So while most of the cricket world is rejoicing at Australia's early exit, I need to share some thoughts with you. Here it goes:
# Australia cannot play spin saala. (Feel free to sing along the tune of Pappu can't dance saala.)
# Shane Watson is such a cupcake. (No that wasn't a compliment.)
# I miss Roy.
# Mendis is a chucker. So is Murali. So is the new guy. No I am not saying that.
# Mitchell Johnson can bat saala. (Feel free to sing along the tune of Pappu can't dance saala.)
# I miss Roy.
# Good job Sanga!!
# Australia cannot play spin saala. (Feel free to sing along the tune of Pappu can't dance saala.)
# Dilshan smmmoookkees it!
# I like the Hussey brothers.
# I Miss Roy.
The effects of a ton by Tendulkar.
2 hours ago
44 Maidens bowled!!:
Leela
It's pains me to write this, but Australia ( AUSTRALIA , BLOODY HELL AUSTRALIA, AUSTRALIA)had a shocking performance.
At work and missed the batting. Saw the score 159 - quietly confident ( it's the Australian's). Get Jayasuriya early and on the way. Got home - woo hoo saw Jayasuriya get out.
Sat down with a beer to see the Australians get through.. What followed beggared belief - this was NOT Australia.
Ponting's tactics were bizzare. Watson ( TWO, BLOODY HELL TWO OVERS???). Oh how I wished for Tugga to be the captain. He WOULD have made things happen.
Binga - boof headed dilweed. After getting Chamara out, where the eff was your brains.. Mubarak - who is he ???????? two sixes and a four.
I slumped in my chair - dammit. The T20 WC is OVER for me.
England through, Australia out. Being in UK and for an Aussie supporter - it can't be worse. I care two hoots as to who wins it now - yeah anyone but England and South Africa.
:(((((((((((((((((((((
p.s : Mendis doesn't chuck - he's a freak. To flick a ball, 22 yards and on a six pence is freaky.
As to Murali - well words fail me that he has been allowed to bowl at all.
TG,
C'mon now tell us how you really feel.
:-)
Arrey India is still in there TG. You must support India.
(Just kidding. You must support who you wanna support)
Can't believe this is the same Australia that looked invincible in 2007. Oh how the mighty fall.
Did I say, I miss Roy?
Oh yeah, agree about that Watson point you made.
Leela
I'm still shaking my head , sat in my chair, replaying the SL innings. Was that really Australia ???? or bloody imposters ? A truly bitter bitter bitter pill to swallow.
Well at least it now saves me some money ( if Aus was through to the final , was planning to get on ebay and shell about 300 quid for a ticket) ! Damn small consolation that is :(
Nah - I can't care for the tournament now. Good luck to see India go all the way ! Would they ???? I guess their match against S Af should answer it.
Roy - well I have my own thoughts on the guy and the set up that kicked him out - esp the role of Michael Bingle....
Oh, Murali is always a sore point with me. I really do believe he has done enough to prove that he does NOT chuck. He bowled (both off-spinners AND doosras) with his arm in a brace, live on TV, repeatedly. That's got to count for something.
A common misconception is that the ICC bent the rules (er, excuse the pun) just for Murali, but that's not true. When they measured the degrees of arm straightening on bowlers the world over, they found that almost EVERYONE on the planet went over the then limit of 5 and 10 degrees (for spinners and medium pacers respectively). Yes, even 'pure' actions like Glenn McGrath's and Shaun Pollock's were found to be 'defective'.
And there is a perfectly logical explanation to why Murali 'looks' like he chucks - he has a naturally bent arm, and when a joint that has a bend in it is rotated, it appears like there is a 'chink'. It's an optical illusion.
So, no. Murali does not chuck. As for Mendis and the new guy, I can't say for sure. I will reserve my judgement until they've been tested.
We both seem to be online at the same time - it's 9:55 AM here, what's the time in your part of the world?
