Muttiah Muralitharan

[Gwylan]

Or, put another way, in lab conditions his action was illegal, so they changed the rules.

Yes, because it was discovered that as the laws stood, just about every bowler had an illegal action.

And then out on the pitch it became politically unacceptable to no ball him.

What the hell is that meant to mean? You think Sri Lanka runs world cricket? SL has one representative on the ICC board so it scarcely has undue influence.

And there have been plenty of bowlers forced out test cricket because of their action: I can think of Geoff Griffin, Ian Meckiff and Dusty Rhodes in my lifetime. Not to mention our very own James Kirtley - so the idea that test match umpires would be wary about no-balling someone for throwing is very wide of the mark.

 

[keaton]

Didn't they change the rules because they discovered that 99% of bowlers technically chucked?

 

[Uncle Buck]

..except that his action has been analysed, scrutinised and examined more than any other bowler in history and all cricket authorities are happy with it.

Not really, they just changed the rules from 5% bend in the wrist to 15% to accomodate him.

 

[mikeyjh]

Yes, because it was discovered that as the laws stood, just about every bowler had an illegal action.



What the hell is that meant to mean? You think Sri Lanka runs world cricket? SL has one representative on the ICC board so it scarcely has undue influence.

And there have been plenty of bowlers forced out test cricket because of their action: I can think of Geoff Griffin, Ian Meckiff and Dusty Rhodes in my lifetime. Not to mention our very own James Kirtley - so the idea that test match umpires would be wary about no-balling someone for throwing is very wide of the mark.

Like is said at the start - I, along with many others believe he chucks it. You, along with many others, don't. Nobody's going to change their mind, fair enough.

 

[sten_super]

A verbatim copy of the 2004 investigation into his doosra can be found Bowling Report: Testing Muralitharans Doosra | Sri Lanka Cricket if anyone is interested.

Basically, it was found that, at the time, the doosra was illegal. However, at the subsequent champions trophy, it was found that under the criteria of the time the vast majority of bowlers had an 'illegal' action, so the rules were changed.

The bigger issue, for me, with Murali is his natural deformity which gives him a massive advantage. Is it fair that he is allowed to bowl with a crooked arm, just because he cannot straighten that arm?

 

[Storer68]

all bowlers are allowed to bowl with a crooked arm as long as it STAYS crooked throughout the delivery acttion.

What you are NOT allowed to do is STRAIGTEN the elbow DURING the delivery action. That of course, would be throwing the ball

 

[El Presidente]

Or, put another way, in lab conditions his action was illegal, so they changed the rules. And then out on the pitch it became politically unacceptable to no ball him.

Small minded curtain twitching envious TWAT.

Well done Murali

 

[Scoffers]

A legend, will that ever be beaten?

 

[Paddy B]

Like is said at the start - I, along with many others believe he chucks it. You, along with many others, don't. Nobody's going to change their mind, fair enough.

The problem with that statement is that it is not true. He does not "chuck" it as his arm does not straighten.

I accept there were differing opinions as to the legality of his action and the circumstances of the rule change but to say he "chucks it" is inflammatory and wrong.

So well done Murali, deservedly the greatest off spinner the world has ever seen.

 

[Uncle Buck]

As the 12th Man said, Murali is unable to play today, as he has been up all night chucking.

 

[mikeyjh]

Small minded curtain twitching envious TWAT.

Well done Murali

Aren't you the sophisticate, how on earth does my opinion that his action isn't/wasn't legal make me small minded? Bizarre.

 

[sten_super]

Aren't you the sophisticate, how on earth does my opinion that his action isn't/wasn't legal make me small minded? Bizarre.

There's an obvious difference between saying his action is illegal and saying he's a chucker, as Paddy B points out.

 

[mikeyjh]

There's an obvious difference between saying his action is illegal and saying he's a chucker, as Paddy B points out.

Okay, I'm not sure the difference is obvious, but I take your point that 'chucker' might be a tad inflammatory. In fairness, if you look back I did say that I hope he does it. He's a fantastic human being who appears to be very humble and does alot of unseen, unheard of work for the less privilaged. I just don't believe his action is 'proper'.