What kind of gullible fools do the chuckanistas take us for? "I passed the test, therefore I don't chuck," whines Murali. Sure! And two plus two equals a bedlington terrier.
How long will the cricket authorities ignore the bleeding obvious? Murali passing tests at UWA, does not mean he bowls legally in matches.
Yet here we are presented with another deceitful fait accompli. "His action cleared, Murali pleads for a fair go." Codswallop!
The dishonesty continues - "There has also been constant criticism that his last round of tests, at the University of Western Australia in April 2004, hadn't replicated match conditions." What? And this lot do? I certainly didn't see this UWA match on Channel Nine - did you? Nope, more duplicitous double talk.
(Given his action has been passed, it can only be a matter of time before Nine give us a super slo-mo clinic focussing on Murali's exemplary technique. Whaddaya mean dream on? How about this then? Maybe Murali's threat to boycott Straya is based less on his being No Balled! by the crowd and more on the slim risk Nine might out him with the super slo-mo. Or grassy knolling it: maybe Nine, concerned about their compromised coverage, have been in his ear and asked him not to tour. Well, it's a thought.)
It's not as if the numbers are even particularly convincing. Only one test result is less than ten degrees, all the rest fall between 10 and 15. If there was a one or two degree flex (Or none, as was initially claimed before the rule change - "He's got a bent arm" or "It's an illusion". What a crock that's turned out to be.) I'd be inclined to cede the benefit of the doubt. But these numbers, while ... ahem ... legal, prove only that he can bowl within the limits in a lab. Something he could do in his sleep by now. But only just! It would take the barest change in action for Murali to exceed 15 degrees. Doubtless he will do it at some stage under match pressure, it's a stone certainty. But just how, precisely, is anyone supposed to judge his legality if he bowls at 17 degrees? Or 18? Even if he bowled EVERY ball in a match at those angles would anyone cite him? You know the answer to that. Of course they won't. It's a fiasco.
And just what is this speed business? "The issue over his action reappeared last week after claims the speed he now bowls could influence the 15-degree elbow extension allowed under International Cricket Council rules." Bollocks to the speed! It's not the extra speed that will determine how far his arm flexes - it is the amount of turn he chases.
It cannot be long before the game's record keepers consider inserting an asterisk beside Murali's name. They have to, there's no other way for it. But surely they must go further - cricket has been fundamentally changed. Bowling statistics recorded before the 15 degree rule are a different beast entirely from bowling statistics recorded since. It's only logical that Zero Degree Offies be judged separately from 15 Degree Offies. The statistics of, say, John Emburey, cannot be accurately (or fairly) assessed against those of Murali.
What on earth is going on with all those figures? Why does it say "ave speed"? Is it an average of a set of deliveries, and if so, doesn't that make a 14.4 "average" extremely suspect. And if it isn't an average, why is the sample so small?
Posted by: Russ | 05 February 2006 at 17:05
I'm prepared to accept the average speed, Russ. Afterall, I don't reckon the speed's the issue. But they don't qualify the angle, which is a worry. Is it average angle? Or maximum angle? These things need to be revealed. (Although, I'll assume it's maximum.)
The small sample is a worry. And it hardly "replicates match conditions" does it? Pretty short match.
But it's not a match, and that's the problem no matter how they present the figures.
Posted by: Tony.T | 05 February 2006 at 17:19
Perhaps I've missed a press release about the prognosis of his medical condition, but I've yet to hear Murali's explanation for the straightness of his arm down by his side when he isn't "bowling". And the crowd yelling "No Ball" only lasts his first couple of overs, and is humorous and good-natured. Johan Botha gets it too, but doesn't whine about it anywhere near to the extent that Murali does. Perhaps it is his conscience amplifying the ribbing? If so, the fact that he has a conscience is much to his credit, as it is something that his apologists & the ICC lack. If Murali believes that Australian audiences don't deserve to see his "bowling", then I am heartily inclined to agree. Have you ever actually tried to bowl a doosra yourself - i.e. a finger spinner with the hand inverted? Try it. It's extremely difficult to do it at full speed without chucking.
Posted by: Clem Snide | 05 February 2006 at 22:52
As things stand with the ICC, Murali could stand at the crease and hurl them down like a baseball pitcher and we'd still be getting assurances that his arm bend is < 15 degrees. And, yes, it is intriguing that Nein haven't run the super slow-mo over his action ... probably under instructions not to embarass the game.
Posted by: Living in Canberra | 05 February 2006 at 23:39
Tony, I'm not concerned about the speed. I am concerned about the use of the word "average". It implies that each figure represents a larger sample. If the elbow angle is also an average (I think you are being very generous saying it is a maximum) then an "average" of 14.4 means about half the balls bowled were over 15 degrees -- ergo, even by the generous definition of a throw under the ICC he is still throwing every second ball.
On reflection though, I suspect it is a sample of one, mislabeled by an incompetent journo. In which case it still proves nothing. 14.4 is cutting it pretty close to 15 degrees, is Murali still willing to say he never ever throws the ball?
Hell, applying some simple statistics to the sample given, Murali could be expected to throw (defined as 15 degrees reluctantly) 4.7 percent of all deliveries.
Posted by: Russ | 06 February 2006 at 08:51
Russ, don't they mean the average velocity of the ball from hand to wicket? Ie; it comes out quick, then slows down off the pitch, etc. With an average taken over the 22 yards.
