BOWLED SHANE

Warnie says come in spinner, and Murali chucks a wobbly:

Warne to get the silent treatment

AN IRATE Muthiah Muralidaran has branded Shane Warne a "miserable man" and vowed not to talk to him at the unveiling of the Warne-Muralidaran Trophy in Hobart today.

Muralidaran is furious over Warne's recent call for the Sri Lankan's controversial bowling action to be re-tested. Warne believes the International Cricket Council should devise a method to test the elbow flexion of bowlers during matches, as opposed to the current practice of laboratory testing.

Muralidaran last year consented to voluntary testing of his action at the University of Western Australia, and was found to bowl with an elbow flexion of 14.4 degrees, just within the ICC's legal limit. Critics, though, believe laboratory tests fail to simulate match conditions, prompting Warne's comments.

Ahem. That's 14.4 degrees PLUS a margin of error of 0.5 degrees. It's a small point, but it needs making.

Nor do I much give a shit who Murali steals his wickets from. The fact is he steals them all, not just from Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

And if, as Aussies, we're all merely jealous Murali is going to break Warne's record, why did none of us get upset when Dennis Lillee's record was eclipsed?

This is why:

D. Lillee
M. Murali*

BACK FLIPPER

If you are surprised by Britney making a spectacle of herself, by the horrible taste of a shit sandwich, or by Kevin Rudd saying "working families", you will be surprised by this:

Spinners bury the hatchet

SHANE Warne and Muttiah Muralidaran laughed and joked their way through the Warne-Muralidaran Trophy launch, saying reports of tensions between them had been a "miscommunication".

"There is no issue at all," a smiling Muralitharan said. "It was a miscommunication more than anything else."

Warne said he discussed the issue with Muralitharan after the Sri Lankan's angry response made headlines.

"I spoke to Murali about it this morning so I'm pretty happy actually, I'm not that miserable," Warne said. "I've got absolutely no issue with Murali and his action or anything like that."

"All I've said in my column was that commonsense should prevail. If umpires or anybody has any issue with actions, I'm not saying Murali's but anyone's in world cricket, then they should be tested in match conditions."

Got that? Noice. Now read Greg Baum in today's Age. Feel free to jump to your own conclusions.

Trophy a twist on a history of negativity

ENOUGH of the charade. Put the Warne-Murali trophy in a cupboard somewhere and leave it there. Maybe the day will come when bygones will be foregone and it can be dusted off. But it's a sham now, and a shame.

The fact that the trophy was struck at all suggests detente between these two great bowlers, even rapport. Nothing could be further from the truth. They remain severely at odds, and will be awkward and embarrassed to have been dragooned into sharing a plinth in Hobart.

The Warne-Murali trophy is a marketing ploy, the latest instance of sport's compulsion to present stuff. It's a photo opportunity. Its provenance shows it. One of the enshrined has only just retired, the other is still playing. Not nearly enough time has elapsed for proper appreciations of their relative deeds and standings to be made, let alone the tension between them resolved.

FLIPPER FLOPPING

The joke that won't quit:

Warne's spin has Murali turning every which way

AN AUSTRALIAN, a Sri Lankan and a minder walk into a casino. Sound like a joke? It is. And the punchline was delivered in Hobart yesterday.

Our gag begins earlier this week, with a former Australian leg-spinner, a newspaper column and a topic that has been doing the rounds since Genesis. The book, not the band. "Speaking of Murali," Shane Warne wrote. "I agree with Terry Jenner that he should be tested under match conditions. I'm sure he is sick of it all, but it would be well worth the exercise and hassle. I think for his own peace of mind, and everyone in world cricket, do the testing in the heat of battle, a Test match. Surely the ICC, Sri Lanka and Murali would want that."

EPIBLOGUE

I'm frequently asked by bloggers and real people alike, why I bang on about chucking. Well, by and large (not keen on the first line) I’m with Mark in the comments:

I was getting bored with all this, started thinking 'oh what the fuck, just let him bowl goddamit'.

Then - I started thinking, that's exactly what they want.

Eternal vigilance required.

Indeed. I’ll never buy the official line: "He's got a controversial action, but he's been cleared to bowl [change to friendly tone] so let's just get on with enjoying the genius he brings to the game."

That's bollox; the officials (the ICC, the Shrees, chuckanistas, official broadcasters, commentators and journalists not willing to risk lucrative gigs) hope we’ll get bored and forget there was ever a rort. And the "genius" bit is absolute bollox! Genius is doing the right thing brilliantly, not doing the wrong thing to gain an unfair advantage. Many a "bowler" would get Test wickets if he was allowed to bend his arm like Murali. Try it yourself. Grab a ball and yo-yo flick it down the hallway; you’ll turn it at right-angles into the next room.

But in short: I just don't like cheating. Can’t cop it. Especially when it comes to the failure to accept the umpire's decision. Hair could see Murali chucked, I could see it, the first Aussies to play against him could see it, even the biomechanists belatedly proved it wasn't a so-called optical illusion. And you know what, I bet even Arjuna Ranatunga could see it. He knew a match-winner when he saw one and prepared back-up plans for when Murali was inevitably called.