Sharath
Sharath
A quick repartee to you justifying Murali's action before I head to bed and drown in my sorrow.
The point is that ( and I would need to read up again on the whole degree's bit) with Murali pretty much everything he THREW ( Sorry for me he simply doesn't bowl) was over the limit. His doosra was some absurd 20 deg or so... Maybe that's not quite the right number but I remember that delivery was way off.
So then the ICC goes back and revises all bowlers action fair enough. Guys like Mcgrath and Pollock were seen to be over limit - how much 1 or 2 degrees. Sure it's illegal - but compared to what Murali does , it doesn't quite hold water.
I'm not saying he's the only one with a dodgy action - all teams have them ( and THAT is something I lay squarely on the ICC handling of Murali)
Murali's action always reminds me of the one comment Holding made during an Ind - WI match in the early 90's. Rajesh Chauhan was ' bowling' - it went ' MAAN I've been watching him all day and he hasn't BOWLED one ball' .
For me Murali is LIKE that only. He doesn't BOWL - he THROWS/CHUCKS call it what you want.. and to think he is a world record holder..
I don't think I could have summed that up better Leela, agree with almost all those thoughts... nice little taunt with the chucking thought there :)
Australia, like a lot of teams at this wc have just got their batting order completely wrong. SA haven't and they've actually beaten a minnow. Must be something there*!
*For Amy... oh yeah, AB!
Hi TG,
Michael Holding has back-tracked on Murali ever since he has bowled with a brace. You don't see him criticising Murali every chance he gets any more. Same with Michael Slater. He was present when Murali bowled with the brace, and he was to say later: "Muttiah Muralitharan, on that day, convinced me that he doesn't chuck."
I used to be Murali's harshest critic once upon a time, before I knew anything about degrees of flexion and what not. "I can see he chucks," I used to say. "It's so OBVIOUS."
He's been repeatedly tested, and he's been repeatedly cleared. For me, that's evidence enough that he does not chuck, no matter what my eyes tell me.
Sharath
Sharath
Small difference, but huge impact. Bowling under experimental conditions, is NOT the same as bowling in match.
Worse if it's a pressure situation - it is but a human tendency to strive that much more.
I reiterate, it is BECAUSE of Murali that the following bowlers even exist !!!!!!!
1. Harbhajan
2. B Lee - watch carefully when he bowls a bouncer.
3. Shoaib Akthar
4. Johan Botha
5. James Kirtley
6. Ruchira Perera
Find something there ? all the big nations - Ind/Aus/SL/S Af/England have had at some point bowlers with dodgy actions.
Murali was the initial virus that has resulted in this plague. and for this the world of cricket is poorer.
Well, if we're going to play the 'match condition' card, how many bowlers have EVER been tested in match conditions?
Why should only the bowlers you listed be tested? Just because they LOOK like they chuck? If you're going to test under match conditions, test EVERYONE in match conditions. Don't leave the 'pure' actions out because they LOOK pure. Appearances can be deceiving, as we found out with the actions of McGrath and Pollock.
So you see, if you say Murali is a chucker because he's never been tested in match-conditions, I can say McGrath is a chucker too because HE has never been tested in match-conditions either. You see what I mean, surely?
Currently, the standard to determine chucking is testing under experimental conditions. Murali has passed that, over and over again. If you're going to test him under match conditions, test EVERYONE under match conditions. Let's see how many of them stack up :-)
Sharath
And TG, no, let's not WATCH CAREFULLY! The whole point here is the naked eye is not good enough to tell if a bowler is chucking or not. Murali's case has taught us that. It's a lesson we'd all do well to heed.
Achettup
Mate apologies for shamelessly using your article to clear things up with Sharath.
Leela - my apologies for using your blog to clear this up with Sharath.
Lastly, Sharath, here you go
http://shortofalength.wordpress.com/page/3/
Scroll down - you'll see the points I've been too lazy to articulate to you.
Achettup - thanks once again mate !
