Friday, July 09, 2010

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood

Can't argue with logic. Murali, in my mind, is not the greatest spinner cricket has ever seen. Even though I criticise Kumble, I hold him in much higher esteem than Murali. Thats because Kumble bowled within the rules and never needed race, national boards and other issues to bend the rules in order for him to bowl. Murali certainly is a much inferior to Warne in terms of every spin-bowling aspect that is there to analyse. Per every official response from Murali, Ranatunga, the SL cricket board and ICC given at that time - it was stated repeatedly that Murali had a birth deficiency that caused his arm to apprear straight (but it was bent inside .. or some retroactively made-up crap like that). Thereby he was in violation of the rule. So they modified the rule by bringing in concepts such as "degrees of straightening/bend" and what not. Now because of adjustments made to the rule to accommodate Murali, straightening the arm by 15 degrees is considered acceptable by umpires.

This directly means that, based on the rules of the time, Hair and Emerson were correct in calling him a chucker. It is the need to oppose Australians regardless of the merits of logic and reason that caused most Indians to blindly side with Murali's case. Ranatunga helped it along by making it a race issue to get all Asian boards rallying behind him. While most Pakistan and Indian cricketers secretly acknowledge Murali's chuckdharan skills they don't commit to it in press. In a fair world, Murali would have been no-balled till he stopped bending his arm. Next, we will have a brown-skinned fast bowler who will insist on delivering the ball at half-pitch. Umpires can't no-ball him because he will have medical certificates to prove that he has myopia and some skin infection that makes lasic, spectacles and contact lens un-deployable. So the rule will be bent to allow semi-blind bowlers to deliver from half-pitch. A little less ridiculous than Murali's case but still can happen.

34 comments:

Narada Muni said...

naarayana! naarayana!

kalakam mootamal irukka mudiyadha kazhuguraja umakku

Hawkeye said...

adhukku dhaan blogu

sundar said...

rotfl @ the agarkar tag..yep. very true. can't argue with logic. on the same lines, do you think bhajji is also a chucker? bedi reckons so and he keeps mentioning at every opportunity he gets.

Hawkeye said...

bhajji does not come across as obvious today although he did so in late 90s early 2000s in those sharjah matches.

i was surprised at rajesh chauhan being called chucker and completely sent out of the indian team because of that. his hand didnt straighten to a throw-pose at all.

SathyaRam said...

I still remember Ranatunga coming out of the match in Australia against England. It looked comical , him with his finer pointing at the umpire etc. The honest truth is Murali chucks and if not for the bending of the rules, he would not have been to bend his arm and take 794 wickets

Extra-Ordinarily Ordinary said...

Dude,

Once bedi made a good analogy - you cannot give a blind man a license because he knows to drive - it is extreme - but it applies to folks like murali, akthar

Alan Smithee said...

Murali is Tamizhan.

Anonymous said...

The rule change was brought in to accommodate a few bowlers of repute to pass the technical limits of bowling. McGrath supposedly straightened his arm by 14deg. The official statement from ICC concluded that if Murali is to be reprimanded, a lot of bowlers around the world (and from the past) will have to be punished as well.

The advantage a spinner gains by chucking is nothing compared to a pace bowler, unless it is an arm ball (which murali does not bowl).
The doosra bowled by almost all bowlers are sceptical (Harbajan, Saqlain, Hafeez, etc) it is not murali alone there.

To get heaps of wickets and to survive compelling test of time shows his technical skill and character, which makes everyone believe it would have made little difference had he was born without a defect.

I said...

Murali is Thamizhan, Kumble is Kannadathan whose secret was Lord Venkataraghavan utting the chakkaram, giving the best batsman of the visiting team out lbw, to a ball that pitched in Kk nagar.

Even Ian Chappell retracted his original stance and opined Murali is just pass at 40%.

Anonymous said...

These are the facts. Murali was called by Hair in 1995 and he underwent the tests and was cleared. The 1998 Calling of Emerson was pure BS. More over he was in the square leg.

Then he again underwent those tests and was cleared again. This 15 degree rule came in just now to eliminate Bowlers like Akthar, Tait etc.. Or even our own Bhajji, PK etc..

So let's not keep on gloating over that. Yes Warnie was better than Murali and we all know that. However Murali could turn the ball on glass.. :-) and has 792 Test wickets.. So he must have done something right correct? Let's not get caught up in the hype show of Bedi and Emerson and appreciate the man for a second.

to quote "So let's salute the man with the big eyes, the big smile and the big offbreak. He was a collector's item because they only made one of his kind. "

Take it easy..

Sreekrishnan said...

I was to say the same thing...

Murali oru Thamizhan !

PS: Doctor certificate vaangi bulk leave potadhukku reason kaatra maathirina irukku !

Hawkeye said...

anon,

what is wrong in a leg umps giving chuck based no-ball .. i dont understand.

Anonymous said...

Typically Leg umpires don't call it. When Hair called Murali, Arjuna made him switch over to the other End where the umpire was Steve Dunn. He did not call Murali and neither did Hair from the square leg.

