Sri Lanka losing face

[marc71178]

Murali already has over 500 wickets using an action that every player and journalist I have spoken to regards as illegal.

And of course all these journalists and players are fully qualified in biomechanics aren't they?

Didn't think so.

But they are clearly fully qualified in jealousy.

 

[marc71178]

The analysis is completed and by the existing rules, it's a chuck. Between 10 and 14% extension - only allowed 5% if you're a twirly.

Although I agree with your post Eddie, I do wonder why there are different limits for different types of bowler. I read somewhere that Murali's arm speed is very fast when he releases the ball, although I don't know how true that statement was.

 

[luckyeddie]

Although I agree with your post Eddie, I do wonder why there are different limits for different types of bowler. I read somewhere that Murali's arm speed is very fast when he releases the ball, although I don't know how true that statement was.

That baffles me too - and who defines a bowler as 'slow'? Chandrasekhar was supposedly a slow bowler, yet delivered the ball at what looked to be D'Oliveira-like pace.

 

[DJ]

And of course all these journalists and players are fully qualified in biomechanics aren't they?

Didn't think so.

But they are clearly fully qualified in jealousy.

No, they are fully qualified in cricket.

Good response though: "You're just jealous." I mean, what can I say to answer that? I must concede defeat. You've proved your point.

All that biomechanics has done in these instances is find ways to allow cheats to continue playing.

 

[Craig]

In fairness, Andre is aware of some things that others on here are not party to. It's not your fault you were not to know that.

Thanks for the fiver. I have decided to re-invest it in South Africa, which should keep Thabo Mbeki's government going for another 5 years.

Is that actually a good thing or not?

Sorry, I'm a bit ignorant with politics in South Africa.

 

[luckyeddie]

Is that actually a good thing or not?

Sorry, I'm a bit ignorant with politics in South Africa.

Very good thing indeed.

 

[marc71178]

No, they are fully qualified in cricket.

So actually anything they say can be taken with a pinch of salt as they don't actually know what they're talking about.

All that biomechanics has done in these instances is find ways to allow cheats to continue playing.

No, it's shown that Murali's stock deliveries are 100% legal, but because of his deformity a lot of people are confused into claiming that he chucks.

 

[DJ]

So actually anything they say can be taken with a pinch of salt as they don't actually know what they're talking about.

Yes, the same as when we listen to biomechanists preach about how cricket should be played.

The circumstances surround the testing are so dubious I cannot bring myself to acknowledge them.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, the same as when we listen to biomechanists preach about how cricket should be played.

When do they preach?

They independantly test a bowlers action in accordance with the laws of the game and suggest action if it's needed to bring the bowler in line.

The circumstances surround the testing are so dubious I cannot bring myself to acknowledge them.

So please tell us your grounds for this accusation of "dubious" - I assume therefore that you are a qualified biomechanist and also attended these tests to witness them?

 

[DJ]

When do they preach?

They independantly test a bowlers action in accordance with the laws of the game and suggest action if it's needed to bring the bowler in line.

No they don't, not always. They should, but they don't. They test a bowlers action and then suggest ways in which the rules can be altered in order to accommodate them. Shoaib chucks? Let's ask for hyper-extension to be dealt with in the laws and implement flexing thresholds from now on. Murali still chucks, despite those thresholds? Let's ask for them to be increased.

Anyway, what good does all their talk about 'remodelling' do? James Kirtley still chucks, as does Shabbir. What on earth did the UWA change about their actions?

So please tell us your grounds for this accusation of "dubious" - I assume therefore that you are a qualified biomechanist and also attended these tests to witness them?

There's no need for the sarcasm. I didn't ask you if you attended the tests in order to ensure their validity, did I?

How do you test someone in a laboratory? After you've passed your driving test, do you never allow your hands to deviate from the 10 o' clock/2 o' clock position from then on? If I'm driving and am pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving and I pass the breathaliser test, does that mean that I am never allowed to be pulled over and tested again? Apart from the obvious problems with these tests, why were Emerson and Hair not allowed to be present at the testing? Why were they not allowed to give their approval for the action Murali used during the tests? How do the biomechanists know whether or not Murali is bowling properly or if he's putting on a show? By asking Bruce Yardley??

 

[marc71178]

There are so many people who have no scientific knowledge or anything yet think they know more than the scientists do it's unbelievable.