TG,
Agree about a certain Michael Bingle. Such an irritating character.
Ache,
Cheers. I am glad you caught that taunt.
:-)
TG/Sharath,
I was being sarcastic when I listed those bowlers as chuckers.
My friend once tried to explain to me this whole Murali chucking thing and TG, I'll have to agree with Sharath; if the tests prove conclusive, what can be done?
And let the umpire call it a no ball if Murali is indeed caught in the act.
Anyway, this seems a complicated topic and I've also noticed that when Chris Broad is the match refree, Bhajji does not bowl his doosra otherwise he does!
Clearly match refrees and umpires are also disagreeing on this issue.
P.S. No probs TG, you can "use" my blog for a discussion.
:-)
Leela
Wrt to Murali - I was not being sarcastic one bit. For me the bloke doesn't BOWL since he made his debut.
I'll admit I didn't catch your tongue in cheek remark on the bowlers - that's because my mind had frozen when I read your points - reasons are obvious. Not that it's all thawed out now :)
And yeah I think I'll definitely head to bed now and wake up hoping it's all a bad dream and Monday is yet to occur !
Cheers !
Hi TG,
Summary from the posts:
1. EVERYONE CHUCKS.
2. Straightening under 15 degrees is not visible to the naked eye. BUT, you can see hyper-extension and abduction with the naked eye.
3. The rules were changed to accommodate bowlers the world over, not just Murali or Harbhajan or anyone else.
There is not just straightening involved here - there is straightening, hyper-extension, and abduction. The last two are involuntary movements, and there is a lot of individual variation. People with deformed joints (like Shoaib Akhtar and Murali) have higher degrees of hyper extension and abduction, and that's why they APPEAR to be chucking. As I said, optical illusion :-)
You can, of course blindly stick to your guns and say, "Look, I can see a kink, so there has to be one," but the truth is something else. The ONLY way to find out if a bowler is chucking or not is to test him - not by WATCHING CAREFULLY - but by actually testing him with sensors attached to his arm. There is no other way, sadly.
Murali has been tested, repeatedly, and he has repeatedly passed. As I said before, my eyes tell me he is chucking, but I can live with the fact that my eyes are deceiving me.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one :-)
Leela,
Great spot about Harbhajan and Chris Broad! :-)
Knowing how cheeky Bhajji is, I wouldn't doubt it one bit.
Come to think of it, I can bowl the doosra too. I wonder how much my arm straightens :-/
TG,
Cheers!
Sharath,
I could take credit for it... but I overheard it on comm, during one of the series in 2008; stayed stuck in my head.
Intrestingly, during the SA-Aus series in Aus, read a piece on Botha in SMH and he said he had learnt his doosra by observing Bhajji!
See the irony there?
:-)
The thing is I find this issue quite confusing. And now I hear ppl wear long sleeves just so that they can hide the "action".
For me its a visual thing (not scientific!).
For instance, love the smooth action of RP, and always get the feeling that Tait chucks. Note it has nothing to do with his slingy action becos I don't feel the same way with Malinga's bowling!
I can bowl the doosra too. I wonder how much my arm straightens
:-)
A lot of people have an opinion on chucking but most of them don't know the ICC's justification of the 15 degree rule. I'm glad TG has posted a link to a blog with information on it, saved me the time and effort :)
I understand what you're saying, Leela. Why, even now, when I look at Murali bowl, I first cringe - involuntarily. And then I HAVE to remind myself that it's an illusion (point of contention for many people).
And of course, the whole concept itself is a tough one to understand or even fathom - for instance, how many of us care about straightening, hyper-extension and abduction? I think ICC have botched up the whole thing spectacularly. Either make it simple - i.e. make it just a naked eye thing - or go the whole hog and tape sensors on to bowlers' arms in matches. Batsmen play with pads and guards in uncomfortable places. Bowlers will get used to it.
Anyway, I agree with you. RP Singh's action is a treat to the eye :-)
And Botha couldn't have chosen a more suitable tutor.
