Murali Reinstated (1 Viewer)

[zahid]

even the prime minister thinks he chucks .

Your quote speaks for itself.

 

[Pace Setter]

Yes I agree it isn't 100% reliable, but by analysing the bowling in the champions trophy, simple extrapolation should dictate. In many scientific endeavours, one cannot check all possible objects to fit in. Like testing whether all cats have, say, certain enzyme. THat would be impracticable. Furthrmore, like you have said to me before, we will have to wait until the official report is released to know the legitamacy about the 3-4 degree variation factor.

There's another point that hasnt been raised here, which I forgot to include. 23 bowlers tested at the Champs trophy, 1 found to not chuck at all, 9 found to chuck somewhat, but within the actual rules at the time, and 13 found to go over the limit. Now we both agree that 23 players tested plus a handful of alltime greats is an "extrapolation," which by no means makes it 100% accurate, a bit like TV ratings for example. However, we also both know that 13 out of 23 rule-breakers isnt 99%, only a fraction over 50%. Having said that, the official report hasnt been released, so it is just as foolhardy for me to say this whole "everyone chucks" claim has been completely rubbish and invalid, as it is the same for you and many others to use the "99% of chuckers" claim as if it were some sort of proven statistic, which it is not, and nowhere near right now. You only have to go through the earlier pages of this thread, as well as the title, to see who's black-and-whited the whole thing.

Its not a ridiculous claim if you analyse my quote completely in the context that it was argued.

Well you asked me what I thought of the claim that anyone who bends their arm is a chucker, and that was my response.

You seem to have misunderstood my reasoning. I am saying that, due to murali's flexibility. axial rotation capabilities of his wrist, his arm speed (being equal to and greater than a med. pacer), it is idiotic for him to bowl a doosara at high speeds (say 90 kn.h), which deviates from his match average speeds. {considering into account what you say about an effot bowl being bowledat a much faster speed}. therefore what i am saying is that the faster the delivery he intends to bowl at, the less control murali has, therefore the hihgher degree of arm bendage needed.

Of course they would have had to check the legitamacy of the dosara. That is wy the ICC wanted the investigation. AS you said / implied, can & will have very different meanings. I have too rad reports which state that murali's bowling action, for the doosara is legit. They seem to be reliable as they quote scientific data to support their claims, which we are forced to assume true.

You seem to be agreeing here. Your saying: "The faster he wants to bowl, the more he has to chuck." That's basically it, no? Thus, if he had no restriction on how much straightening of his arm was allowed, he'd be adding a bit more variety to his bagful of tricks, wouldnt he?

It's fair enough that he bowls a doosra, at say 75-80km/h, which is much slower than his stock ball in a test match. The issue here is whether he still bowled a 75 km/h doosra in a lab, or whether he bowled them at say 60km/h. For all this talk about what science does and what it doesnt do, there has been absolutely no evidence to suggest that the speed was measured using any kind of machinery within that lab. The only one that I've heard is that he bowled at speeds slower than what he does in a match (I'm only talking about the doosra here). Are you going to believe those claims? If so, I'd be disagreeing. It's going a bit far when one assumes that the speed was tested when:

1. It wasnt asked of the scientist to test a "match doosra," just to test whether it was indeed possible to bowl a doosra without chucking.

2. There has so far been no evidence in the shape of reports or anything else that suggests that his speed was monitored.

I still dont understand what you're trying to argue here.

How many official body's never ever release official reports on their findings? THeir are millions and millions. There are rules governing sch release of data into public scrutiny,which must be analysed before releasing. Even so, have you ever read an official report (and by official can you clarify what exactly you are saying. Does it have to be endorsed and signed by the relevant organisations involved?)

Official report=one that is released by an organisation/investigation or any other type of committee which isn't affiliated by the media (unless the organisation is part of that media). I've seen plenty of reports, both in cricket and elsewhere.

How many body's never release official reports? All the ones that are corrupt. The ICC's releasing the official report in February. Perhaps, as you say, the ICC should analyse it before calling everyone a chucker then. Since when did any credible organisation release their findings to the public without having a close look at the evidence themselves?

That's not a reasonable answer as to why they've held back the report for so long, unless of course you consider the ICC corrupt.

Again , there will be a shit load of video footage of Murali, and data analysis. They could release any amount of this to help my case from the "pro murli camp", if you like.

And it is agreed upon by Anti-Murali's and Pro-Murali's that; none of which provide any information on how he bowls in a real match. All the video footage simply consolidates the fact that he is capable of bowling within the limits; nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps i should make my self much more clearer when replying to you pace setter, since you seem to read thoroughly what I have written.

As opposed to skipping and assuming through all the information.

anyay, i do not accept the big bang as gospel, and No i have not heard of the multi world theories. What i m saying s that we have to go with he data presented ( for the laymen especially, not for trained scientists, or those with a high intellectual capacity such as Einstein and the likes of newton), with what experts in their related field are saying about the issue concered. Latlely i watched the documentary about string theory, relating intricately the big and the small. have no clue whats going on, in terms of fully understanding the topic, but rather, I do not want to question it, YET, as I lack the sufficient knowledge, data analysis techniques, etc, to support any negative claims against such hyopothesis.