Emerson had no business to call and he called and rest as they say is history.

Hawkeye said...

what do you mean by "typically they dont call it"? no-balling for chucking is as atypical or rare as it gets. so not sure if this can be spoken in terms of "typically what do they do" the same way we don't say "typically when aliens attack the earth with unicorn shaped bombs what do we do"

so are you saying - As per law they can't call it (or) they are not in a position to call it?

Anonymous said...

They are not in a position to call it. I would be glad to be proven wrong, If you can show me the link that they can indeed call chuckers.

Anonymous said...

murali is a maha chucker.. anyone who has played 10 yards cricket (Theru cricket) knows the fact that if you bend your arm and turn, the ball is going to turn prodigiously... Chandrasekar had a deformity too, but he didnt go on to take 242 wickets by bowling illegally.. The fact that the rules had to be modified to accommodate Murali to continue bowling tarnishes his career or people's claim as the world's best spinner..

With regards to leg umpires calling no-ball for chucking, they are in a much better position to see the bowler's action than the regular umpire who has million other things to do..

here's the link to show that either umpire can call it..
http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball,50,AR.html

blackaccord said...

The last post was by me..the web page would accept my post only as anon for some reason..

Anonymous said...

Black accord,

Thanks.. That cleared up my idea about square leg umpires. Anyway Murali is a champion..let's leave it at that..lol

SriThere said...

anon,

ur comments are perplexing. your lack of logic sound like the 'G' who comments here. it would have been better if you had said the law does not allow it and put disclaimer that you are glad to be proven wrong. But saying they are not in a position to call it... i mean you dont need law books to be proven wrong. you just need common sense of 'who' can see 'what' better.

if you're such a dumb ass that you think leg umpire cannot see a chuck better than the main umpire then you need not be proven wrong with a law book quote.

S.Ganesh Kumar said...

// maybe thats why agarkar was selected his no talent was a birth handicap//
Lol,this tag was awesome!

// Next, we will have a brown-skinned fast bowler who will insist on delivering the ball at half-pitch. Umpires can't no-ball him because he will have medical certificates to prove that he has myopia and some skin infection that makes lasic, spectacles and contact lens un-deployable. //
ROFL
@Hawkeye,I was waiting for a long time to read a good cricket related post from your blog.And wow,you've again come up with a controversial,interesting yet thought provoking post!
By the way,I've read several of your previous posts on cricket;impressive though they were,I wasn't well equipped with intelligence then,to respond properly to those posts.I hope you'll find time to respond to my comments if I post it later this month.:P

Venkat said...

The bio mechanics report conducted concludes by saying :

""Finally it is our considered opinion that Mr. Muralitharan be permitted to continue bowling his "doosra" at least until a valid data base is collected on the various spin bowling disciplines. The relatively minor level of elbow extension following remediation over the period from arm horizontal torelease is not believed to give Mr. Muralitharan an unfair advantage over batsmen or other bowlers.""

http://www.hilalscricket.com/2008/01/muttiah-muralitharan-icc-bowling-report.html

It also analyses the reason for considering a larger angle of bend for Murali as :

"The anthropometry assessment clearly shows that Mr. Muralitharan has a natural 35 degrees of elbow flexion during standing, which during the delivery action (under load) reduces to a value of approximately 24 degrees. Therefore any biomechanical assessment of his bowling action must take this 24-degree angle into account. In practical terms this means that his elbow joint, depending on the load, will always display at least some flexion. His elbow abduction angle is also such that it displays a relatively large "carry angle". "

We all know where this was done, so which part of this verdict are we refusing to consider ?

This post does not rise beyond spite..all disclaimers withstanding..

The Talkative Man said...

When I first saw a clip of Murali bowling on DD news(this was the March 1993 test vs England), I just burst out laughing.

Those 792 wickets need to be declared run outs.

Chauhan occasionally looked dodgy. But nothing compared to the stock deliveries of Murali/Mohnish Parmar.

siva said...

One of the anons above is correct. The law wasn't changed to accommodate murali. As for Hair, i think he was right to no ball. Murali's action seems so obviously wrong that one can't fault the on field umpires for reporting it. But still murali has been tested extensively and has been cleared. As u urself say this is only a kalakam mootum post and not to be taken seriously even though i know how much u hate murali.

Hawkeye said...

venkat,

I think you should first understand the post before putting quotes that actually spport my post (while you claimi it contradicts it). the below quote you provided essentially (in fancy words) admits that he chucks but chucks so because of a congenital handicap. who cares why it straightens. As long as it straightens it is against the rule. this is no different from the semi-blind man analogy that i provided. there is a valid reason for the semi-blind man to deliver from mid-pitch.

The testing was done to say why it straightens. there was no doubt as to whether it straightens or not. murali did not steal my Rs 25. what is the need for spite here?