Harbhajan: No, no, bend your arm a little bit more!
Botha: But Master, the ICC's regulations...
Harbhajan: Arey ullu, do you want the ball to turn or not?
Botha: Yes...
Harbhajan: Then BEND THAT ARM! Why do you think full-sleeves shirts are for?
(Thoughtful Pause)
Harbhajan: But no matter what you do, never bowl this when Chris Broad is watching, or against Australians.
Obviously Botha wasn't listening to that last bit.
Sharath, the 15 degree rule has been instituted because it was decided a flex of more than 15 degrees is visible to the naked eye. Which means if you can see a bowler "chuck" he has to be flexing his elbow more than 15 degrees.
Anyway, here's my last post on chucking. If they allow Murali to bowl they have no business questioning any other bowler.
Mehek, final post from me too! :-)
"Which means if you can see a bowler "chuck" he has to be flexing his elbow more than 15 degrees"
That's simplifying the matter a little bit. That is true only of STRAIGHTENING of the arm. It doesn't take into account HYPER-EXTENSION and ABDUCTION.
So yes, if a bowler is operating zero hyper-extension and zero abduction, that sentence holds true. But almost none of the bowlers do. People like McGrath and Pollock operate at near zero levels for both measures, hence we SEE their actions as pure.
But Harbhajan, Murali and Akhtar operate at higher levels of hyper-extension and abduction, so we see the 'kinks', even though their STRAIGHTENING levels are UNDER 15 degrees. You see what I mean?
Now, hyper-extension and abduction are involuntary movements, and it was decided that penalizing bowlers for involuntary movements is not right. So they've decided not to take into account hyper-extension and abduction when judging bowlers on chucking.
So that sentence, "If you see it with the naked eye, then it's over 15" is simplifying the matter a little too much.
By the way, I am not making any of this up. It's all in those two articles TG referred us to. I read both long ago, word for word. You should too :-)
Sharath
Oh, final final post - honest!
"Sharath, the 15 degree rule has been instituted because it was decided a flex of more than 15 degrees is visible to the naked eye"
Not true. The 15 degree rule has been instituted because it was found that the human eye CANNOT distinguish flexes LESS than 15 degrees.
It doesn't mean all flexes visible to the naked eye are more than 15 degrees.
Once again - just to summarize,
1. There are three aspects to it. Straightening, hyper-extension and abduction.
2. The rules ONLY take into account straightening. The ILLUSION of kinks are caused by hyper-extension and abduction.
3. Hyper-extension and abduction are caused by involuntary muscle movements (some have more pronounced movements than others), so punishing bowlers for them would be not only harsh, but stupid.
Hope that helps :-)
Sharath
Okay, is it just me or does this make no sense whatsoever?
Not true. The 15 degree rule has been instituted because it was found that the human eye CANNOT distinguish flexes LESS than 15 degrees.
It doesn't mean all flexes visible to the naked eye are more than 15 degrees.
Which one of these is right - Because if you say the human eye cannot distinguish a flex of less than 15 degrees, how does it not mean that all flexes visible to the naked eye are 15 degrees?
And I've read those articles too. The 15 degree rule does take into account hyper-extension, abduction, adduction, fornication, pretty much every -ation that bowlers use to get away with chucking. I also hope you read the bit about Murali having a shoulder injury right after those tests.
All of that is irrelevant to me because Murali has the most flawed action of all and if he is allowed to bowl everyone should.
Statement 1: All flexes greater than 15 degrees are visible to the human eye
Statement 2: All flexes visible to the human eye are greater than 15 degrees.
Statement 1 DOES NOT imply Statement 2. Statement 1 is true, statement 2 is not. Simple logic, isn't it? :-/
Because flexes VISIBLE to the naked eye can be due to a multitude of factors - not just straightening.
