Forced out - outed, you might say - by the enormous weight of expert anecdotal opinion, Spanky Roebuck has finally begrudged the obvious with a squirming, lemon sucking admission, and a little help from a waggish subby:
Murali must chuck out the doosra
Muttiah Muralitharan should not be discouraged by the citing of his "doosra". By and large, his action has been given a clean bill of health. Both umpires in Colombo, the match referee and the scientists in Perth have passed most of his deliveries.
Only one umpire has ever questioned his leg-break. His off and top-spinners have provoked debate but Murali can keep bowling them confident that the green light has been flashed. The spotlight has been put on a delivery that, in any case, may make him less effective.
Provided the doosra is put back in the cupboard, the popular Sri Lankan spinner can keep bowling for his country.
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. Murali forced the issue by taking the delivery a step further so that it did not merely go straight through but turned from leg.
To make matters worse, the England batsmen were unable to read it, possibly because they did not watch the hand closely enough. Simon Katich seemed to regard it as a scoring opportunity in his recent innings.
Now the doosra is to be confronted by scientists and experts on the appropriate committee. Murali cannot ignore their conclusions because then further reports will be made. 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.
Cricket cannot afford to disregard the opinions of its audience. Nor need it assume that the Sri Lankan community, let alone the entire region, defends the delivery. Sri Lankan officials responded responsibly to news of the charge. They were not surprised.
Other bowlers have enhanced their reputations by eliminating deliveries from their armoury. Brett Lee no longer goes wide of the crease as he did to dismiss Marcus Trescothick in Perth. Shoaib Akhtar bowls with a greater discipline than he showed against the Australians in Colombo a few years ago. Harbhajan Singh was reported and returned to the fray after remedial work, enhancing the game with his spin and bounce.
Provided the doosra is put back in the cupboard, the popular Sri Lankan spinner can keep bowling for his country.
Far from sounding a death-knell on his career, the reporting of Murali might help his bowling. Recently he has depended too much on his doosra. His off-break has not been nearly as effective because he has been forced to bowl it straighter in an attempt to disguise his new delivery.
By avoiding the newcomer, Murali can return to aiming a yard outside off-stump with a strong field on that side of the park. His stock delivery has always been hard to play because it is expertly pitched and turns sharply.
The steps taken against Murali also indicate a determination in high places to maintain the standards of bowling around the world. Chris Broad was given a free hand by his bosses to act as he saw fit.
Broad is to be congratulated for the steps he has taken. Doubtless there will be an outcry suggesting that it is an Anglo-Saxon plot to stop Murali breaking the world record.
Australian umpires lost their reputations years ago over their timid handling of the rash of throwers appearing in the 1950s. The ridiculous no-balling of Murali when he was bowling leg-breaks in Brisbane reinforced the point. Younger antipodean umpires must repair the damage.
Broad has shown the way for more cautious officials. Lately, umpires and referees have avoided making decisions on the grounds that only fools raise their heads above the parapet.
Unfortunately he had nothing to say about Australia's deplorable appealing on that final afternoon in Colombo. Cricket will be a better game when its supervisors carry out their task of raising standards all around.
Given his reluctance to admit the obvious, and his previous position, it's no surprise he still manages to aim a selection of sly digs at the Australian umpires and authorities.
Cherry picking his article:
1) The fact that "only one umpire has ever questioned his leg-break", doesn't come close to explaining the readiness of the umpiring fraternity to admit off the record that Murali's action stinks but they are afraid for their jobs should they call him.
2) Chucking was indeed a problem in Australia, but it was an Australian umpire who flagged it forty - yes, forty - years ago. I was one.
3) In 1995/96 Murali was no balled for one leg break, not leg breaks plural as is suggested - in hindsight a crucial umpiring error, given it's been a regular "get-out" ever since - but all the others were valid calls after various umpires had reported Murali seven times prior to 1995 without any action being taken.
4) And if "Broad is to be congratulated for the steps he has taken", why haven't there been more calls from Roebuck to have match referees refer the Doosra to the ICC, instead of cheap-shots at English batsmen, and to a lesser extent their Australian counterparts, for their inability to play the "ball".
Never the less, at least buried in all his "good news" of a soon to be revitalised Murali - the point about Murali's line of attack is not without merit - is Roebuck's unequivocal admission that: "Undoubtedly the delivery is to be declared illegal, and rightly so, because it is ugly and the elbow does straighten."
About time. Contary to statement's hereabouts, I generally enjoy Roebuck's work, but as a significant presence in cricket journalism his reticence to admit the obvious was bringing into question his judgement - and possibly integrity - as a sporting commentator.