I know where you're going with this, but here's a question:

Are you religious? If not, what would you say to someone if they asked you how the world/universe began? You say that you will not yet accept Big Bang as gospel, but would you still answer Big Bang anyway, as it's I'm guessing the most widely accepted theory among scientists and the non-religious public? Or would say something else, like "I dont care," "I'm not sure yet," "The evidence isnt definitive," etc. I'm assuming here that most would just say the Big Bang, even if they knew next to nothing about it, simply because it's the most popular theory going around.

There's this thing in marketing, whereby a business will spread a rumour around about itself. Doesnt matter whether it's positive or negative, and doesnt matter how many other companies start spreading rumours of a similar nature about themselves. The mere fact that the business spread the rumour first attracts the public like blood to a shark, whilst ignoring all the other copycats that the rumour may actually be true about, unlike the attention-seeking business that started it. It's the same with the Big Bang, same with maybe the new sci-fi- like theories going around if/once they hit the headlines, and also the 99% of bowlers are chuckers thing.

Since you have admitted you do not have enough knowledge to question or dismiss the 99% theory, why go around preaching it like gospel(again, have a read through the first page or 2 of this thread)? Is it because you trust the scientists? That would be inconsistent considering you're prepared not to treat what the Big Bang scientists suggest as gospel. Dont take it personally, I dont target you in particular, just anyone who goes around rebutting others based on a finding very few in the world have much knowledge on-especially considering the secretive nature of that report

..which is similarly a crime to accepting the 3-4 degree variation without understanding error magnitudes of data gathering techniques in place. which is a similar crime to...I cn go on forever man...

Yes, and a lot of people arent dismissing the findings as ridiculous-just inconclusive thus far considering the amount of information available. The assumptions on the error-prone nature of the cameras would never had come about if the assumptions about "everyone chucking based on solid irrefutable scientific evidence" never existed-agree with that one? Nothing personal, but I have come across the "dont blame me when you're doing it too" argument many times and find it quite a poor one. Because it basically admits to your own guilt,(aka shooting yourself in the foot) whilst at the same time only "claiming" that the other party are guilty of the same

In physics we study relativity. We assume it is correct, without going into the details greatly. Similarly i am assuming that the statements by biomechanispreffessors are correct, and the TV interview reports by players and ICC officials witnessing such events is also correct.

Assuming it is correct without getting all the facts? Trusting the words of parties with/without a possible motive as gospel? That sounds like something I've come across before. No not science...let me think............Ahhh I remember now. It starts with R, ends with N, and there are 8 letters in it. Cant remember what it was though.

 

[serv0]

Your quote speaks for itself.

Yes if John Howard said something, then odds are that he was probably wrong, which would then vindicate muralidaran.

 

[serv0]

basically this is how i look at it. Murali has better statistics than warne (i.e. better bowling average, strike rate, economy rate). Even if you discount all the tests against ZIM and BAN (btw to that earlier poster, Kenya dont play test matches) he STILL has better statistics. As for his bowling action, well thats debate-able. All i know is that he has never been proved to cheat (and in a democracy rnt u innocent until proven guilty?)

Also to the other misinformed poster, u cannot judge a bowling action from a static picture (if u knew anything about the rules of cricket you would know why)

 

[Pace Setter]

As for his bowling action, well thats debate-able. All i know is that he has never been proved to cheat (and in a democracy rnt u innocent until proven guilty?)

Also to the other misinformed poster, u cannot judge a bowling action from a static picture (if u knew anything about the rules of cricket you would know why)

They(the ICC) did say that he was guilty by the old rules on chucking. The thing going for him is that they also say that there are many other chuckers around. Read the paper.

 

[serv0]

basically thats what I meant. Ramnaresh Sarwan was the only one who didnt exceed the tolerance levels so u cant classify Murali as a cheat when all the aussies and poms and safricans were also in the same boat.

So Murali has not been proved to cheat.

 

[Pace Setter]

Not quite. Out of 23 players tested in that tournament, Sarwan was the only one found not to chuck at all. There were nine other players who were found to chuck, but below the tolerance levels. So only 13 chuckers out of 23 according to them. And dont forget that they've also said that the technology they used to measure the 23 players MAY have been 3-4 degrees inaccurate.

 

[serv0]

3-4 degrees inaccurate potentially means that they were all chuckers

 

[Pace Setter]

3-4 degrees inaccurate potentially means that they were all chuckers

And potentially also means that none of them are chuckers. Whats your point?

 

[serv0]

btw. McGrath, Harmison, Pollock and Gillespie WERE some of the bowlers who were going over the tolerance limits.

PaceSetter i think u've confused an independent study on bowling actions by a Sports Australia Scientist with that of the ICC. The ICC studied 80 bowlers not 23. And they found 99% were going over the limits (not just straightening their arms).

I think the guy who studied 23 bowlers was called Pothurst or something.