Basically, it's the hyper-extension that causes the illusion of kinks in Shoaib's and Murali's actions. Their STRAIGHTENING levels are as 'right' as any other bowler's. So if you SEE a kink, it is not necessarily true that the bowler is straightening more than 15 degrees (statement 2 - NOT true).
"All of that is irrelevant to me because Murali has the most flawed action of all and if he is allowed to bowl everyone should"
Flawed action? Who decides? His straightening levels are under 15 degrees. Just because it LOOKS flawed doesn't mean it IS flawed.
At the risk of appearing utterly jobless (what? you noticed?), I am going to paste a section of Angus Fraser's report in the independent on the issue.
"After watching one bowler's action, and noticing that something was not quite right, we asked Dr Portus to explain what was going on? He said: "This bowler straightens his arm by 11 degrees, hyper-extends by seven degrees and adducts by eight." Scratching our heads, we all burst out laughing.
It is this sort of movement which makes the action of Pakistan's Shoaib Akhtar appear far more suspect than it actually is. After a lengthy chat we decided it would be wrong to ban a bowler if his elbow hyper-extended, abducted or adducted. These are in voluntary movements, caused by the force of the arm as it comes over, and suspending a player for something like this - even though it gives him an advantage - would be hard to defend if the player took legal action."
That reinforces what I was saying, Mehek. The ICC rules ONLY take into account straightening - NOT hyper-extension, adduction and abduction.
Gee, I hope this will be the last of this argument...to think one sarcastic comment was all it took, Leela :-)
He also said something else,
We delayed the biggest decision until last but after a great deal of deliberation it was decided that an acceptable level of elbow extension for a bowler should be set at 15 degrees. Many will feel that by allowing this the ICC are legalising throwing. They are not. All the information and opinion collected, along with the fact that it is almost impossible to see the arm straighten with the naked eye until it reaches this angle, points to 15 degrees.
Policing it will be difficult, and this is why the ICC will occasionally send appointed bowling experts to matches to identify bowlers with suspected illegal actions. But there is little anyone can do about a bowler who throws in the odd delivery, which might have 20-25 degrees of extension. If he is reported, the chances are he will then be able to go back to his stock action and pass the laboratory test. Thankfully, these bowlers are rare and most honestly go about their business with an arm that is not and never will be straight.
Two things to note here:
1.The bold part which outlines why the limit of 15 degrees has been set. No bowler is exempt from it no matter what deformity he cites as an excuse.
2.The mention of bowlers getting away with an additional flex at times. If Hansie Cronje could fix matches anyone is capable of bending the elbow, err, i mean rules.
Of course, I never contested this statement:
"Flexes below the fifteen degree mark are not visible"
But I am hotly contesting this statement:
"All flexes visible to the naked eye are above fifteen degrees"
So you agree that Murali's and Shoaib's 'kinks' are really adductions and abductions, and NOT a result of straightening?
As for in-match policing, ALL bowlers should be policed - bowlers who abduct, and bowlers who don't.
Murali has been tested again and again, and his STRAIGHTENING levels have always come out less than 15 degrees. As for whether he is chucking in a match, I don't know if he is. How do you know he is chucking? Wait, I know the answer - you can SEE he is chucking. But in this case, seeing is not believing, which has been my point right from the start :-)
Anyway, in short, the rules ask for a straightening of 15 degrees or less. And every single time Murali has been tested, his straightening angle has conformed to the rules.
For me, that's evidence enough.
If you advocate live, in-match policing, I am all for it. Let's do it for ALL bowlers and see how they fare.
Sigh, for anyone who is still interested in this topic, here's a short summary.
When we see a bowler chuck, it is because of three possible reasons:
1. Straightening - the act of arm straightening as part of the rotation.
2. Hyper-extension - The act of the joint moving backwards by more than 180 degrees. This ability is present in varying degrees in different bowlers.
3. Adduction/Abduction - The act of the joint moving sideways (adduction is left, abduction is right, or vice versa)
So when you see a bowler chuck, it can be ANY ONE or a COMBINATION of the above three processes.