"The anthropometry assessment clearly shows that Mr. Muralitharan has a natural 35 degrees of elbow flexion during standing, which during the delivery action (under load) reduces to a value of approximately 24 degrees. Therefore any biomechanical assessment of his bowling action must take this 24-degree angle into account. In practical terms this means that his elbow joint, depending on the load, will always display at least some flexion. His elbow abduction angle is also such that it displays a relatively large "carry angle".

Anonymous said...

So why was Merrily told not to bowl the doosra?

MewP 8085 said...

"Murali, in my mind, is not the greatest spinner cricket has ever seen. Even though I criticise Kumble, I hold him in much higher esteem than Murali."

1. How many first person singulars/sentence crosses the threshold limit where a computer can detect BS needing no human judgment?

1.5

Venkat said...

Hawkeye,

I have no doubts in my mind that he chucks (as per the older allowable degree), so I wasn't reacting to your post on that front.
I was reacting to your line that said :
"Murali certainly is a much inferior to Warne in terms of every -spin-bowling aspect that is there to analyse.-"
what is this analysis and what are those aspects ?
Since there was no rationale to explain this, the insinuation seemed to be that Murali chucks,that gives him an unfair advantage so Warne is a better spinner.
The biomechanics report clearly says that is not the case - it does not given unfair advantage over bowlers or batsmen - , hence your view above is reduced to a personal opinion without any strong technical grounds.
And come on, spite isn't reserved only for those who take our money is it :)? But I do agree that it was unreasonable to say 'spite prompted this'
I guess the question is : If a handicapped person can be allowed to do something (derived through technical analyis) without unfair advantage by making the rules more accomodating -then why not?
Stuff like the myopia example you use (unerstood : exaggeration in a lighter vein) wouldn't stand the test of technical analysis anyways...

I said...

What is so irreconcilable about a chucking bowler/unfairly advantaged person holding a world record?

Life is unfair. A lot of people should not be where they are for no fault/greatness of theirs.

Tendulkar kooda dhan had lot of advantage playing the likes of Chaminda Vaas on bowler-unfriendly wickets, more frequently. While an English batsman is/was disadvantaged by having to play Australia/West Indies more frequently in not-so-easy conditions. Adhukku enna solra?

Both Murali (155/7) and Tendulkar were/are not match-winners but only record-holders. To break the tie, we bring in language. Marathi v Tamil. And everyone knows Tamil wins. The last great/useful Marathi was Godse.

Hawkeye said...

venkat,

advantage and disadvantage is a subjective issue. In the semi-blind man analogy if running up half--picth allows him no advantage - is it still okay for him to bowl that way.

I,

in the same token, what is so irreconcilable of criticising people who have an unfair advantage (or for that matter even those who don't)

I said...

This is what Ian Chappell says and I tend to agree.

rtsp://v8.cache6.c.youtube.com/CjYLENy73wIaLQl29_S1i69xwBMYESARFEIJbXYtZ29vZ2xlSARSBWluZGV4YI_w6ZnX3vb7Sww=/0/0/0/video.3gp;connectionuid=WAP2%20trans

When you define a rule, someone is always going to be on the border and pass it on a technicality.
This is not so unfathomable or outrageously contemptible.Regardless of the legitimacy or accuracy of the system, the system approved it. Perhaps because it chose overall consistency in applying the rule over by-the-book interpretation. (The ICC panel is not a court of law nor is sports is matter of life-and-death.) Your argument is should it have approved in the first place which is an opinion. No more, no less.

I said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHGvi7X093Y

That's the right link.

Venkat said...

Hawkeye,

I'm probably holding on longer than necessary.

My point is that the subjectivity has been eliminated by an objective technical analysis

In the semi blind example, if an objective technical analysis was performed, then the semi blind dude would either have been determined to have an advantage invariably.., but this is an extreme example and a little odd to argue on..

like i said i would have liked to see more points on the spin bowling aspects that you speak off as opposed to vitriol in the garb of humour - to determine if Murali was indeed an inferior spinner...that's all!

The Talkative Man said...

I,
Merrily hails from Kandy and not from the Jaffna/Vanni heartland. Ergo a tamil traitor who didnt back thalaivar.

Plus he chucks.

S.Ganesh Kumar said...

@Sriram,
You're comparing the case of a headmaster setting a supposedly easy paper(So that students get more marks.) to that of a teacher allowing one student to copy from others and score highest marks in the exam.

The easy paper I'm referring to is regarding your claim that Sachin had an undue advantage of scoring high on lifeless wickets; first Sachin isn't the only player who took advantage of this(Several subcontinental players with huge 50+ avge. have horrible record against Australia and Southa Africa.Sachin at-least has great record against Aussies.);nor were the pitches manipulated/doctored exclusively to help him score more runs.
Pitches have often been dug/manipulated/doctored to support home team/make result oriented match/high-scoring game since the last few decades.

The point is Sachin might've scored a few thousands runs lesser if he faced the stronger bowlers more often and didn't play much against lower-rung teams;on the other hand-Murali cannot have even a single wicket to his credit if the rules weren't bent to make his 'chucking' look genuine.