Who Is Martin Crowe ?

[JASON]

I see

Does Martin still play for both sides ?

 

[Slow Love™]

1. You don't know that he throws the doosra. You think he does, but as has been proven you can't trust your eyes to pick up a 'throw' accurately. He has been tested numerous times and his action (including the doosra) has been found to be acceptable. What makes you think you know better than experts trained in the field? Do you have superhuman eyes that can detect a dodgy action better than biomechanical experts?
2. You're having a go at others for suggesting 'conspiracy theories' but you're suggesting others with comments like "The world is getting *****-whipped into not questioning certain cricketers and teams due to a guaranteed frenzied political and popular backlash."
I suppose it's fine when it supports your view though.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but in the interests of fair debate, according to the science, you CAN pick up a throw with the naked eye, providing it's over the 15 degree flexion mark. That's why bowlers like Shabbir and Shoaib Malik were able to be reported, and in their initial lab-testing, they were well over the accepted levels - so the umpires/refs suspicions were justified.

And though I don't have a problem with the new rules (I simply can't see a better solution given what we've found about what the majority of bowlers tested are doing), it's true that bowlers shouldn't/can't be cleared for life - and Murali as much as anybody else would have to be observed when bowling the doosra, 'cause his initial doosra results in lab testing were breaking the new rules. If a change is spotted in the action that's been approved, it would have to be reported.

It kinda makes me wonder if, in the absence of proper in-match testing, whether the lab-testing should be treated a different way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that initial testing works on cutting down the level of flexion to acceptable levels if they're over. Then the bowler is cleared to play - and if they violate again, they get a year ban (like Shabbir, Botha, I think). Perhaps the emphasis for reduction of flexion should be passed on to the boards, and if they're tested as a result of an ICC official during an official match, and their initial results exceed the legal limits by 5 degrees or more, they are banned immediately for a year. Just a thought to add incentive to maintain decent standards - the ICC would likely need to provide the technology for the boards though. This might be a dumb idea though, I haven't really mulled over the details.

I agree with you that the conspiracy theories exist quite visibly on both sides of the debate though, and either side delights in calling the other the conspiracist, while often holding their own nutty set of beliefs about why everybody does what they do. The reality is IMO, that it's a very difficult issue to resolve in a fair and just way. I simply can't see a return to the ignorant set of premises we had earlier though.

 

[Fiery]

Does Martin still play for both sides ?

Oh yes, of course, there was Brett Steven, Ron Brierley, etc, etc

btw, his Mrs is an ex-Miss Universe

 

[JASON]

Oh yes, of course, there was Brett Steven, Ron Brierley, etc, etc

btw, his Mrs is an ex-Miss Universe

She could be playing for both sides too.

 

[Fiery]

She could be playing for both sides too.

Aha

 

[Dasa]

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but in the interests of fair debate, according to the science, you CAN pick up a throw with the naked eye, providing it's over the 15 degree flexion mark. That's why bowlers like Shabbir and Shoaib Malik were able to be reported, and in their initial lab-testing, they were well over the accepted levels - so the umpires/refs suspicions were justified.

And though I don't have a problem with the new rules (I simply can't see a better solution given what we've found about what the majority of bowlers tested are doing), it's true that bowlers shouldn't/can't be cleared for life - and Murali as much as anybody else would have to be observed when bowling the doosra, 'cause his initial doosra results in lab testing were breaking the new rules. If a change is spotted in the action that's been approved, it would have to be reported.

It kinda makes me wonder if, in the absence of proper in-match testing, whether the lab-testing should be treated a different way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that initial testing works on cutting down the level of flexion to acceptable levels if they're over. Then the bowler is cleared to play - and if they violate again, they get a year ban (like Shabbir, Botha, I think). Perhaps the emphasis for reduction of flexion should be passed on to the boards, and if they're tested as a result of an ICC official during an official match, and their initial results exceed the legal limits by 5 degrees or more, they are banned immediately for a year. Just a thought to add incentive to maintain decent standards - the ICC would likely need to provide the technology for the boards though. This might be a dumb idea though, I haven't really mulled over the details.

I agree with you that the conspiracy theories exist quite visibly on both sides of the debate though, and either side delights in calling the other the conspiracist, while often holding their own nutty set of beliefs about why everybody does what they do. The reality is IMO, that it's a very difficult issue to resolve in a fair and just way. I simply can't see a return to the ignorant set of premises we had earlier though.

Yep, all fair points. I erred in saying it wasn't possible to trust the naked eye at all.
Good point you make at the end of your post in particular. A lot of people have been critical of the new laws, but given what we know now, what do people suggest should be done?

 

[Lostman]

Yep, it seems nobody cares about this issue at all...obviously.
(I'm surprised you didn't call me a wanker again actually Lostman. Appreciate that and the apology afterwards which must have got Lostman)

i didnt apologize nor do i intend to. It was actually pretty funny watching you throw a sissy fit.

 

[Fiery]

i didnt apologize nor do i intend to. It was actually pretty funny watching you throw a sissy fit.