And as for the "everyone does it" nonsense – prove it, tell us who, show us the research. Is Dennis Lillee a chucker? Thommo? Andy Roberts? Malcolm Marshall? Michael, sorry Mikey Holding? Dick Hadlee? Look at 2Bar’s World's Fastest Bowler. Not one of those actions is slightly comparable to, or compromised like, Murali's base structural disaster.

Comments

[nick]

Warne is as accurate as ever. Impressive effort to put Murali off his game. Lee et all will be aiming for fingers - which explains Murali's windmill batting style. Maybe that's how he hurt his shoulder (putting him out of the 20/20 farce). Maybe he was asked to absent himself from the 20/20 tournament. The commentators would have tied themselves in knots explaining to the new audience why one guy was playing baseball and the others were playing cricket (or would they??)

[Ian Meckiff]

The fucker's a chucker.

[Phillip Molly Malone]

I can't agree. The Law wasn't changed because of Murli as much as it was changed because under the old rules, under testing all bowlers chuck (with perhaps the exception of Jeff Thompson and others that bowl like him). Michael Holding himself was on the committee that decided this and he is not one to go for Chuckers .The other thing is Murli's wrist/fingers are freaky and that makes his action look 50 times worse.

On the "he takes his wickets against the minnows" arguement, this might be somewhat true, but on the other hand Warnie has never bowled at let alone taken a wicket against arguably the best batting line-up throughout his career (perhaps of all time). Also (with out doing research) Warnie bowled with a better support cast so got to bowl in more 2 innings games and at more tails then Murli would have (look at the last test in Brisbane. Aussies got 2 innings and faced the tail on both occasions).

JMTC
Molly
Http://cricnews.mollyzine.com

[Adsy]

Theres arguments both ways as to who had the better of it during their career: Warne with a world class bowler up the other end putting pressure on to help him take wickets (but missing out on many himself due to this), or Murali with no bowling competition (except probably Vaas) who was expected to take a bag each match for his side to compete, and was allowed the overs and time to do so on most occasions.

[Uncle J Rod]

He's no Ian Meckiff.

[Yobbo]

"I can't agree. The Law wasn't changed because of Murli"

Yes it was.

End of discussion.

[Mark]

There's none so blind...

Wickets against minnows is a red herring. So are the supposed 'Aussies whinging that Warnie will lose his record' jibes.

Just check out some of the photos in circulation (mainly courtesy of Tone!) Measure the angles like Yobbo did. You're talking a bend of around 40 degrees plus. Even when you take off Murali's deformity, you're still talking of a straightening of around 20 degrees.

No ball.

[Phillip Molly Malone]

Mark, I think you will find that the law doesn't talk about how much it is bent, as much as how much it bends! These might seem the same thing, but their not. If your arm starts at 40 degrees bent, as long as it doesn't go to 55 or 25 degrees it is a legal action!

Have a look at this site: http://www.coachesinfo.com/category/cricket/351/. I haven't fully looked at it but from what I have read, it gives a good understanding of the law!
So to quote Yobbo:
No it wasn't.
End of discussion.

Molly

[Tony T.]

Yeah, we know all that, Molly, but none of it means Murali doesn't throw in a match. End of sentence.

By the way, all, up above I've just added a sequel to Shane-Warne-Muttiah-Muralitharan-tit-for-tat-spat-gate.

[2BarRiff]

I'm starting to get tired of chucking spinners.

Bring back The World's Fastest Bowler.

[Pedro the Ignorant]

Gawdalmighty, the "Muralid(th)eran - Warne Trophy" ???

I would throw the fucking thing in the bin about ten seconds after "winning" something like that.
Nearly as good as winning the Fugly trophy after a night on the turps or the Hanse Cronje Honest Gentleman Cricketer Award.

These cricket marketing people are either barking mad or are plotting the end of the game as we know it.

I refer the jury to the media bullshit abounding over 20/20 "cricket" and rest my case, M'Lud.

[Clem Snide]

I agree the trophy is inappropriate. Much better would be an urn containing the burnt remains of a protractor, a Pakistani reverse-swinging cricket ball, an Al Jolson makeup kit and the Official Laws of Cricket, with a label that reads:
"In Affectionate Remembrance of FAIR CRICKET, murdered by the ICC in the 1990's, Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing friends and acquaintances
----
R.I.P.
----
N.B. — The body will be cremated and the ashes taken to Kandy."

[Ian Meckiff]

The fucker IS a chucker.

Testing? That's BS. I don't think it said in the laws of cricket that an umpire has to refer all chucking calls for testing before no-ball can be called.

Warne - Murali. Murali "not a chucker". That sounds like reverse honesty, as its known these days.

