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


The only real benefit of something like that is the one mentioned in the last point - correcting actions early. There's no WAY that a first-class - let alone a test bowler - would wear one of those in a live match. "We'd like you to wear one of these during the match. Don't worry - we don't REALLY think you're a chucker, but, y'know, if you are it'll put your entire career into jeopardy. Have a good match!"

And asides from which, if someone like Murali has been tested a million times, he's probably more than convinced that he's clean. Say what you like about the man, I don't actually think he thinks he's dudding anyone - I'm sure he genuinely believes that his action is legal. So the chances of convincing him to wear one voluntarily are pretty slim when as far as he's probably concerned he's been proven clean so often - and in fact never proven NOT to be clean, either, from what I can gather he's never been asked to correct ANYTHING, unlike any number of other bowlers.

I'm pretty much on the fence on Murali to be honest - there's so much shrill rhetoric from both sides of the argument that I don't know what to believe. I do remember once that in a English summer a few years ago, Simon Hughes, the ex-Channel 4 super-slo-mo analyser guy (remember him from 2005?), said that after a test he once sat down and pored over hours of live footage trying to figure out whether he chucked or not and said that even with every conceivable camera angle available he didn't actually think he chucked. Maybe that's good enough for me - I don't know.

Professor Rosseforp

I thought that the latest research had proven that throwing is not correlated with elbow flexion in any meaningful way. That's why flexers may not appear to be chucking, and non flexers can appear to throw. The cricket laws have focussed too much on the issue of elbow-bending, when the jerking shoulder action (say, of an outfielder in cricket) is much more indicative of a throw, as opposed to a bowl.
Speaking of which, I was surprised to see that Symonds (arch off-spinning chucker) indicated that he believed Aaron Bird was throwing in a recent one-day match ; it might have been better to keep quiet to avoid scrutiny of his own highly-suspicious action.

David Barry

The Professor is right. Ferdinands has been banging on about it for years now - you need to look at maximum rate of elbow straightening rather than the total amount.


Carrot, there was once a highly sensible and decidedly unshrill conversation about chucking on this very blog. Some of the links seem not to work, but you'll get the gist of it. The Professor has it right on when he said:

"The cricket laws have focussed too much on the issue of elbow-bending, when the jerking shoulder action (say, of an outfielder in cricket) is much more indicative of a throw, as opposed to a bowl."

To me, look at any chucker, chances are their elbow points down the pitch (or close to) on release. That cleaner a bowling action is, the more likely the elbow is pointing away from the batsman. The benefits of chucking derive mostly from the slingshot effect of arm rotation on release, moreso than just elbow bend. If a throwing action only involves a straightening of the arm, it is a girl's throw.

Tony T

The flexing of the elbow still gives the likes of Murali the... ahem, elbow room to flick his yo-yo.

That the original "F**k this nut loose bustard. lol." is no longer accessible is a travesty to rival that of the Beeb chucking out the early seasons of Callan and Not Only... But Also.


Tony: All is not lost

The comments to this entry are closed.