Murali doesn't need to be picked in an ATG XI (although yes not picking him would be incorrect) but it would be good if the same country that was primarily responsible for a vicious attempt at discrediting all his achievements (along with some racism thrown in there as icing) with flimsy evidence didn't continue to do it.No, not arguably. You have to put him in, because your spectators treated him badly. That's the new way of things, apparently.
Next up, Mitchell Johnson in the England AT XI, because they sung a nasty song about his mum and girlfriend.
Murali came here with massive question marks over his action already. Hair absolutely did the right thing in calling him if he thought his action didn't pass muster. Emerson made a dick of himself a couple of years later, but Hair acted completely appropriately given the rules and playing conditions around at the time. You didn't get a polite, private email asking you to report for testing back then so that your feelings weren't hurt even though you were basically relieving for the Yankees. An umpire had to call you if they thought you were chucking.the same country that was primarily responsible for a vicious attempt at discrediting all his achievements with flimsy evidence
I think me being in the team fulfills the quota.You can't function in Saturday cricket without a healthy number of ****s in your side. they're mandatory.
I think it probably fills an eight team competition quota tbh.I think me being in the team fulfills the quota.
How boring would cricket be without *****. That's the only reason I playI don't want any ****s in my Saturday side so I wouldn't pick Warne.
Almost think the system was better back then (note: almost). Now it's a joke. You can chuck all you want, get reported, take a break and "fix" your action then come back and keep chucking until you get reported again. Repeat.Murali came here with massive question marks over his action already. Hair absolutely did the right thing in calling him if he thought his action didn't pass muster. Emerson made a dick of himself a couple of years later, but Hair acted completely appropriately given the rules and playing conditions around at the time. You didn't get a polite, private email asking you to report for testing back then so that your feelings weren't hurt even though you were basically relieving for the Yankees. An umpire had to call you if they thought you were chucking.
I don't think its right tbh. Regardless of he chucked or not, there had to be a better way of handling it instead of crucifying him in front of 100, 000 people in one of the most recognized days in sporting calendarMurali came here with massive question marks over his action already. Hair absolutely did the right thing in calling him if he thought his action didn't pass muster. Emerson made a dick of himself a couple of years later, but Hair acted completely appropriately given the rules and playing conditions around at the time. You didn't get a polite, private email asking you to report for testing back then so that your feelings weren't hurt even though you were basically relieving for the Yankees. An umpire had to call you if they thought you were chucking.
I think this was after Chris Broad called his doors out for throwing. IIRC he didn't bowl the doosra until the rule was changedI think there needs to be some system where there's independent testing, but agree there's no doubt Murali and a lot of others rorted it as much as possible. I recall after one of many rounds of testing that he was not supposed to bowl the doosra, but of course he kept doing it, and because there was no mechanism for an umpire to call him without his team forfeiting a tour (which let's be honest would have been an improvement for all home fans around the world) there were no consequences for his blatant flouting of the terms of his being allowed to play.
No, back then there wasn't. It was the initial calling of him which led to the current protocols. Up til then it was getting called or not getting called on the field. The conclusive proof was simply the umpire's decision. See also Ian Meckiff. As an umpire you can't just not do your job because it might hurt a bloke's feelings. What if a miracle happened and he actually bowled effectively and took wickets when the umpire is standing there thinking he's chucking?I don't think its right tbh. Regardless of he chucked or not, there had to be a better way of handling it instead of crucifying him in front of 100, 000 people in one of the most recognized days in sporting calendar
Nah, it was however the start of the great - and so far unending - SC cricketing victim-complex eraWas it the same time the protractor sale skyrocketed in Australia? If so, be grateful.
Yeah I checked and there is a long list of bowlers who got called for throwing during games (Ian Redpath, Bruce Yardley etc) with Murali being the last of them. I think it was fine in the early days when there were no other better solution but sufficient technology was definitely there at the time of Murali's throwing or even before that and they should have used them given it's far more accurate than what the ump seeNo, back then there wasn't. It was the initial calling of him which led to the current protocols. Up til then it was getting called or not getting called on the field. The conclusive proof was simply the umpire's decision. See also Ian Meckiff.
Oh yeah, it's certainly preferable not to be embarrassed in front of people and to have it dealt with in a controlled environment, which is why I think Emerson made a dick of himself when he called him a couple of years later after he'd been cleared. But when Hair did it, if he thought his action was bad, and let's be honest it looked diabolical, he either had to call him or consciously refuse to enforce a law of the game. Which would make his position as an umpire untenable.Yeah I checked and there is a long list of bowlers who got called for throwing during games (Ian Redpath, Bruce Yardley etc) with Murali being the last of them. I think it was fine in the early days when there were no other better solution but sufficient technology was definitely there at the time of Murali's throwing or even before that and they should have used them given it's far more accurate than what the ump see
As for the crowd thing, I just think it's not good for the image of the game for such situations to occur
One of several tbf. Murali seems to be a genuinely good bloke. Have never really heard anyone say a bad word about him as a bloke at all.Warne is a great cricketer and a **** human, which is one reason to pick Murali over him.
I’d take Warne over Murali as a person. **** Murali.One of several tbf. Murali seems to be a genuinely good bloke. Have never really heard anyone say a bad word about him as a bloke at all.
wtf is this nowI’d take Warne over Murali as a person. **** Murali.