Now, hyper-extension and abduction are involuntary processes, so even though they give the bowlers an advantage, the ICC decided punishing someone for something involuntary - and in effect, irredeemable - is not only harsh, but legally untenable. So it was decided that the DEFINITION of chucking would only place restrictions only on STRAIGHTENING - i.e. the straightening angle should be less than 15 degrees.
Also, hyper-extension and abduction, unfortunately, LOOK bad. Bowlers who can hyper-extend and adduct their elbows significantly LOOK like they're chucking - i.e. it looks to our naked eyes as though there is a kink in their actions.
Let's see this through with a few examples.
1. Bowler A
Straightening: 12 degrees
Hyper extension: 4 degrees
Adduction/Abduction: 2 degrees
Verdict according to ICC: Legal.
Public's verdict: Legal.
2. Bowler B
Straightening: 20 degrees
Hyper-Extension: 16 degrees
Adduction/Abduction: 18 degrees
ICC Verdict: Illegal
Public's verdict: Illegal
3. Bowler C
Straightening: 12 degrees
Hyper-Extension: 18 degrees
Adduction/Abduction: 19 degrees
ICC Verdict: Legal (because straightening is fine)
Public's verdict: Illegal (because the large adduction and hyper-extension angles create an illusion of a kink)
Murali, Brett Lee, Harbhajan etc belong to category C.
Johan Botha's doosra falls in category B
--------------
Now that's the theory. There is another point of view that bowlers always bowl within the rules when they're tested. What is stopping them from bowling illegally in a match?
The answer is: nothing. But that is true of ALL bowlers. It's true of Murali, it's true of Pollock, McGrath, Warne - everyone. So there is no point castigating Murali for that.
----------------
There is another group who just look at all the evidence and say, "Irrespective of all this, that dude has a flawed action."
That's their prerogative. Their position is irrefutable, hence unscientific.
-----------------
Phew.
Sorry, Leela, for going crazy on your blog. But look on the bright side. You can make a post on chucking alone by collating all the comments on this post :-)
Sharath
Sharath, chill, man.Aussie supporter feels murali chucks. You think you all the science and logic in the world is going to change his mind? Not in this life, nor in next!
If they think something, that must be right. Darwin, Einstein etc be damned.
It's not just Aussie supporters, Anon. It's everyone. What's lamentable is no one (even the ones that say they know everything about it) seemed to have taken the time to examine the evidence neutrally and come to a conclusion.
It's funny how Mehek said, 'If Murali is allowed to bowl, anyone should', because that's exactly how I used to feel in 2000-2001. But when the study came out and when I read all about it, I was converted.
But we still constantly run into people who just see the bend, and nothing else beyond the bend.
Oh, well :-)
Whoa! Mea Culpa.
I opened a can of worms didn't I?
NP Sharath. I will read thru your comments and Mahek's comments to understand this.
:-)
And Anon, I have to agree, (not specifically in this case but in general) most ppl seem to have made up their minds on issues and usually are not willing to change.
I am usually not this argumentative. Honest! :-)
Sharath,
LOL.
:-)
I would love to punch Watson in the face!
Sharath, good to know Botha isnt the only deformed spinner out there. I've noticed Botha is wearing long sleeves these days.
You certainly miss Symonds don't you......at least the aussies missed him.
The aussies cannot spin and also can't bowl spin....
And I too like the Hussey brothers but i feel that Mike was wasted yesterday over haddin.
The good thing is that yet again the Aussies are humbled.....
Cheers;
@ Tifosi Guy,
i feel your hurt evn though i despise the Aussies (no offence)....
And leela...Mendis has a clean action....i mean you can't suspect that.....
Interesting views. Hey Leela gd 2 see u back and blogging !
Boncam,
Yeah its easy to think of violence and Watson in the same breath!
CPD,
Of course Mendis has a clean action! I was being sarcastic.
M786,
Thanks!
Post a Comment