To be honest, I had had a skinful at the time and it would have been water off a duck's back any other time. In any case, do you go around calling people "wankers" when you speak to them in person or are you only brave enough to do it over the internet?

 

[Slow Love™]

Yep, all fair points. I erred in saying it wasn't possible to trust the naked eye at all.
Good point you make at the end of your post in particular. A lot of people have been critical of the new laws, but given what we know now, what do people suggest should be done?

Probably the purely aesthetic solution, which is whatever the umpire thinks, we'll go with. So if the action "looks bad", you're probably screwed, even if you should happen to have a lower (or comparable) level of straightening to another bowler who attracts no attention.

I don't like this because we have made accuracy (and with it science) an aspect of how we (and the ICC itself) evaluates umpires decisions in general, and so I see treating throwing differently as a curious aberration. Some people are more consistent with it though, and do pretty much subscribe to the idea that whatever call an umpire makes in a game, it's correct because they made it. In those cases, I guess it's just a difference of views.

But if you value accuracy in a real observable sense, I don't see really how you can go back to the old ways, particularly given that so many established bowlers were breaking the rule in place. I won't debate the whole thing at length, I've done it too many times already, but my basic position is that, like many things we learn, things change when you get exposed to new knowledge, and it forces us to examine and adjust our presumptions.

Ideally, real-time measuring during matches is going to be the only truly satisfactory resolution, I guess.

 

[Anil]

Probably the purely aesthetic solution, which is whatever the umpire thinks, we'll go with. So if the action "looks bad", you're probably screwed, even if you should happen to have a lower (or comparable) level of straightening to another bowler who attracts no attention.

I don't like this because we have made accuracy (and with it science) an aspect of how we (and the ICC itself) evaluates umpires decisions in general, and so I see treating throwing differently as a curious aberration. Some people are more consistent with it though, and do pretty much subscribe to the idea that whatever call an umpire makes in a game, it's correct because they made it. In those cases, I guess it's just a difference of views.

But if you value accuracy in a real observable sense, I don't see really how you can go back to the old ways, particularly given that so many established bowlers were breaking the rule in place. I won't debate the whole thing at length, I've done it too many times already, but my basic position is that, like many things we learn, things change when you get exposed to new knowledge, and it forces us to examine and adjust our presumptions.

Ideally, real-time measuring during matches is going to be the only truly satisfactory resolution, I guess.

but it was crowe who called his action suspect, not the umpires, right? if his doosra action was that suspect, why would the umpires not be calling it?

 

[Fiery]

I think it should come back to common sense really. If a bowler's action looks dodgy to a large number of people and they question it, the player should be handed a suspension for as long as it takes for them to rectify it in the nets. Some players may not be able to do this. It's unfortunate for them if they have a physical abnormality, but tough luck, how many dwarves do you see in the NBA? It's not a race thing, or a personal attack on Murali himself, who seems like a hell of a nice bloke off and on the field. There are plenty of other bowlers who I find myself cringing when I watch. SL's Perera, the most recent. Kyle Mills (notice he is a fellow kiwi), Brett Lee, Akhtar mainly are the ones who spring to mind.

 

[Slow Love™]

but it was crowe who called his action suspect, not the umpires, right? if his doosra action was that suspect, why would the umpires not be calling it?

Did you mean to quote me? I know the thread is in reaction to Crowe's remarks, but my comments were general.

 

[JASON]

I think it should come back to common sense really. If a bowler's action looks dodgy to a large number of people and they question it, the player should be handed a suspension for as long as it takes for them to rectify it in the nets. Some players may not be able to do this. It's unfortunate for them if they have a physical abnormality, but tough luck, how many dwarves do you see in the NBA? It's not a race thing, or a personal attack on Murali himself, who seems like a hell of a nice bloke off and on the field. There are plenty of other bowlers who I find myself cringing when I watch. SL's Perera, the most recent. Kyle Mills (notice he is a fellow kiwi), Brett Lee, Akhtar mainly are the ones who spring to mind.

This is like saying because Shane Warne tested positive once, we should subject the guy to blood and Urine Tests after every test and every day of every Test.

Every time he p****es we want it tested !!

BTW I have seen dwarves play basketball - strangely they only play among themselves !!

 

[JBH001]

Given that Murali is definitely a genius when it comes to "delivering" a cricket ball, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he's found a way to conceal a legal doosra.

I read an article a while ago where Murali had said that he had been putting in lots of hours in the nets working on the doosra. I gather his feeling was that it was becoming easier to pick, and so was working on disguising it further.

Sometimes, while watching him play NZ this summer it seems to me that he may have 2 versions of the doosra, one that is easier to pick and one that is harder to pick. Rather like Andy Roberts with his 2 bouncers.

I also think that given the long spells he sometimes does, it is likely that his action deteriorates and he may transgress the boundaries. Overall though, I believe that his genetic gifts (that wrist) coupled with a polio arm mean that the doosra is usually legal. And even if he chucks it when really exhausted, I really dont know if I am all that fussed about it, tbh.