Regarding the number of samples taken. There's also a significant statistical assumption that one might make. Namely that when you take samples of figures for analysis, you get rid of the very low numbers and the very high numbers. I'm not saying that's gone on here, but you never know. What if Murali had bowled one at 4 degrees and another at 20 but they were discarded as anolmalies?
Are you saying journos are incompetant? That's a bit harsh, isn't it?
Clem, I for one, would be very glad if Murali decided to never tour here again. Good riddance to bad rubbish. The doosra? A bad joke.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 February 2006 at 09:08
I must admit I have never taken the trouble to understand the various tests which have been invented to give the go ahead to Murali.
He fails the eye test every time.
Maybe he should look at all the abuse that he and he alone gets. Forget Prof Elliot, Professor Sumner Miller would say - "Why is it so ?".
Posted by: Simon | 06 February 2006 at 10:35
You could be onto something, LIC - Batter Up!
Don't bother trying to understand them, Simon. They are stupid.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 February 2006 at 11:52
Just wondering why they don't add say a one or two degree factor into these tests to compensate for the fact you aren't in match conditions. Really it probably should be more but to say anyone who is under a microscope for something as serious as this would be bowling as well as they could in a match is just plain wrong.
Two degrees would be minimal at best but looking at these results, two degrees would put 5 out of the 12 deliveries over the limit, meaning he chucks basically every second ball. Surely that cannot be tolerated?
Posted by: Adsy | 06 February 2006 at 11:55
It's science, Adsy. There is no margin for error until a better technology comes along. But by then Murali will be long retired.
Nevertheless, at that point this blog will be calling for a retrospective stripping of wickets. I am already set to do it for any wickets taken against Zimbabwe.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 February 2006 at 12:05
And goals kicked against University.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 February 2006 at 12:05
Tony, good point, although the speed gun at games uses a maximum speed doesn't it?
And you're right, why am I picking on journos when there are scientists producing studies with such attrocious methodologies. If he'd bowled 120 balls and not thrown one I'd take it seriously, but this? This is rubbish.
Posted by: Russ | 06 February 2006 at 13:34
Was in WA over the weekend - don't know if the commentary was the same everywhere, but Spanky said (as close as I can remember) 'we should allow the doosra anyway, it's just a 'back chuck' - not baseball pitcher like or anything....'.
So he's admitted it's a chuck, and doesn't care. I also didn't see him complaining about bean balls when South Africa's faster bowlers started bowling waist to chest high full tosses about 4 times an over for the last 5 overs of the Aussie innings. No wonder he's so worried about sedition laws - the man's a fully fledged traitor!
Posted by: nick | 06 February 2006 at 13:41
ps : name the aussie squad going to Bangladesh?
Jaques, Cosgrove, Bevan, Boonie, Merv, Haddin, Cullen, Law, and some other saps....
Posted by: nick | 06 February 2006 at 13:43
If you ask me, Russ, the scientists at UWA are just rubbing their hands together, happy to get all the attention. I wonder what Bruce Eliott and his co-leagues think about an experiment that can't be satisfactorily duplicated in a lab. Surely they have misgivings about the process.
Not sure about the speed gun, but I thought it took the average. Maybe I'm getting confused with Nine's Speedometer toy, which they were playing with early in the summer, but seem to have disgarded.
Nick, Spanky's fucked himself with his outburst at the MCG in 1995, and his continued flannel since. He's committed himself so far one way he can't readily back himself out of that corner. He could either say "I was wrong" which seems unlikely, or "Let's not bother". He's gone with the latter - something he would NEVER do if other fundamental aspects of the game were under the microscope.
I loved it when one of the Yarpie bowlers served up a waist-high fully to Shameless and he spanked it over the midwicket fence. What a pop-gun attack they were last night.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 February 2006 at 14:38
TT, didn't listen to any radio talk back on Sunday, or today for that matter. Would like to think that these numbers got a bit of a run with the radio jocks, just to shove it up the ICC.
If 'The Chucker' wants us to pipe down then tell him to bowl not one, but all with less than 10 degrees etc(call it a mini chuck)....Is he a chance with the Yankees? Do the Lankans have a domestic baseball league? What happened to the elbow deformity defence? So many questions...
Posted by: Senior Nubi | 06 February 2006 at 16:35
Patrick Smith is the best jouro for slamming the current state of affair. He was on SEN this morning talking about the biz.
While the ICC are dtermined to ignore things, there's not much will happen.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 February 2006 at 16:41
I heard Spanky say that too, Nick, it wasn't just you.
So what they are saying is that they should ignore a Law of the game because they are too gutless to enforce it.
Wow, we really need 'experts' like that...
I am with Tony on Murali- go away, don't come back, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 07 February 2006 at 02:15
On the TV today, Mark Nicholas (in particular) and whoever was with him at the time, were vigorously defending Murali, along the lines of "he's been cleared by official tests at UWA, accept that and leave him alone". Still no super slo-mo!
Posted by: Living in Canberra | 07 February 2006 at 19:53
Spot on, LIC. If Nine really believe Murali doesn't chuck, they ought to back up their claims with a thorough demonstration via the super slo-mo. You know, like they've done with Andy Flintoff, Brett Lee and Shane Warne (to name a few) this season.
They won't. Apart from anything else, too many of the commentators would be kissing goodbye to commentating gigs in Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan.
And then there's the fact Nine are in solid with Cricket Australia. As an "official broadcaster" they aren't going to go out of their way to upset a commercially sensitive apple cart.
Really though, they are just waiting, hoping even, for the problem to go away while all the time trying hard not to draw attention to this fucking enormous fiasco.
Posted by: Tony.T | 07 February 2006 at 20:21