Patrick Smith's first point, that Murali used to chuck, is correct. His second point, that Murali no longer chucks because they changed the rules, is not. There is no way Murali propels every ball under 15 degrees; ergo (French AND Latin - sehr gut!) he still chucks.
Rejoice in the skill of the man who changed cricket
MUTTIAH MURALIDARAN used to chuck. He doesn't any more. The cricket world used to have a law that prohibited bowlers throwing the ball.
It doesn't any more. Murali will never be topped as the greatest wicket-taker in the world. We should rejoice that we have seen him spin his craft.
Murali has forever changed cricket, never mind set an unreachable mark. Bowling now is very different than it was just three years ago. The introduction of the 15-degree rule has seen to that. What Lance Gibbs couldn't do, Murali and his contemporaries can.
Nevertheless, apart from the rejoice bit at the start and the begrudge bit at the end, Patrick's article is a good read; especially his lash at Barnes Wally.
Yesterday, The Times correspondent Simon Barnes struck first, asking in The Australian that everyone prepare themselves for the resentment of Murali's feat that would explode from Australia.
Barnes might have missed former India captain Bishen Bedi's weekend claim. It was a measured observation that throwing was now a bigger scandal than match-fixing.
Barnes said that he had also written: "I said Murali's action had been authorised, which means you can't quarrel with Murali, only the laws of cricket.
"I said those who pick this quarrel must be prepared to argue about the angle between the longitudinal axis of the upper arm and the forearm in the sagittal plane."
Hey, Simon, who hasn't written that before?
Bowling to Barnes is a most difficult task, one even beyond Murali. When Barnes faces up you only have two stumps to hit, for the middle one is stuck firmly up his backside.
Barnes also likens Murali's world record to Bodyline, a tactic that he argued exposed the shortcomings of Don Bradman. So much for logic. That you placed nine men on the leg side, a bunch of them behind square leg, allowed Harold Larwood to throw the ball at the head of the batsmen, be they openers or tailenders, you fancy points more to the shortcomings of the bowling attack than it does the batting line-up.
You know the drill.
Kinda like letting Boycott use a wider bat and then claim he's another Bradman.
Chuckers ... you fuckers!
Posted by: Ian Meckiff | 05 December 2007 at 10:47
"We are in a new era. Bowling is a new skill. Records should show how many wickets bowlers took before the 15-degree rule was introduced and how many they managed after. Because before and after are two different sets of skills."
I wait in anticipation for the "innovative" actions of tomorrow.
Apres Murali le deluge.
Posted by: Simon | 05 December 2007 at 11:23
Barnes is spot on with the Bodyline comparison, although not for the reasons he hopes.
In the early 20th century a bunch of cheats (MCC, Jardine et al) used the rules against the spirit of the game to bring down a champ who was a great cricketer but somewhat on the nose off the field.
In the early 21st century a bunch of cheats (ICC, Murali et al) used the rules against the spirit of the game to bring down a champ who was a great cricketer but somewhat on the nose off the field.
Deja vu! (French?)
Posted by: Adsy | 05 December 2007 at 19:14
Tone, I think your second point about the second point could be construed as mis-pointed(?). Smiff seems quite clear on the point. Cookie Monster is a chucker. Always was, always will be. He offsets this with a point about the inability to pitch a ball in the same manner using a normal action without breaking something you might need later. (It's all in the wrist, said the vicar to the altar boy...)
I read this article this morning, knowing that I would be reading AGB this arvo. All in all, some good points, and as for Muddyoreally, he's got no point. It's not sour grapes to say he didn't break the record. He's a *uckin' chucker!
Posted by: CB | 05 December 2007 at 19:45
It's not quite deja vu, Adsy. Back then the stuffy English gentlemen of the MCC were in charge of the game, and belatedly changed the rules to prohibit a technically legal but unsportsmanlike tactic. Nowadays the third world junta of the ICC is in charge and they belatedly changed the rules to accommodate a technically illegal and unsportsmanlike tactic, albeit only for melanin-enriched players who could not possibly be expected to compete on equal terms with their less pigmented rivals. Compared to Arjuna Ranatunga and those now in charge of the game, Jardine was a saint.
Posted by: Clem Snide | 05 December 2007 at 21:30
That's exactly right Clem.
You left out the part where any debate or criticism of any outcome that may in some way be perceived to favor the melanin enriched leads to shrill accusations of sour grapes or worse.
It's their way or the highway.
Posted by: Ian Meckiff | 05 December 2007 at 23:42
I refuse to read a blog about Patrick Smith as a) the man is an ass clown. b) the man is a dick head, and c) the man bags people who sledge in sport, yet everyone i know who played against say he was a mouthy prick.