However, I believe other bowlers may well be contravening the rules in attempting it.
It may be a delivery that only Murali is capable of bowling - at least most of the time.

 

[social]

but it was crowe who called his action suspect, not the umpires, right? if his doosra action was that suspect, why would the umpires not be calling it?

Career preservation perhaps?

 

[Anil]

Did you mean to quote me? I know the thread is in reaction to Crowe's remarks, but my comments were general.

i understand, but you suggested that it is possible to spot a dodgy action with the naked eye and if murali's doosra bends/breaks the laws, i am just wondering why the umpires are not calling it, crowe's comments sound more like fanning some dying embers to me without the legality of on-field umpires actually reporting something....just thought i'd get your ideas on the specific issue...

 

[Slow Love™]

i understand, but you suggested that it is possible to spot a dodgy action with the naked eye and if murali's doosra bends/breaks the laws, i am just wondering why the umpires are not calling it, crowe's comments sound more like fanning some dying embers to me without the legality of on-field umpires actually reporting something....just thought i'd get your ideas on the specific issue...

He (Crowe) probably is - he's been unhappy about Murali's action forever though, so I don't think he's talking about anything specific that he's just seen lately. At least it didn't seem that way when I listened to the speech (which actually focussed more on other issues aside from this one). I think he did have some recommendations as to ongoing testing that I didn't think were ridiculous, but I might have to listen to it again.

As to reporting it (I assume you don't mean the umpires calling it, 'cause I don't think they do that at all anymore), it's up to the refs and umps so forth to do so - I assume that the opinion so far is that it's not egregious at this point. Broad for example has not been reluctant to report him in the past, but I don't know who's been refereeing in SL's games recently. There were no serious repercussions for Malik and Shabbir being reported, so I don't think it's really a matter of political correctness, as many hypothesise. I'm not into guessing as to what all the officials of the game are thinking, though, it's part of what makes this subject so tiresome.

 

[Krishna_j]

Yes, but the point he is making that they were accused of ball tampering simply because the ball was reversing and because the English (having invented the game and all) had never figured out how, it had to be cheating.

Then in 2005, by the time they had it figured, it became an art form.

Which is why I said that the doosra will be legalised by people who still think the cricket HQ is still run out of Lords - as soon as Monty figures a way to bowl it

 

[Anil]

He (Crowe) probably is - he's been unhappy about Murali's action forever though, so I don't think he's talking about anything specific that he's just seen lately. At least it didn't seem that way when I listened to the speech (which actually focussed more on other issues aside from this one). I think he did have some recommendations as to ongoing testing that I didn't think were ridiculous, but I might have to listen to it again.

As to reporting it (I assume you don't mean the umpires calling it, 'cause I don't think they do that at all anymore), it's up to the refs and umps so forth to do so - I assume that the opinion so far is that it's not egregious at this point. Broad for example has not been reluctant to report him in the past, but I don't know who's been refereeing in SL's games recently. There were no serious repercussions for Malik and Shabbir being reported, so I don't think it's really a matter of political correctness, as many hypothesise. I'm not into guessing as to what all the officials of the game are thinking, though, it's part of what makes this subject so tiresome.

as long as they don't report him, i would assume that as well....and the idea that the umps and the refs are scared to report him is pretty stupid, although there is no convincing a lot of people that it is....it seems that any tom, dick and harry has become an "expert" on his action and is chanting from the rooftops that he chucks and there are followers to take up the chant, the saddest part is that performance-wise, he is up there with some of the greatest bowlers in history, but his legacy will forever be tainted with this accusation....

 

[Francis]

It really bugs me how whenever an Asain cricketer is called into question, be is Akram for ball tampering or Murali for a questionable action, people say it's racially motivated. I understand racism is a horrible problem in the world, but calling somebody a racist can be just as offensive and should only be done under the highest standard of proof. How come nobody called "racism" when Johan Botha was called for chucking when his doosera came into question? And if I recall, he got suspended while Murali didn't. And if I recall again, the ICC changed the rules when Murali was bowling to allow no more than 15 degree bend or something to that effect. Jaques Kallis said it best when he said something like, "why should the rules change for Murali and not for Botha."

The bottom line is while Murali has been tested, it's not beyond the realms of comprehension that he should bowl a few balls beyond the allowed degree. And I think that's what Martin Crowe is talking about. I personally don't have an opinion here because I have a different idea on what constitutes a legal delivery.

But what I'm trying to say is the word "racism" is used far to much in cricket. There are people, with no proof, who spread this idea that Murali has been called so many times so white Australians can ensure Warne kept the all-time wicket record. And they make these claims WITH NO PROOF!

Warne gets suspended for a year while Shoaib gets off...

Botha is out of the game for a while while Murali bowls...

Are these unfair circumstances? I don't know... but my point is I could easily call bias towards Asains... only I wouldn't dare since there's no proof.

I just wish people would think before they call someone else a "racist."