Keith Stackpole has come out in today's Hun and said Murali chucks, and that the ICC are playing at double standards when they oust Botha and not Murali. Good on ya, Stacky. The more ex-players who say he chucks, rather than keep shtum in the face of official sanction, the more those officials will squirm, the craven dogs.
Nevertheless, while there is patently a double standard regarding Botha and Murali, I'm not convinced it works the way Stacky suggests when he cites Ian Johnson. What he seems to be saying is that Botha has been dudded because he doesn't chuck, whereas Murali is still out there even though he does. That's not right - Botha obviously chucks. Still, he ought to be commended for going on the record about Murali's chucking.
Funnily enough, there's another double standard lurking in his article. It's probably there because Stacky was trying to be nice, but it's still there. You can't on one hand say Murali's a chucker, and then on the other commend him for his efforts. That's just silly.
Murali chucks and no one should "admire him for his success against the odds". No one should "like watching Murali". Nor should Murali "be recognised for his considerable achievements". That all amounts to saying we should admire criminals for being rich. Murali is a wicket-thief whose career figures are every bit the ill-gotten gains of your wogged up Melbourne mobster, and not the noble laurels of a champion succeeding against the odds.
Eyes right on Murali's action
If I had been on the international Cricket Council's sub-committee that assessed Muthiah Muralidaran's action years ago, he would not be playing today.
Murali can whinge all he likes, but there is a huge grey area concerning the legitimacy of his bowling action.
I don't care about the tests that have been carried out.
The eyes of two many people don't lie. Players, umpires and fans are the best judges and most believe his action is suspect.
Years of controversy could have been averted if administrators had backed Darrell Hair's assessment on the fateful Boxing Day in 1995. Hair was also let down by his fellow umpires, who were happy to discuss Murali's action behind the scenes, yet refused to act.
A decade on and Murali is the second-highest wicket taker in test cricket, with 579 victims, and the third highest wicket taker (396) in one-day internatonals.
For all the controversy I admire him for his success against the odds and on Friday night he excelled in Sri Lanka's great victory over Australia. Many players subjected to the pressure and innuendo he has would have retired.
It is the strangest action of any off-spinner I have seen. He flicks the ball like a frisbee with his flexible wrist.
Unlike many offies, he is not close to the stumps at the time of delivery and struggles when he bowls around the wicket to left-handers.
I haver witched him for a few years in Sri Lanka and from all angles during the VB Series.
Every time I see him my doubts are confirmed.
The kid glove treatment has not been extended to South African Johan Botha, who incurred the ICC's wrath this week.
Former Asutralian captain Ian Johnson, a great exponent of off spin, is long gone, but I have a feeling he would approve of Botha's action, but not Murali's.
I believe the ICC has don't an injustice to Botha. It seems there are two sets of rules.
I like watching Murali and he is a perky character who entertains fans all over the world.
Murali and Chaminda Vaas have carried the Sri Lankan attack for many years. They are the only Sri Lankan bowlers to take more tha 100 tset wickets.
Murali should be recognised for his considerable achievements.
He is challenging Shane Warne for the world test record and has made the most of his ability, but I consider him lucky to have been allowed to escape the net early in his career and overtake many of the game's great bowlers.
Just saw that catch off Ponting. It obviously skipped into the fielder's hands.
Posted by: Tony.T | 12 February 2006 at 21:26
It obviously skipped into the fielder's hands.
Yeah, and if an international-level cricketer couldn't tell the difference by feel alone.
What a Chetan Sharma.
Posted by: Big Ramifications | 12 February 2006 at 22:38
Yo-yo, not frisbee! Good term, wot?
:)
Posted by: Big Ramifications | 12 February 2006 at 22:46
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I reiterate the point that if any coach or umpire of a local under 13's team saw a kiddy with a bowling action like Bendy's he would immediately drag the young'n and send him to the nets for re-training. Darryl Hair and Ross Emerson acted with courage in calling the cheat for chucking, and lost their careers as a result. Shameful.
The blight on the game that I have loved all my life by this chucker and the pantywaists who refuse to condemn him is almost beyond repair. Do they believe that all spectators are complete fools?
Right up there with Hansie Cronje. Cheat, cheat, cheat.
10 overs, no maidens, none for 99 is a little soothing set of figures.
If I never see Bendy on the field again I will be a happy camper.
Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant | 12 February 2006 at 23:31
Yeah, and if an international-level cricketer couldn't tell the difference by feel alone.
That should say "as if", not "if".
Posted by: Big Ramifications | 13 February 2006 at 00:11
Stackpole has previously gone on the record, sort of, during a state game last year. When the kiddies came onto the field during lunchtime for some Kanga cricket, Stackpole quipped "there seem to be a few young Muralitharans out there", causing his fellow commentators (all non-spankers) to laugh. Still, 0 for 99 proves that there is a vengeful and jealous God who dispenses divine retribution to those who violate the 11th commandment "Thou shalt not chuck".
