An assumption: the Saeed Ajmal "back-chuck" blithely dismissed by Spanky Roebuck in today's Age is a ball delivered front-on with the forearm and palm facing away from the batsmen; the arm then flicks forward as if the bowler is flicking a yo-yo away from his face.
Lacklustre Pakistan allows Australia to take early honours
Saeed Ajmal bowled tidily enough but relied too much on his doosra. Bowlers depending on their "other one" for wickets are more comfortably countered than those armed with a formidable main delivery. Ajmal's doosra looks legal under any law, ancient or modern. At worst it is a back chuck, and the laws were not aimed at them. The offie bowled long spells, dropped shorter as the day wore on and suffered the consequences. Spinners are not supposed to be put away square of the wickets as often as the Pakistani.
For Spanky to shrug off Saeed Ajmal's doosra as "at worst a back chuck, and the laws were not aimed at them" is nonsense bordering on a bare-faced lie.
Of course the laws are aimed at the back-chuck, and Spanky knows it. The laws are intended to restrict every action to within 15 degrees of elbow flex.
But, is Spanky really so sanguine about his back-chuck? His current cosy acceptance directly contradicts something he wrote about Murali's doosra in 2004:
Murali must chuck out the doosra
This delivery is an extension of a ball that has been in his repertoire for years. In effect, it is a back chuck because the elbow does straighten.
Undoubtedly the delivery is to be declared illegal, and rightly so, because it is ugly and the elbow does straighten.
Spectators can see the straightening with the naked eye. It was more obvious in Colombo because Murali was tired and then a man's action always deteriorates.
2004: undoubtedly illegal.
2009: the laws were not aimed at them.
I've got a hunch, a well researched hunch, backed by statistics, witness statements and a fly on a wall. Off mike, the commentators have been shit-canning Ajmal's doosra, so Spanky has decided to get in first with his contrary opinion.
(Well spotted, Saggs.)
Good doosras are illegal - i.e. ones that take wickets. Bad ones are not. QED.
Posted by: m0nty | Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 01:48 PM
It's mic, not mike. Pet peeve ranking #323, but still a pet peeve. Dogupyaz.
Roebuck is a shit-stirring knob end. I just wonder whether he is fully aware of it [eg. Stan Zemanek] or blissfully ignorant [eg. Brucey Ruxton].
Posted by: Big Ramifications | Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 02:48 PM
Geoff Lawson said yesterday that he got him tested as the Pakistani coach before he played any tests. He said something like "he bends the arm when he bowls the doosra but it's not nearly as bad as some other bowlers"
Posted by: shep | Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 03:03 PM
So far:
1) PR: If the doosra doesn't take wickets it's OK.
2) GL: Ajmal is not as bad as others.
3) BR: Dogupyaz
Chucking in a nutshell.
Posted by: Tony | Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 03:34 PM
I think that is one of those fabled set of choices popularised by one Cometti, D - i.e. "third of two options".
Posted by: m0nty | Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 06:01 PM
Roebuck has no credibility. You can tell from his overblown writing style, he is your garden variety fantasist.
Posted by: Vim | Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 07:59 PM
I give Roebuck a pass for his writing style. He went to Millfield, his parents are teachers, and he did... sorry, read Law at Cambridge, so overblown writing style is in his genes. Some of what he writes offends me way more than his style.
He can give "willow wielders" and "leather flingers" a spell, but.
Posted by: Tony | Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Ajmal. Another chucker (albeit part time) who will never be called by an umpire in Australia.
Blind Freddy can see his "doosra" is a bent elbow hurl in the direction of the stumps. It ain't bowling, but no doubt Spanky would like to give him some lessons in the sauna, the cheeky little monkey.
Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant | Monday, December 28, 2009 at 05:06 AM
If it walks like a chuck and looks like a chuck... it probably is a chuck.
Posted by: TKYCraig | Monday, December 28, 2009 at 03:28 PM
Damn it, TK! I can't believe I never thought of that.
Posted by: Tony | Monday, December 28, 2009 at 06:06 PM
I feel satisfied if I can determine the difference between a spin bowler and a seam bowler. My wife was asking me yesterday what a doosra was when we were watching the cricket. I can now proudly describe it as a chuck.
Posted by: Colin Campbell | Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 08:53 AM
CC: Or a back chuck if you feel like equivocating.
Posted by: Tony | Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 01:59 PM
Up chuck.
Posted by: Big Ramifications | Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 06:07 PM
Yes, I know.
Posted by: Big Rammer's mum | Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 06:09 PM
But i believe in this-and it's been tested by research
That he who fucks nun will later join the church
Posted by: Jrod | Friday, January 01, 2010 at 01:53 AM