 

[Pace Setter]

This article suggests that it was by the ICC. Note that the headline is always "99% of bowlers chuck," which is correct according to the video findings, but only a fraction of the 99% chuck over the tolerance limit. The 13/23 bowlers thing is in the 6th paragraph if you cant be bothered reading all of it. As far as I'm aware, there's only been one study like this that's been undertaken recently.

ICC study reveals that 99% of bowlers throw
Wisden Cricinfo staff
November 10, 2004

Extensive research conducted by the International Cricket Council is set to reveal that 99% of bowlers in the history of cricket have been throwers. The study was undertaken in the wake of the furore surrounding Muttiah Muralitharan, whose doosra was banned earlier this year after Chris Broad, the match referee for the Tests against Australia, reported it to the ICC.

But an article by Derek Pringle in the Daily Telegraph suggests that Murali is no different from the vast majority of his fellow players. The current law states that there should be no straightening or partial straightening of the bowling arm during delivery, and research conducted with precise instrumentation has revealed that even bowlers like Glenn McGrath and Shaun Pollock, considered examplars of the classical action, occasionally go over the prescribed tolerance limit, bending their arms by as much as 12 degrees.

The tolerance levels had been set at five degrees for spinners, seven-and-a-half for medium-pacers, and ten for quick bowlers, a scenario that invited much criticism from past greats such as Ian Chappell. But the study conducted by three prominent biomechanics experts suggests that the human eye can only detect a kink in the action if the straightening is more than 15 degrees.

As Angus Fraser - one of six former Test cricketers on the committee that reviewed illegal bowling actions in Dubai recently - wrote in The Independent, even the likes of Fred Trueman, Dennis Lillee, Curtly Ambrose, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, and Ian Botham were found to have exceeded the straightening-limit set by the ICC.

The biomechanics men - Dr Marc Portus, Professor Bruce Elliott and Dr Paul Hurrion - used cameras shooting at 250 frames per second – ten times the speed of a TV camera – to illustrate phenomena such as adduction and hyper-extension, which can convince an observer watching without the aid of technology that the bowler is chucking.

Research was also undertaken during the ICC Champions Trophy in England, where it was found that 13 of the 23 bowlers filmed straightened their arms more than the current permissible levels. Ramnaresh Sarwan, he of the fairly innocuous legspin, was the only man observed who didn't straighten his arm at all.

Based on these findings, the ICC is to extend the tolerance limit to 15 degrees for all bowlers, regardless of whether they bowl at Shane Warne's pace or Shoaib Akhtar's. Match officials will still be expected to note down suspicious actions, and pass on the information to the ICC. But unlike before, remedial action will now be the sole preserve of a new body to be set up to help bowlers with the rehabilitation process.

It will include former Test bowlers and biomechanics experts, and they will have the authority to fail a bowler. Those exceeding the tolerance limit will be on probation for two years, rather than the current one, but subsequent offences will result in a 12-month ban. It remains to be seen, however, if such a system will be introduced at first-class level.

© Wisden Cricinfo Ltd

 

[blackfriday]

its easy: if they obviously dont chuck (forget about straightening arms at whatever angle) they are sweet, like the majority of bowlers going around for the past 100-plus years of test cricket. if they are obviously dirty cheats who take wickets with illegitimate actions, either ban them or stop people who bowl like them and make them change their action.

 

[Skip]

lol skip, that cricket web forum site, thats pretty much the BoS layout isnt it? lol

Yeah, but I think the Cricket Web forum has been like that longer than BOS, they both use Vbulletin anyway.

 

[Skip]

Great site BTW, what does everybody think?

 

[serv0]

its easy: if they obviously dont chuck (forget about straightening arms at whatever angle) they are sweet, like the majority of bowlers going around for the past 100-plus years of test cricket. if they are obviously dirty cheats who take wickets with illegitimate actions, either ban them or stop people who bowl like them and make them change their action.

I'm sorry but your are using arguments based on personal prejudices to judge bowling actions. Muralitharan (and co.) have a very strong scientific (and legal) backing.

 

[blackfriday]

blah blah blah hey genius you actually think he would bowl properly when all these mad scientists are studying abnormal parts of his anatomy? murali isnt stupid.

 

[budj]

What tjhe fuck man? Dont youget it you twat? You see murali as having a fucked up action because of an optical illusion. He "will" not chuck his doosara, according to the new rules. Get it.

 

[blackfriday]

well if murali does happen to bowl a doosra and the umpire rightly calls him, the captain will have a girly bitch and have a cry to the media.

 

[budj]

Which evidently wont happen will it? As Ser0 says, there is a huge scientific basis supporting Murali.

And which umpires. Oh yeah, try those red neck aus umpires named hair and some other dikhead.

there are so many people like you that call Murali a chucker without any evidence to back your claims. Why do you call Murali a chucker. I think once you said its bloody obvious. How?, enlighten me.

You are obviously one of those idiots that know shit all about the game and just join the bandwagon without knowing its direction.

Blackfriday, wake up and smell the roses mate.

 

[blackfriday]

'scientific evidence' you just love that term. a bunch of scientists hooked him up to a computer and watched him bowl with a straight arm in non-match conditions and all of a sudden murali is at the right hand of God. jaysus.