Were the Australian batsmen Overrated?

[deeps]

someone tell me how a leg spinner can chuck the ball

 

[King_Ponting]

someone tell me how a leg spinner can chuck the ball

Yeh i argued the same..... but its the flexation of the elbow cause of the wrist or something like that.

 

[C_C]

well, in my eyes, i don't see warne as a chucker, nor do i see most bowlers in the world as chuckers. I believe that murali chucks.

No matter what anyone says about degrees of straightening etc etc, it's still in my mind that he is a chucker. Having said that, I realise he's allowed to bowl, so i do put him up there with the best bowlers in the world atm. Some people will not see it the same way

So you are saying that when someone proves to yuo that the human eye is not competent enough to judge the compound motion of 3 joints working in tandem to produce a net aggregate motion in realtime and you most definately cannot extrapolate a three dimensional motion from a two dimensional screen ( not without multiple simultaneous perspective), you would say 'awww f*ck your facts and wisdom. I see what i see and i believe what i see' ?

In that case, i hope you dont venture into the sandy deserts of Australia. For with that attitude ( my perception, nomatter how categorically flawed, is infallible) you will be a dead man, dying of exhaustion chasing a mirage.

 

[C_C]

someone tell me how a leg spinner can chuck the ball

Why dont you just end your curiosity forever by emailing a biomechanist from UWA ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But the same people dont realise, despite categoric evidence presented, that if Murali is a chucker, so is warney and everybody else!

That is only if you accept that the correct method of determining a violation of the chucking rule as it was written is by measuring elbox flex precisely using a high speed camera, which in my opinion it is not. I personally don't care if Murali is a chucker or not, and I respect him greatly as a bowler even though I consider Warne slightly better, but I still object to the current method of dealing with the chucking crisis and the way which Hair was treated after he made what was, under the rules of the time, a completely accurate and justified call.

Anyway, is there any chance of this thread staying remotely on topic so it doesn't get closed?

 

[C_C]

That is only if you accept that the correct method of determining a violation of the chucking rule as it was written is by measuring elbox flex precisely using a high speed camera, which in my opinion it is not.

?????

 

[deeps]

Why dont you just end your curiosity forever by emailing a biomechanist from UWA ?

or i could just walk over there and ask one in person, seeing that i go to uwa

 

[deeps]

So you are saying that when someone proves to yuo that the human eye is not competent enough to judge the compound motion of 3 joints working in tandem to produce a net aggregate motion in realtime and you most definately cannot extrapolate a three dimensional motion from a two dimensional screen ( not without multiple simultaneous perspective), you would say 'awww f*ck your facts and wisdom. I see what i see and i believe what i see' ?

In that case, i hope you dont venture into the sandy deserts of Australia. For with that attitude ( my perception, nomatter how categorically flawed, is infallible) you will be a dead man, dying of exhaustion chasing a mirage.

I think he chucks, but seeing that he is allowed to bowl, i acknowledge he is eligible to be in the world xi's etc. and so i pick him as well looking at purely his record. I would still argue that he chucks, and i'm not going to go into that, because it's totally OT.


Incidentally, i've been camping in the bush and deserts of australia many times, and i seem to be fine

 

[C_C]

I think he chucks, but seeing that he is allowed to bowl, i acknowledge he is eligible to be in the world xi's etc. and so i pick him as well looking at purely his record. I would still argue that he chucks, and i'm not going to go into that, because it's totally OT.


Incidentally, i've been camping in the bush and deserts of australia many times, and i seem to be fine

If you seem to be fine, then you are not being consistent. For when out in the bush, you cannot be fine by just trusting your senses- you NEED to have wisdom and knowledge about many things that will overrule your senses.
And if you apply the same philosophy here, then you have no contention whether Murali is a chucker or not.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

?????

We've been over this before. The original chucking rule had nothing to do with how many degrees of unintentional flex you had incidentally in your action, it was about purposely straightening your arm to get an advantage over other bowlers.

 

[luckyeddie]

Someone close this thread - it has become even more of a waste of time now that it has degererated into the usual Warne v Murali Whitey v Non-whitey neo-Fascist v neo-Marxist crap they all do.

 

[C_C]

We've been over this before. The original chucking rule had nothing to do with how many degrees of unintentional flex you had incidentally in your action, it was about purposely straightening your arm to get an advantage over other bowlers.

Incorrect.
The Original rule was simple : Thou shalt not flex. Period. End of story. It mentioned nothing about unintentional flexion and as such, it is just whimsical thinking. Infact,if you follow the affair of Ian Meckiff affair, it was made clear several times that 'proper bowlers should bowl with NO flexion in the arm'.

As such, the original rule was black and white- flexion = you are a chucker. no flexion = you are clear.
Clearly, according the original rule, everyone is a chucker.
And given that Murali flexes no more than most other bowlers, targetting him is unjustified victimisation.

 

[PY]

Never heard this argument before.

 

[deeps]

Incorrect.
The Original rule was simple : Thou shalt not flex. Period. End of story. It mentioned nothing about unintentional flexion and as such, it is just whimsical thinking. Infact,if you follow the affair of Ian Meckiff affair, it was made clear several times that 'proper bowlers should bowl with NO flexion in the arm'.

As such, the original rule was black and white- flexion = you are a chucker. no flexion = you are clear.
Clearly, according the original rule, everyone is a chucker.
And given that Murali flexes no more than most other bowlers, targetting him is unjustified victimisation.

the original rule incorporated use of the naked eye, to decide wether it was flexing or not. Not high tech computers etc.

 

[C_C]

the original rule incorporated use of the naked eye, to decide wether it was flexing or not. Not high tech computers etc.

And the naked eye isnt competent enough to determine it in realtime- that is the viewpoint of the authorities in this subject matter(biomechanists).
Therefore, the original rule is irrelevant as technically, it was broken by every single bowler and only the crudeness in the determination process covered up its inadequacy.

 

[social]

That is only if you accept that the correct method of determining a violation of the chucking rule as it was written is by measuring elbox flex precisely using a high speed camera, which in my opinion it is not. I personally don't care if Murali is a chucker or not, and I respect him greatly as a bowler even though I consider Warne slightly better, but I still object to the current method of dealing with the chucking crisis and the way which Hair was treated after he made what was, under the rules of the time, a completely accurate and justified call.

Anyway, is there any chance of this thread staying remotely on topic so it doesn't get closed?

Can any tell me whether Hair received apologies from the various institutions and individuals that subjected him, in the light of subsequent findings, to such disgraceful treatment?

Somehow, I dont think that he did.

 

[Dasa]

Can any tell me whether Murali received apologies from the various institutions and individuals that subjected him, in the light of subsequent findings, to such disgraceful treatment?

Somehow, I dont think that he did.

 

[Majin]

I think If any sane person was picking a World XI they'd pick them both. B) Now, shut up, and get back on topic, please.

I haven't seen enough of the Australian batsmen to say whether they're overrated or not, so yeah.

 

[honestbharani]

I think Hayden is over rated. Langer and Katich are definitely under rated. The guys who get their real due are Ponting and Gilchrist. Clarke is still in his first few years, we have to give him time before judging him.

 

[wahindiawah]

On present form its very difficult to even rate them, i mean one of their top batter right now happens to be WARNE (third on batting ave in the series).

They simply can't cope with Reverse swing. We have seen theat in past too when Akhtar had troubled them in past and atleaset on two occasions was able to bowl them out for just above 100 score.But then Akhtar was one man who had no support from other hand and who loses his heart too quickly.England on the other hand have three class pacers, all masters of reverse swing, and so far Aussies have had great problems dealing with it.