Judge for yourself

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Hampshire Guy

Isn't it just because of the Doosra? I don't really watch much of Murali, but didn't they say he invented it just before the England series??

Good point HG! Masticate on this ....

Turning it around
England's openers didn't have much starting problems in Sri Lanka, but they ran into a new, improved Muttiah Muralitharan, who unveiled a weapon to which England's batsmen had no answer. The table below suggests that batsmen the world over had, over the last year and a half, devised ways to keep Murali out. In three of his last five series (excluding a series against Bangladesh), Murali's strike-rate was well over 70. Batsmen didn't score too many against him – he still went at under two and a half per over – but against an attack which relied so much on Murali to deliver, keeping him out was most of the battle won.

Enter Murali with his new weapon, and the strike rate improved drastically. Graham Thorpe, who handled Murali fairly well the last time England toured, came off clearly second best in their personal battle, being dismissed by him five times in six innings, often because of his inability to read the one that turned back into him.

Now go here to check out the stats to reinforce this (at the bottom of the page).

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

The ICC are still busy sticking their heads in the sand over Zimbabwe, of course!!!

Best is,its a Zimbabwe batsman(his name is at the begining)who has brough his other bowling actions into question again,Hampshire Guy has just reminded me of something though,Murali has said he wont stop bowling the Doosra,he is not helping himself there,The ICC might just lift their heads out of the Zimbabwe Sands,on that one.

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

.. as I said, if he was English doubtless we'd all be supporting him to the hilt.

Please dont include me in this assumption. I do not support your assertion. No offence - just dont agree!!

Check out the results of this Forums poll on the legality of Murali's Doosra here!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by R W S

Please dont include me in this assumption. I do not support your assertion. No offence - just dont agree!!

Check out the results of this Forums poll on the legality of Murali's Doosra here!!!!!!!!!!!

Fair enough, RWS - I could have put that better! I'm neither for or against Murali's Doosra. However, I do believe that because we are looking at the issue from outside looking in, we see it in a different way than if it concnerned one of our own players. I do think that if we had a player in Murli's situation, then although not eveyone would be behind them, they would certainly be MORE LIKELY to give them a fair hearing.

That's more what I wanted to say! No offense taken, RWS - I've got thicker skin than a rhino's backside!!!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by R W S

Please dont include me in this assumption. I do not support your assertion. No offence - just dont agree!!

Check out the results of this Forums poll on the legality of Murali's Doosra here!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi R W S

It is accepted that Murali's Doosra is not legal,even his own cricket association knows it,but than we get a Zinbabwe batsman jumping on the bandwagon,and saying the only legal ball that Murali bowel was his ortherdox leg spin,(and that did not include the Doosra),meaning all his bowling exept his Leg Spin was not Legal,correct me if I am wrong,but Murali is an off spin bowler,Full Story on that is in the link at the start of this thread.

Murali is not helping himself when he says he wont stop bowling the Doora.

But what has his action got to do with the Australian Prime Minister?again if you have not done so,story at the link.
I think this whole affair is a shambles,its not just about the Doosra,its about Murali,the ICC has to step in and do something,not just pay lip service to one part of the problam,his action has been called into question long befor the Doosra

I fully agree the Doosra is illegal....

Ernest

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

Fair enough, RWS - I could have put that better! I'm neither for or against Murali's Doosra. However, I do believe that because we are looking at the issue from outside looking in, we see it in a different way than if it concnerned one of our own players. I do think that if we had a player in Murli's situation, then although not eveyone would be behind them, they would certainly be MORE LIKELY to give them a fair hearing.

That's more what I wanted to say! No offense taken, RWS - I've got thicker skin than a rhino's backside!!!

But do you have thicker hair than Ryan Sidebottom?!! (the last photo in my picture quiz!)

Of the 20 votes cast in the poll regarding MMs Doosra nineteen said it was a chuck!! It would be difficult to reconcile that with your proposal.

That apart, the guy is an awesome bowler and I reckon he would still have gotten to the record (Warne apart) without the doosra and I'd love England to have a bowler half as good.

[R W S]

I've also got problem with the ICC on the chucking issue - what's all this nonsense about 5% flex for a spinner and a 10% flex for a quick? Utter tosh. Is Shepherd meant to carry a protractor?

Still, the ICC have set up a body to look into this (report due 4Q2004) so let's look forward to another soap opera when they disclose their deliberations . . .

[Pete]

Hehe, talking of Murali and England.. There was Murali, crying because Nass called him a chucker and in the end it was true.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by R W S

But do you have thicker hair than Ryan Sidebottom?!! (the last photo in my picture quiz!)

Of the 20 votes cast in the poll regarding MMs Doosra nineteen said it was a chuck!! It would be difficult to reconcile that with your proposal.

That apart, the guy is an awesome bowler and I reckon he would still have gotten to the record (Warne apart) without the doosra and I'd love England to have a bowler half as good.

My point is that the GBP might have viewed the 'chucking' issue differently had he been English.

Example: Linford Christie is considered by most Brits as an olympic hero, when in fact he failed two drugs tests in his career. The first was excused by the IOC (and the GBP) brcause of some herbal formula he was using, the secons time he was thrown out of the sport for two years. However, the the British Athletics Board refused to ban him, and by and large the GBP still support him because HE says it was because of a chemical reaction in his body (Nandrolone - probably spelte wrong!!) not because he took anything illegal!! And look at Greg Ruesedski: was there a single peron in this country NOT on his side in the whole 'supplements on the table' affair...yet we are often up in arms at other countries 'cheating'.

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

My point is that the GBP might have viewed the 'chucking' issue differently had he been English.

Example: Linford Christie is considered by most Brits as an olympic hero, when in fact he failed two drugs tests in his career. The first was excused by the IOC (and the GBP) brcause of some herbal formula he was using, the secons time he was thrown out of the sport for two years. However, the the British Athletics Board refused to ban him, and by and large the GBP still support him because HE says it was because of a chemical reaction in his body (Nandrolone - probably spelte wrong!!) not because he took anything illegal!! And look at Greg Ruesedski: was there a single peron in this country NOT on his side in the whole 'supplements on the table' affair...yet we are often up in arms at other countries 'cheating'.

I'm no oracle on the GBP - particuarly as I have spent the majority of the last seven years outside the country so I bow to your superior knowledge.

What you may not be aware of is that the doping controls in the UK are stricter and better policed than in any other country. The GBP may have double standards - but at least they set the bar higher!