If muruli would be an english player he would be carrying tea, Panesar can hadle the biscuits nicely on his own.

__________________

Before the 15 degree law came in, Muralitheran's action was deemed illegal. After the law came in, his action was magically legalised. The change of the law legalised the action of one player in world cricket - Murali. First you were blind - now you can see

__________________

No, he had Mahmood to help him did'nt he?

__________________

What you have said is not true, but then even if it was. the change of rule was not made to accomodate Murali. It was made on the basis of the scientific evidence present.

Yes - chucking is an unfortunate word when used to describe a bowlers action, it gives an impression of danger as in throwing like a fielder would from the boundry.

But in fact chucking in the sence of Murali and others IMO is no more that a quirk in the action, might not look nice but I doubt it gives the bowler any advantage, or is a daanger to batsmen.

__________________
Ern

Sorry, I have to disagree there. Chucking DOES give the bowler an advantage. If he's a quick bowler it enables him to get more pace and is harder for the batsman to pick up. If he's a spinner then he gets more pace coupled with more revs on the ball so more dip and spin.

__________________
Mark.

This issue has been debated often, and is pretty much pointless now considering Muralitheran, Lee and Acktar are reaching the end of their careers.
But when i read members asking for "proof" that he was a chucker like one earlier in the thread i cannot help myself. It's like someone asking for proof that the earth is round really.
When Muralitheran was found guilty of chucking (yes he was banned - there is the proof), he did not change his action did he? Under the old laws, he would still be a chucker.
The ICC had two choices - see Muralitheran removed from the game because he could not legalise his action, or legalise his action by changing the laws so he would not be removed from the game. They chose the latter. Considering he had already taken 300 odd test wickets, they had no choice. It was not just Muralitheran that benefieted - Brett Lee and Shoaib Acktar are two others with highly suspect actionsthat were allowed to continue their careers because of their stardom.

__________________

Lee and Aktar are under 10 degrees, Muraltharan is just under 15 degrees, as everyone knows they changed the rules to suit Muralitharan for one reason, he fills seats and earns the international game a very large amount of money. Sri Lankan cricket would be dead without Muralitharan because with out him they would struggle to get 20 wickets.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

I think Murali would have had his action reported whatever team he played for because to the naked eye it really looks like he's 'throwing' the ball, even though when it's tested his action is within the 15 degrees.

But I also think that sooner or later, with the testing that is now available there would have had to be some kind of limit placed rather than the traditional rule of no flex whatsoever, because the testing can pick up degrees of flex which the naked eye cannot and when they did a test of a lot of unreported bowlers they found almost all of them flexed their arm to some degree, however small. I also think that putting the limit at 15 degrees was a sensible and practical decision, because that is the approximate point at which flex does become visible to the naked eye and so it actually keeps the rule in line with history as much as possible.

__________________
umeiV luphqhsesqe, all’ h luph umwn eiV caran genhsetai.

Its more the fact that they changed the rules to suit him which is in my opinion is not right. You can not just change rules the suit one bowler.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.