Murali - why is he still bowling the Doosra?

[DaveGillespie]

After reading this article (http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_datab...08MAY2004.html) which poses the question of why Murali is still bowling his Doosra, I can come up with only two answers.

1. He is trying to effect a change in the laws of the game, either for his own benefit or because he genuinely believes that there are a considerable proportion of bowlers (spin or otherwise) currently operating outside the legal limits laid down in the cricket statute books. Whilst I can definitely see the ICC changing the law simply to accomodate him (again), I don't think it's right.

2. He thinks he is above the laws of the game, and that the ICC would not dare ban him. This would be an incredibly arrogant standpoint, but unfortunately it seems to me as if he is indeed operating above the law. The ICC will not ban him firstly because of the 40%+ Asian block vote aligning behind Sri Lanka and India's ICC allies (Australia, probably New Zealand) sideing with India and hence Sri Lanka and secondly because it would be a commercial disaster.

Either way, I reckon he would be best to actually ditch the Doosra and go back to ripping the off-break back in from outside Off and trying to clatter the right-handers stumps. It would certainly be more entertaining to watch anyway.

[Rich Greenfield]

Because the Asian Block are too busy taking over World Cricket to bother about the upholding the respectablity of the game.

[Occasional Fan]

Interesting article. We have had some discussions on this board over the last couple of weeks and have all pulled back from accusing Muralitharan of cheating, partly because the word itself has serious negative connotations and partly to protect the operators of the board from possible action for defamation. The report on cricinfo states, however, that "Muralitharan remains a lawbreaker if he perseveres with the doosra", and it is difficult to believe that he does not know this, as presumably he has read the report of the UWA biomechanics experts. Now, just for the moment I can't think of the right word to describe someone who breaks the law and knows he's doing it ... but never mind: even if I could, we couldn't use it here, could we?

[Pete]

The ICC needs to sort out it's act. Do they actually care about cricketing matters?

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Now, just for the moment I can't think of the right word to describe someone who breaks the law and knows he's doing it ... but never mind: even if I could, we couldn't use it here, could we?

I don't think Murali is on trial at all. I think the bowling laws are on trial. There has to be something fundamentally wrong with the rules to allow so many bowler's actions to be questioned after they reach the highest level in cricket. The bowling laws ought to be understood by coaches at junior level. If bowlers are allowed to step up through the grades with incorrect actions you can hardly blame the bowlers for that.

For those reasons I think it is unfair to label a bowler a cheater. Since it is difficult to prove someone is knowingly cheating you can't make that allegation without proof. If you think someone is a cheater perhaps you can infer that by agreeing with a media article that is inferring that. But please don't refer to a bowler as a cheater on this site otherwise it may lead to legal action against the site.

Does anybody know if Murali has bowled the Doosra in the Test series gainst Zimbabwe?

[Rachael]

What makes the whole situation farcical is that Murali is one of only three spinners on the planet (and only a half-a-dozen or so bowlers, period) who are actually making cricket intersting to watch (i.e. leaving you thinking a wicket could fall any ball) and who are actually sorting out the men from the boys (who would all be having an even bigger party if he were restricted).

Right now, cricket desperately needs Murali.. and needs his doosra.

I'm very much in two minds: one says "we needs a worldwide resurgence in quality slow bowling... and if changing the rules makes such a resurgence easier to engineer then relax the rules"... and the other says "it would be better to see the world awash with leggies who bowl within the current rules.. and we might be better off being patient and suffering the consequences".

My answer for the ICC would, I think, be a compromise: ban the doosra... and then remove Test status from any test where the day 5 pitch doesn't make Murali's normal delivery all but unplayable.

If the pitches broke down as they should... the need for the doosra would decline.. and spin would be resurgent anyway: best of both worlds.

[Nikhil]

To answer the question "Why Murali is still bowling the Dusara", I think I have an answer, which I read on cricinfo a few weeks ago.

When a bowler is on trial for a suspect delivery (ie from the next day on which he has been reported by the match refree), he can't be called against / reported again to ICC within a month from the day of reporting. I think, I read Murali's deadline was to end midway through the first test. So, he could bowl the Dusara without the fear of bring no-balled.

Now though, since the deadline is over, I think we will certainly see a decline in the no. of times he bowls the Dusara. Let's wait and watch.

[Mike]

Rachael, I totally agree with you that pitch conditions and/or bowling regulations should promote spinners as strike bowlers. If this happened, spinners would bowl more overs in a match allowing more rest time for the injury-prone pace bowlers. We would also see a greater array of shot-making by the batsmen. Thirdly, we would get more results.

[Shivnarine Chaundypaul]

Cricket may need good spinners to help it prosper but that doesn't give Muralitharan a license to flout the laws of the game, no matter how much he feels he has been hard done by over the years. Just because you desire more quality spinners doesn't mean you should let them 'bowl' however they see fit. Can you go back over the last century of cricket and find a time when there were many truly high quality spinners operating at the same time? (a genuine question) I'd be interested to see if there was ever a time with more than a couple of spinners even half as good as Warne or if you're just looking back through rose tinted speccies!

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Shivnarine Chaundypaul

Can you go back over the last century of cricket and find a time when there were many truly high quality spinners operating at the same time? (a genuine question) I'd be interested to see if there was ever a time with more than a couple of spinners even half as good as Warne or if you're just looking back through rose tinted speccies!

The fact that the game has not developed many quality spinners in its history is a sad indictment of the game. The game is far more interesting and entertaining when spinners can operate as strike-bowlers. It adds a new dimension to the game. History may judge Murali as someone who took on the establisment, someone who bucked the system to improve the game. If his bowling methods brings spectators to the ground and encourages the youth to take up the sport then I'm all for it.

I'd like to see Giles develop a ball that goes the other way. Might save his floundering career.