wizardry to trap batsmen and, one imagines, at the end of the day, jotting down each new victim in some ledger _ with about the same delight as a kid adding to his collection of butterflies. He resides in a world of innocence and honest endeavour. So, to be accused of dishonesty can be painfully unnerving. Muralitharan's unwillingness to play in Australia has to be seen from that personal viewpoint.
There's no disguising where Australia lies on Muralitharan's preferred list of Test venues. Past experiences, no doubt, have made it the least likeable country he would want to play in. Those experiences might be old hat, but the scars left by the traumatic experiences of 1995 and '98 are too deep for the passage of time to heal. The humiliation of being ''called" in public, after all, isn't easy to forget _ which is what those who say he should tour Australia want him to do. It is easy to say, as Warne did, that Muralitharan ought to be thick-skinned and just go out there and play _ and not mind past bitter memories.
One thick-skinned to another that might be a bit of sound advice, but human psychology can't be conditioned by anyone's prescription. Your mind is as different as your fingerprint is from the man next door. Clearly, the hurt inflicted on Muralitharan in Australia has left a bad imprint on his mind. Then, any chance the issue might have a "forgive and forget" resolution was sundered by the recent reopening of the old wounds of 1995 and '98 by match referee Chris Broad. On top of that the SLC as good as tells Muralitharan ''go make up your mind yourself". It's not quite the stand a
responsible governing body should be taking, but it suggests
a/ Muralitharan's decision isn't negotiable or
b/ SLC's timidity to argue the bowler's case with the ICC _ or both.
If it is reason A, it's understandable as there's ample evidence to be suspicious of Australia, the source of all his troubles. Only two umpires have ''called" him, and both Australians _ Hair and Emerson in 1995 and '98, respectively. Then, there has been much rumour that match referee Broad's report (leading to the outlawing of his doosra) was influenced by Australia. This rumour ought to be dismissed as. well, only a rumour. But that the doosra was reported to the ICC during a series against, whom else but Australia, and at a moment when the Sri Lankan was poised to surpass Walsh's world record before Warne, inevitably, inspired a theory of conspiracy hatched by two white countries. PM Howard's insensitive remark was fuel to the fire.
Conspiracies, however, are only imagination's deductions. speculations. But this much is certain: it has only gone to deepen Muralitharan's suspicions of Australia. This is not to say it is a good reason why the star bowler shouldn't tour Australia. But his fears that he might be subjected to further humiliation can't be shrugged off as hallucinations. The naming of Broad again as match referee doesn't help dispel his fears, either.
Broad's appointment as match referee, opponents will argue, just happens to be a coincidence. But that is not how Muralitharan, and his supporters, like to see it. Rather, it represents a continuing campaign by his ''enemies" to hound him out of the game and expunge his name from the record books. Try telling them these fears are without foundation and they'll remind you of Australian Ian Healy's recent wish: a re-examination of Muralitharan's other deliveries now that his doosra has been found to bend the law.
Would Broad grant Healy's wish? The question might be mischievously far-fetched, but Muralitharan's suspicion of Australia is so deep that you can't expect his sense of rationality to be the same as ours. He, after all, is the one who has suffered pain of mind.
So opting out of the July series wouldn't be such a difficult decision to make. To make up his mind to revisit the land of all his troubles, however, is a far tougher thing to do. If he does, he would've, in public eyes, climbed to a higher pedestal. It would prove that the mental strength that had helped him battle through past troubles remains unimpaired and that he won't be intimated out of the game, which he suspects is what his opponents wish would happen.
Someone also ought to remind him that his doosra is under only a restraining order, not a ban. As well, that the whole world isn't against him, and that he has two invaluable supporters in the present Australian coach and last captain, no less. Indian players and commentators have come out in his defence, and there's little doubt the Pakistanis would do the same. It won't be very long before the ICC, based on the recommendations of its review committee, rules on the legitimacy or otherwise of the doosra. There's no denying that there's an abundance of sympathy for Muralitharan, which would run the risk of erosion should he turn his back on the tour. More damagingly, his critics would interpret his absence as an admission of his own doubts about his bowling action.