And Tony Grig does seem to be showing increasing signs of Alzheimer's. Not content with his usual "Oh that's a great sho- oh, he's out" and "one bounce and over the rope; oh, it's six", his inability to see a bouncing ball is on par with the ICC's inability to see a chuck. "Foreshortening" my arse. I eagerly await the commutators' explanations for how "foreshortening from a wide angle lens" can make a ball appear to bounce off the grass. Chappelli wasn't much better, comparing the obvious non-catch to Martin Snedden's equally obvious catch in the underarm bowling game of 1981. His brainfart suggesting that a team sheltering the game's biggest cheat would be honest in admitting its dropped catches, and that the fieldsman's word is his bond, should be a sackable offence for an amateur commutator, let alone a professional one. It's a pity Kerry Packer wasn't buried pharoah-style, entombed with his most faithful servants.
Posted by: Clem Snide | 13 February 2006 at 01:06
From the Courier-Mail this morning:
Ponting survived a controversial moment on 57, when Jayawardene claimed to have caught him in the gully in a low, diving catch but the ball was judged to have bounced.
Ponting refused to walk as the Sri Lankans celebrated. After conferring with his colleague, umpire Peter Parker ruled the skipper not out.
Given neither umpire's view was obstructed, the officials were unable to call for a video replay and Sri Lanka was fuming.
But Jayawardene apologised to Ponting for appealing when a message from the Sri Lankans' dressingrooms informed him that TV replays showed there was no catch.
"He came up to me a few overs later and apologised and said 'I'm very sorry, I didn't know that it bounced short of me'," Ponting said.
Ponting told Jayawardene: "Apology accepted and let's get on with it."
How do your words taste this morning Tony "I'll support anybody as long as it isn't Australia" Grieg, you fuckwit.
Posted by: Dirk Thruster | 13 February 2006 at 08:31
I differences between Murali and Botha are absolutely black and white.
Posted by: Living in Canberra | 13 February 2006 at 13:37
Must proof read before posting - first word should be "The".
Posted by: Living in Canberra | 13 February 2006 at 13:39
Good on the subby at foxsports - note the "as well" in the title.
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18126231-23212,00.html
Posted by: Chris | 13 February 2006 at 15:33
The subby has been reading the AGB. Good man!
Posted by: Tony.T | 13 February 2006 at 15:49
Two things:
1) Did anyone notice if the commentators brought up Vaughan in Adelaide 2002?
2) I remember when there was a rumpus about walking, catching, etiquette, etc around the 2003 World Cup. Just after Gilly walked in the semi-final, Jayasuria at slip appealed for a catch that bounced at least a foot in front of him. I remember wondering at the time that it would be a bit rich if batsmen were going to walk based on the word of the fieldsmen if the fieldsmen were going to claim catches that had obviously bounced.
Posted by: Tony.T | 13 February 2006 at 16:08
Having sed awl that... Ponting is completely full of shit.
"The Australian team doesn't delay declarations for milestones."
"Let's all walk if a fieldsman says it is so."
What a fucken tool. Did ya see/hear his latest Costello-like smirky reply when his hypocrisy was called into question?
Posted by: Big Ramifications | 17 February 2006 at 00:05
Take a chill pill, Biggy dude. This fixation with pundits trying to catch sportsmen out is reaching epidemic proportions. Declare shmeclare! Walk shmalk. Whaddaya expect? Of course they're going to say daft things - they're dumbhead sportsmen. You want them to end up dodging questions like pollies? As long as he can play cricket and doesn't say anything too outrageous, it's ok with me. You're starting to sound like Patrick "Gotcha" Smith.
Posted by: Tony.T | 17 February 2006 at 14:41
Not only did he give a big sooky sermon at a press conference when Lara broke the world record - which was cringeworthy bad sportsmanship and I'm surprised he wasn't called on it more by the media - but then he goes and does the opposite thing re: Hodge.
He was lecturing Lara about the Australian way of doing things. It's not like he got caught changing his mind over his favourite colour or something.
So, having thought about it some more, I take back my comment about him being a tool and revise it upwards to tool squared.
Posted by: Big Ramifications | 18 February 2006 at 14:16
Balls! His declaration regarding Hodge was a fair one, both in terms of the game and WACA history. He left plenty of time to get the Yarpies out, but the bowlers couldn't do the bizness.
I take your tool squared and say get rooted.
Posted by: Tony.T | 18 February 2006 at 14:25
Crivens!
Posted by: Big Ramifications | 18 February 2006 at 14:44
Crivens?
Posted by: Tony.T | 18 February 2006 at 21:29
Yeah, what's crivens? Enquring minds want to know!
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 19 February 2006 at 03:11
Crivens apparently.
Posted by: Tony.T | 19 February 2006 at 08:11
Well, Nac My Feegle!
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 20 February 2006 at 07:55
ohh. pedro,...so ignorant......Murali,Murali, Murali,Murali, chucks it like a dream...
Posted by: sophie | 25 February 2006 at 02:33