Murali's legacy

Having read an article by Mike Selvey on Murali, and the inevitable subsequent chucker vs not-chucker arguments that followed prompted me to actually read the report by Prof. Bruce Elliott for the first time. You can read it yourself here:

link

And I must say i'm surprised that such a significant issue for cricket seems to be based on such flimsy evidence. What stood out for me was:

- The study does not compare his off break with his doosra
- Murali's bowling speed is considerably slower than in match situations
- Murali failed the initial tests, his remedial coaching that allowed him to pass at the second attempt mentioned modifying his action so he bowls closer to the wickets with a less open chested action and a straighter run-up. However post 2004 I think Murali's action is still extremely chest-on, wide of the crease with an angled run-up (did he change anything at all apart from on examination day?)
- Bruce Elliott clearly has limited knowledge of cricket, this can be seen in his analysis of arm speeds that doesn't take into account acceleration.
- Bruce Elliott readily admits there was no benchmarking or comparable studies of other spin bowlers to base his findings on.
- Bruce Elliott concludes in his findings that because Murali's arm moves quickly he should have the same limit as a fast bowler. Then in the next limit he suggests the 10 degree limit should be extended only for 'fast bowlers'.

So basically the report is sham science. As a result 7 years later we have an arbitary limit of 15 degrees, that fails to deter cheats. Studies done at a similar time in New Zealand on a group of bowlers considered by all classical methods to throw showed that even those who can blatently use their elbow to gain extra leverage only register around 13 degrees using ICC measures.

And even with these limits we have the like of Johan Botha tested at a staggering 26.7 degrees, two weeks later be judged to have 'passed' following remedial coaching. How long do they seriously think this coaching is going to have an effect for. And so we have the likes of Botha, Ajmal and Harbhajan throwing their doosras with impunity.

George Hirst invented swing bowling
Bernard Bosanquet invented the googly
Dilshan perfected the scoop and Imran Khan reverse swing

Will Murali be remembered as the man who legalised throwing in cricket?

It's a shame because he does seem such a genuinely nice bloke, and I don't think he is deliberately trying to cheat... He seems to have been up for anything with regards to proving his action.

Will Murali be remembered as the man who legalised throwing in cricket?

I think that goes without saying (unless you are a Subbie). The whole incident threw the game into disrepute, particularly after the protests by the 'Lankan Cricket Board. Instead of (literally) accepting the umpires decision, they carried on like a bunch of schoolboys who'd had their lollies taken away. As you point out, the lengths the ICC went to keep Murali in the game were farcical....and everyone knew it. The recent revelations that most of the international umpires at that time knew he was chucking but were reluctant to call him for fear of retribution should surprise no one.

A disgrace - end of.

It's a joke and always has been.








Of course the argument has always been that, yes, he bowls with a crooked arm, but it doesn't straighten in delivery because he's got a deformed arm that can't straighten, therefore he's not chucking it.

A stupid person might think that his non-straightening arm seems to be pretty straightable, from this picture:



And that there might be some straightening going on here:



All I know is this: I can't look at this picture and conclude that there's anything remotely legitimate about his action:



Seems like a nice guy. But his legacy will always be tainted.

Yes, of all the weird and wonderful defences i've found the 'Murali can't physically straighten his arm' the most bizarre. I've seen Murali fielding at mid on pick the ball up and throw down the stumps with some power to run a batsman out, but some of his supporters would have you believe it is physically impossible for him to throw a ball.

Have a look at him bowling leggies here with a lovely clean action - maybe he shouldn't have bothered with the offies?

what a champion. best spinner ever

So there in this thread you have (more or less) the case for the prosecution, to set against Anni's encomium.

Might be interesting to combine the threads, Frommie

Though you would have to find some sort of umbrella title ...... possibly impossible.

Dello wrote:It's a joke and always has been.








Of course the argument has always been that, yes, he bowls with a crooked arm, but it doesn't straighten in delivery because he's got a deformed arm that can't straighten, therefore he's not chucking it.

A stupid person might think that his non-straightening arm seems to be pretty straightable, from this picture:



And that there might be some straightening going on here:



All I know is this: I can't look at this picture and conclude that there's anything remotely legitimate about his action:



Seems like a nice guy. But his legacy will always be tainted.

Okay, call me stupid (I have broad shoulders, and can duck), but even those don't seem to me conclusive proof.

1) What matters with chucking (I thought?) is whether the arm is straight AT THE POINT OF RELEASE? (- which those pics don't appear to show). If the arm is horribly "up and over" on the upbeat, I wouldn't have thought that in itself constitutes an illegal action - just looks hellishly fishy, as well as a bit ugly.

2) Because he can straighten his arm, even return to the keeper from the boundary, doesn't mean he can naturally do so for the full bowling arc. Doesn't look good, though. And as pointed out elsewhere, at least with medical assistance of a splint, he was able to turn his arm over with rigidity.

What stinks the most - to me at least - is the transparently opaque jiggery-pokery of the (en)forced clearance of his action.