These are traumatizing times for Muralitharan. It is unfortunate that the SLC has left him alone with his problems, though one hopes that, behind the scenes it is doing all it can to persuade him to change his mind and join the tour party _ which is, after all, the right thing to do as the game's governing authority. SLC ought to be working on allaying Muralitharan's fears _ for instance, appoint an advisor, perhaps the likes of Arjuna Ranatunga, to the tour party who can be a confidant to Muralitharan. As well, put in place a plan of action in the event of Muralitharan's worst fears become true.
SLC better face up to the fact that Sri Lanka without its world record bowler would be much like a one-armed boxer. The damage to our image would be incalculable. SLC, so, can't choose to sit on its hands and leave it all to Muralitharan. That is as good as washing its hand off the problem. It better start working on changing the bowler's decision _ because its responsibility is to ensure the best represent the country. And Muralitharan is the best in the world. His doosra as of yet isn't officially banned. So, SLC's hands-off approach is difficult to understand. Should we now hear talk of enemies within plotting Muralitharan's downfall? That wouldn't be surprising.
Last edited:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't think you have much of a clue what my view is - or if you do, you're not particularly interested in it anyway, because it's quite moderate (there's a thing - someone who doesn't hold an extreme pro- or anti- Murali view).Sanz said:
DJellett
International Debutant
***UPDATE***
All rounder to replace Williams
CA today announced that they are looking to include an all-rounder in place of injured paceman Brad Williams. Uncapped player Shane Watson is expected to take the place, with Andrew Symonds next in the selector's sights.
Chairman of selectors Trevor Hohns said "we usally swap like for like, but this is a good oppurtunity to trial an all rounder for the tour of India."
Other outside hopes of taking Williams' spot are NSW quick Matthew Nicholson, last years leading Pura Cup wicket taker, with Paul Rofe and Ian Harvey slim chances for the 2 Test series begging next month.
All rounder to replace Williams
CA today announced that they are looking to include an all-rounder in place of injured paceman Brad Williams. Uncapped player Shane Watson is expected to take the place, with Andrew Symonds next in the selector's sights.
Chairman of selectors Trevor Hohns said "we usally swap like for like, but this is a good oppurtunity to trial an all rounder for the tour of India."
Other outside hopes of taking Williams' spot are NSW quick Matthew Nicholson, last years leading Pura Cup wicket taker, with Paul Rofe and Ian Harvey slim chances for the 2 Test series begging next month.
Legglancer
State Regular
DJellett said:
Credit to one who speakes the truth !!!
Langeveldt
Soutie
Interesting stuff reguarding Murali.. I can why he made his decision... However Ive got very little respect from him, and he shouldnt really be touring anyway considering his "all doosras blazing" attitude he had in Zimbabwe.... However can't help but feel sorry for the bloke as an international cricketer...
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Is this one of the most blinkered posts ever?Sanz said:
MacGill has taken a stand that could very well cost him his International future and potentially a large proportion of his income - will you next say that Olonga and Flower had less reason to make their stand than the chicken from Kandy?
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Except I was clearly referring to New Zealanders in Pakistan, making the Hadlee comment irrelevant.Sanz said:
And players missing because of burnout is understandable in this day and age (as both Stewart and Gough did - incidentally they paid for their choice, Gough with his career)
You cannot equate that with Murali.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
What International Future you are talking about ?? Macgill has no International Future ater Warnie's return. I couldn't care less about Stuart Macgill's hypocritical stance when he knew very well that he wouldn't be selected for the tour If warnie was available. He should stand for elections in, he would be very successful.marc71178 said:
It's funny that you compare Stuart Macgill's stance to Flower and Olonga's. Macgill was just to happy to play against Zimbabwe at home.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
No, You are the one who is continously making baseless allegations and calling names to Murali. You can not prove your allegations, can you ??marc71178 said:
Murali is within his rights to refuse to tour any country esp If the Prime Minister of that Country is an IDIOT and hostile towards him.
You should look into mirror and try to find an excuse for England players refusing to tour India in 2001. Somuch hypocrisy and double standards. I hope Murali refuses to tour England as well.