Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dunno about sainthood... how about a mob-inspired martyrdom instead? ;-)


I'm just gonna cut'n'paste my comments from the other UWA thread here when I get the time.

This "situation" is a facking joke. Either change the rules or ban Murali.

Mike, you reckon a visit to Melbourne might be do the trick? Our lawbreakers down here certainly know how to deal with other lawbreakers.

They're doing it by stealth, Big. Little changes here and there so they don't have to confront the issue of suspending Murali.

"He's been incredibly cooperative," Elliott said. "He did everything we wanted - he bowled to the best of his ability, in the right framework and with quality"

From what I saw, he walked in off 3 steps and gently rolled his arm over...

Crap. No way would he have bowled to the best of his ability (why would he? All he needs to do is bowl with a straight arm!) The framework is flawed in that he knows he is under scrutiny and will be especially vigilant in keeping his arm straight, not bowling as he would normally in a game. Quality is also in the eye of the beholder - for someone who throws the ball its easy to go back and bowl straight armed and still put a bit on the ball to simulate bowling to the best of their ability. There are too many flaws in the testing procedure for it to be thorough and unquestionable. My fix is as follows:

Get rid of all these biomechanics experts and have a panel of ex-players, one from every country hopefully assuring impartiality, who sit down and watch tapes of the player in question, and make a decision on the legality of the deliveries. Umpires and match refs can refer a player for his action and can rely on ICC support for their referral (a big ask looking at the current situation but christ they are the leading body of cricket, they must be impartial!)

Say there are nine on the panel, at least five must be on either the yay or nay side for the verdict to be carried. Give the verdict, allow six weeks for the player to rectify his action (in the event of a guilty verdict) and then put them on a 2 year probation that says if you go back to your old chucking ways, then you are out of the game, for good at international and first class level. You have been given a chance to rectify a fault, and chosen not to after being given a second chance, so you are out.

Players can be referred more than once to the panel, even if they have been cleared and if any changes are detected well the above process comes in. Also make the panel legally watertight so no countries' board's can challenge any decisions, giving the panel ultimate jurisdiction over this matter.

It seems easy to do but I know any proposed system will have flaws, but anything would be better than the sham they have operating at the moment.

Too too true, Ads. I don't know how often it can be stressed, but no one, and I mean no one, with any objective sporting sense would suggest that testing OFF the field prevents offenses ON the field. It's bloody ridiculous.

Regarding you're points....

Keep the Bio-dudes. But make them operate in the games WITH the match refs and umps, they would increase the "credibility factor". The technology certainly would allow accurate analysis from the centre pitch.

And let's face it, they probably ARE doing the job right, it's just that they're not being provided with the correct subject material. Namely the bowlers aren't chucking in the "lab".

I think there's a degree of "probation" already. If a bowler gets cited during a certain period after he's visited the bowling doctors, he comes under more strident censure.

Either way, we're in the same ballpark. The "bowlers" must be adjudicated ON the pitch, not IN the lab!

Yep for sure. I was a bit quick to jump on the backs of the bio testers. I'd say they would have the definitive scientific verdict on whether he chucks it or not.

But like any good scientific study, the more analysis you do, surely the clearer and more consise your results will appear? Then why does he only have to bowl 30 odd balls to prove himself? He bowls 40 plus overs in nearly every test innings so why doesn't the testing involve him bowling this amount of deliveries? You could observe deterioration / change in his action, seeing how much it changes and if indeed when he does gets tired he starts chucking it, or its just an illusion and the arm is the same all of the time.

5 overs to me seems a little short of being a comprehensive study that can clear him or show him to be the outright little googly eyed thrower that he is!

But I do agree that watching someone in action continually in a test where you have to get guys out and bowling in a controlled environment where you know what people are looking for cannot ensure that the remaining doubts about his action are rectified, no matter what the bio dudes say.

Yep. Not just the amount of deliveries, Ads, but the fact he's trying to get batsman out in a match, and not merely just tossing it up to a stump in the lab.

Sham Scam.

You'll probably see this soon anyway, but this has to go in the WTF files: Steve Waugh betrays cricket and says Murali's OK! Link is http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/07/1081222524424.html (couldn't get the html into the comment)

There goes my Waugh for PM campaign.

I saw that in the Herald Sun today, Simon. Very disappointed. A typical fence sit from Waugh.

The comments to this entry are closed.