 

[DJ]

Just like their are so many people out there who have no scientific knowledge and are prepared to just believe anything scientists tell them.

In any case, I have eyes - what more do you need? All of the bowlers who have been reported (based on the eyesight of the umpires) have been shown to have dodgy actions. All testing did was confirm this and then give us a multitude of 'reasons' why it doesn't matter.

 

[marc71178]

Apart from those like Murali whose stock ball action doesn't contravene anything but laymen still insist that he chucks.

 

[Slow Love™]

No, it's shown that Murali's stock deliveries are 100% legal, but because of his deformity a lot of people are confused into claiming that he chucks.

Could you stop treating this as if the people concerned over Murali's action are complete idiots? Particularly after the tests of the doosra. It may well be that Murali's stock ball is not thrown (I'm far from convinced, and his deformity is completely irrelevant to this for obvious reasons that you should by now, be aware of), but acting as if the people sceptical of Murali's action are stupid and don't understand some of the defences mounted is just plain obnoxious.

Unlike you, I'm actually curious as to what Murali's degree of straightening is for his stock delivery (and I believe a lot of discussion and argument could be resolved if the ICC were more transparent on this issue). Do you happen to know?

 

[Slow Love™]

There are so many people who have no scientific knowledge or anything yet think they know more than the scientists do it's unbelievable.

None of what Bumstuff (sorry) brought up implies that he knows more about science than the scientists do. And if you really want to argue the subject, perhaps you could be bothered posting more than quick, 1-2 sentence responses that don't even attempt to address the issues you're contesting.

Just saying.

 

[marc71178]

By arguing the scientific results, what is he doing if not saying he knows better?

 

[DJ]

I'm saying that I don't trust the testing. I don't trust people who think that controlled environments are the place to see what happens in the heat of the moment and I certainly don't trust any organisation that makes Bruce Yardley the 'impartial observer' of the procedure. But please, feel free to put words in my mouth in order to make it easier for you to make sarcastic one-liners.

As a CW Staff Member, I'm surprised at your unwillingness to debate the issue. Surely debate (as opposed to sarcastic quips) is what you should be encouraging on the forum?

 

[marc71178]

This has been debated time after time on here and on every occasion people cannot look past the FACTS that Murali's action has been tested by people who know what they're doing and can actually test the movement, rather than people who have only ever observed it from a distance and in nowhere near as big detail.

As for controlled environment - I don't think you could really test him in a match, seeing as they'd need to attach various bits of tracking equipment to his body.

And where have I put words into your mouth?

 

[luckyeddie]

I'm saying that I don't trust the testing. I don't trust people who think that controlled environments are the place to see what happens in the heat of the moment and I certainly don't trust any organisation that makes Bruce Yardley the 'impartial observer' of the procedure. But please, feel free to put words in my mouth in order to make it easier for you to make sarcastic one-liners.

As a CW Staff Member, I'm surprised at your unwillingness to debate the issue. Surely debate (as opposed to sarcastic quips) is what you should be encouraging on the forum?

Re the testing, I trust it and the results TOTALLY - but I don't necessarily trust the interpretation of the results. The problem with controlled environments is that they are just that - but they are all we have for testing.

What is the alternative? You cannot wire Murali up and have him bowl in a match, yet you clearly want him banned. Without lab conditions, you have no science - and without science, you have only conjecture ("In any case, I have eyes", you said), just one step away from witchcraft.

Murali turned DJ Bumfluff into a newt...... he got better.

 

[DJ]

This has been debated time after time on here and on every occasion people cannot look past the FACTS that Murali's action has been tested by people who know what they're doing and can actually test the movement, rather than people who have only ever observed it from a distance and in nowhere near as big detail.

Sorry, but I have never debated it on here before, although I can well imagine that others have, it being the controversial flashpoint that it is. But if you don't want to debate the issue, then why do you reply?

As for controlled environment - I don't think you could really test him in a match, seeing as they'd need to attach various bits of tracking equipment to his body.

Then what about having the umpires who called him in the first place as observers? If Murali bowls a half-arsed delivery, they can say that they are not satisfied with his effort and it should not be considered in the testing. All we have now is him being whisked off to a secret location with his ex-coach and someone who was accused of being a chucker himself 'assuring' us that the tests were carried out properly. Can you not see how people could be skeptical of their validity?

And where have I put words into your mouth?

You keep saying that I think I know more than the scientists. Not once have I said that.