[Francis Xavier Holden]

I'm very conflicted. I can't work out which to pay attention to . This blog about cricket or something or the election converage. Or go to bed. Or cut my toenails.

[Navjot Singh Sidhu]

The wily fox is back. Its an ill omen when a fox licks its lambs and every time a lamb bleats, it loses a mouthful of hay.

The older you get, the better you get - unless you're a banana.

[Russ]

I'm getting bored with it too, not least because every time TT mentions it we have regurgitate the whole issue all over again.

Nevertheless, Phil, as that site makes patently clear, the law was changed in 2000 BEFORE the biomechanic studies were made. It was changed for legal reasons, to supposedly tighten up the slightly vague law that depended on the umpire's judgment. Under legal pressure from Sri Lankan and other subcontinental teams.

After the all-bowler biomechanics came out they realised that a straight bend law was a bad idea because most bowlers straighten by that simple definition, so they increased the tolerance margin. This happened to suit Muralitharan who'd been throwing at 14.4deg (over the then 10deg margin). Confluence of interests you might say.

However, what that site also makes clear though is
1) MOST bowlers are going from hyper-flexion to straightening, and therefore don't throw by any definition that isn't ridiculously simplistic.
2) Muralitharan does a yoyo-flick that is very prone to straightening under any definition of a throw.

What's clear to me is that
1) The old law (1947) was infinitely better.
2) The new law (2000+) needs to be respecified to actually convey what the body is doing in a throw (and it certainly isn't "just straightening").

The actual problem is noted in the article you mentioned:

"This study showed that a bowler such as Muttiah Muralitharan with a fixed flexion and carry angle deformity has the potential to legally utilise humerus internal rotation to generate speed and spin."

All this biomechanics only goes back to what the eye tells us. Straightening by itself is not an effective throwing technique - it's a "girl's throw". A real throw involves the humerus internal rotation specified, with some straightening. And Murali, not every ball, but in plenty of them, is a chucker.

[Tony T.]

I knew I could count on you, Russ. Good work.

It's true that we have to regurgitate the issue every time someone brings it up, but I don't mind, I'll just keep pounding away.

[Nabakov]

"The wily fox is back. Its an ill omen when a fox licks its lambs and every time a lamb bleats, it loses a mouthful of hay."

Yet is it not also said that a sick yak leaves light tracks? Or that a shirt has a tail but cannot bark?

[nick]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/warney-still-the-worlds-best-spinner/2007/11/15/1194766868818.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

pure gold

[Navjot Singh Sidhu]

I lean on Murali critics like a drunken man leans on a lamppost, only for support, not illumination.

[Tony T.]

No worries, Nick, I've got that one ready to rock. It's choice, Joyce.

[Tony T.]

The bastard paper took the picture off line, so I had to get home to scan it.

Anyway, it's up now. Straight up there ▲.

[Professor Rosseforp]

There was a discussion of the Murali-Warne debate on Ninemsn the other day, and it showed that there is woeful ignorance on the matter of chucking, e.g. condemnation of the Trevor Chappell underarm delivery as illegal (it wasn't), condemnation of Malinga's round arm delivery (it's legal to bowl round arm).
However, it also showed there has been far too much reliance on "biomechanical testing", which "even convinced Michael Bevan about Murali". The biomechanical testing seems to involve a lot of "baffling with bullshit" to me. We need to analyse each part of the claims of such testing (as has been done many times in this column). If all bowlers bend their arm, are we talking about drag bend, or are we talking about chucking? Did Andy Roberts bend his arm at 5 degrees or 14.4 degrees? Was it drag bend, or jerking forward from the elbow?
We also need to bear in mind that science does not exist in a vacuum, and that many scientific test results are fudged in the direction researchers want (I'm not saying this is the case with Murali's testing, but "scientific" does not equal "true").
Match-testing will only proceed if it verifies Murali's action. We have seen the "scientific" Hawkeye, and it can be fiddled with, and the "scientific" heat-meter view (or whatever that silly image is on Channel 9) is often inconclusive.
We know that previous "scientific" testing showed that Murali's arm-bending was entirely an optical illusion, and that he never, ever bent his arm during deliveries -- even in match conditions. This "scientific" test is rarely quoted by those who rely on the "biomechanical" testing.
Personally, think an umpire can take into acccount Murali's natural bend, and call him if he chucks -- and I would be happy if an umpire called Lee, Malinga, etc. They would soon stop throwing.
Warne's comments do seem to have opened up a new frank-ness in the discussion, and Channel 9 is showing more of Murali's action than it has before.
Expect to hear more talk of "the evolution of the game through change in bowling actions" as more people accept what is obvious. Muralitharan aka Muralidaran, lovely chap though he seems to be, throws the ball more frequently, and more obviously, with a greater degree of elbow flexion, than any other test cricketer.
His style, or variations of it, will be emulated.

[Professor Rosseforp]

I should have added that we don't need scientific tests to show that Warne is a dill, but he was still a great bowler, and I would estimate his flexion at less than 5 degrees.