Gary 111 wrote:Yes, of all the weird and wonderful defences i've found the 'Murali can't physically straighten his arm' the most bizarre. I've seen Murali fielding at mid on pick the ball up and throw down the stumps with some power to run a batsman out, but some of his supporters would have you believe it is physically impossible for him to throw a ball.

Have a look at him bowling leggies here with a lovely clean action - maybe he shouldn't have bothered with the offies?

Yeah, that's been posted on here two or three times now. Never looks any better for him. It's a very straight arm for someone who can't straighten their arm.

PeterCS wrote:

Dello wrote:It's a joke and always has been.

Of course the argument has always been that, yes, he bowls with a crooked arm, but it doesn't straighten in delivery because he's got a deformed arm that can't straighten, therefore he's not chucking it.

A stupid person might think that his non-straightening arm seems to be pretty straightable, from this picture:



And that there might be some straightening going on here:



All I know is this: I can't look at this picture and conclude that there's anything remotely legitimate about his action:



Seems like a nice guy. But his legacy will always be tainted.

Okay, call me stupid (I have broad shoulders, and can duck), but even those don't seem to me conclusive proof.

1) What matters with chucking (I thought?) is whether the arm is straight AT THE POINT OF RELEASE? (- which those pics don't appear to show). If the arm is horribly "up and over" on the upbeat, I wouldn't have thought that in itself constitutes an illegal action - just looks hellishly fishy, as well as a bit ugly.

2) Because he can straighten his arm, even return to the keeper from the boundary, doesn't mean he can naturally do so for the full bowling arc. Doesn't look good, though. And as pointed out elsewhere, at least with medical assistance of a splint, he was able to turn his arm over with rigidity.

What stinks the most - to me at least - is the transparently opaque jiggery-pokery of the (en)forced clearance of his action.

Pete, that's not correct. The arm doesn't have to be straight at the point of release - it can be bent and still be a legal delivery. What is illegal is the act of straightening the arm in the bowling action.

You could bowl with a bent arm, as long as it is bent at the start and bent at the finish. From the pics you see Murali with a bent arm as he prepares to bowl and a much straighter arm at the point of release.

Okay, I clearly don't know me Laws, despite all the controversy!

PeterCS wrote:Okay, I clearly don't know me Laws, despite all the controversy!

To be fair the laws have changed about 5 times since cricket began so its not easy to keep up!

I think they need to change this 15 degree malarkey. Has the ICC ever even published the findings it came from? I can't find them on the net.

A cynic would say the ICC was waiting for Murali to retire before simplifying the ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throwing_%28cricket%29

It was my understanding that if the arm is straight (or 15 degrees straight) at the point of delivery then it's a legal delivery.

Is this correct or incorrect? If it's as simple as that then he probably doesn't chuck, except possibly his doosra.

vilkrang wrote:It was my understanding that if the arm is straight (or 15 degrees straight) at the point of delivery then it's a legal delivery.

Is this correct or incorrect? If it's as simple as that then he probably doesn't chuck, except possibly his doosra.

No. It's to do with elbow flexion. 15 degrees is the tolerance.

And as Murali's arm is already way over 15 degrees bent as it comes over his shoulder, it's a simple assumption that, were he to straighten it in delivery, as he does, he'd be miles over the tolerance.

Dello wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throwing_%28cricket%29

Hmmmm. I would hope they simplify it (and reduce the allowed angle), "now that they can".

It's a bit like scrums, rucks and mauls in rugby, and intentionality (or otherwise) of challenges and handball in football, .... a big problematic area.

Wrong place to ask this, but as this is FB ,,,,, have the laws in football changed such that TO GAIN ADVANTAGE by (unintentional) use of the hand is an offence?

It used to be purely a question of intentionality or not. Now it seems more often than not (though not consistently) to be penalised if the "handler" has a hand raised (above his chest? ~ waist??), irespective of intention - whether or not this is intended to block, intercept or redirect the ball.

But many fans and pundits too seem to go even further, and believe that if the ball hits a hand at all, and the net effect appears to assist the "handler"'s team rather than the other team, it should be blown up.

What then if the hittee is protecting his genitals from 10 paces?

I think the handball interpretation has widened from "deliberate" to "neglectful". For example, if you block a shot or cross with an arm pressed tight against your side, it's not handball as, short of cutting your arm off, there's not a lot else you could have done to avoid it.

However if you're waggling an arm around all over the place and the ball strikes it, you're liable to get punished as you were kind of asking for trouble, rather than trying to minimise the possibility of it.

Something like that. I haven't looked it up.

Hmmmm. What if there is daylight but you are not waggling?

What if you are waggling it only part of the place?

Hmmmm.

And what if you have some kind of congenital arm defect that prevents it from ever NOT waggling?

These are the grey areas.

Dello wrote:And what if you have some kind of congenital arm defect that prevents from ever NOT waggling?

These are the grey areas.

I was just about to post that but you beat me to it!

I see Murali should have been drafted in alongside the stalwart JT.

And fark off Ash Cole ...

It was sad seeing Murali arguing with Sanga and Mahela during the post match ceremony about field placements etc.

The irony is I have no doubt that MM could have been a GREAT leg spinner who would have been universally admired.