Posted by: Uncle J Rod | 06 December 2007 at 00:30
I watched a bit of the last session last night and my contempt for the man grows.
When things aren't going their way he is far more prone to send down an ugly chuck. That top-spinner he sends down like flicking a yo-yo is a disgrace and of course it started to come out a lot. It was that very dodgy looking delivery that finally got through Prior as his partnership with Bell had eaten up a lot of overs, time and Murali's patience.
The ball that got Bell was a beautifully bowled off-spinner that looked perfectly correct in its' delivery. A genuine jaffa.
Posted by: Bruce | 06 December 2007 at 06:57
Bruce nails it - the guy can actually bowl properly... it's just that on occasions (when he's not bowling at the UWA) he chucks the occasional ball.
What the English commentators on Sky should do is announce on Day One - "at the end of this test we're going to do a special programme with film from the game of Murali's action".
I bet my bottom dollar that every ball will be clean (and he goes 2-85...)
Posted by: Mark | 06 December 2007 at 07:48
Nick Rivers is being introduced to members of the resistance in Top Secret:
Posted by: Tony T. | 06 December 2007 at 10:50
Patrick Smith was a huuuuge sledger and once got suspended for chesting a batsman; he also had his action heavily, if unofficially, scrutinised.
But at least in both cases he's big enough to admit he was a loose cannon, and that his action was Lee/Shoaib dodgy when he wanted to bowl an extra-quick ball.
Posted by: Tony T. | 06 December 2007 at 10:59
Is Jayawardene a poor captain or am I just used to Aussie steamrolling most sides around the world?
End of day four, Sangers and Silva/P.Jayawardene (who I reckon is a great little player) should have been smashing the Poms to all parts in a chase for quick runs. There was about 10-15 overs where they only scored about 25 runs where with the old ball and plenty of gaps should have been going at least 4 or 5 an over. Tell them to hit out or get out.
Not to mention he took far too long to declare (Going for Sangers 4x 150+ record maybe? Great effort though)
And yesterday Bell and Prior looked as comfortable as anyone ever would facing Murali on a 5th day (slow) turner in Kandy. No pressure around the bat, no stacking the cordon and pitching the ball up on off stump for the quicks, no real urgency by anyone really.
As for the Sidebottom decision (as it will know be known) there are "bad" decisions and there are "BAD" decisions. That safely falls into the BAD category.
It pains me to say this also, however Murali's late wickets yesterday on a track not giving him an absolute cakewalk were top class.
Posted by: Adsy | 06 December 2007 at 11:05
I haven't seen that famed footage where Murali bowled in a brace, but I'm tipping he wouldn't get too many wickets were he restricted by its...umm... restriction. It's as you two say, he doesn't chuck all the time, he chucks when he looks for extra turn.
That means the chances of him being called by an umpire or cited by the match ref when he chucks the occasional doozy of a doosra, while the majority of his balls are legal (or now legal), are next to fuck all.
Posted by: Tony T. | 06 December 2007 at 11:06
If a dozen or so of his 700+ wickets taken are suspect, by implication, they ALL should be considered suspect. Try this trick. Hold your bowling arm out in front of you, palm down, arm out stretched. Rotate the wrist, as if you are turning a door knob. Note that with a straight arm, it has rotational movement through approx 270 degrees. Now, bend your arm to about 30 degrees and try it again. Note how much additional rotation can be achieved when the wrist/elbow total is taken into consideration. It's a significant increase of 'spin' that can potentially be imparted to a moving object. Now add that rotational force to 'finger spinning', and you can get a ball to do magic.
Posted by: CB | 06 December 2007 at 12:16
Tony he's a sad old man, who seems to find faults in any one young and talented.
And sledging and chesting are awesome, why would you ever want to take them out of the game.
Posted by: Uncle J Rod | 06 December 2007 at 13:59
I get the impression he's a bit of a bully; maybe even A LOT of a bully.
But at least he's less likely to get cosy with sportsmen than your average suck-up hack.
Posted by: Tony T. | 06 December 2007 at 21:31
True dat.
Posted by: Uncle J Rod | 06 December 2007 at 23:19
Tony- i fail to see what this recent fuss is all about mate. The World leading test wicket taker changing hands ? As far as i can make out the leading BOWLERS in Test Cricket are as follows:-
1. SK Warne 708 Av 25.41
2. A Kumble 578 28.65
3.GD McGrath 563 21.64
4.CA Walsh 519 24.44
5.Kapil Dev 434 29.64
Posted by: Brett Pee | 08 December 2007 at 21:00
Gee willikres, that's such a great post!
Posted by: Robbie | 27 July 2011 at 16:40