The Murali throwing controversy continues ....

[Hondo]

Did you know that most of these people have already accepted it after the studies shown that 99% bowlers chucks.

They were mis-guided as both of you before the studies reveled the results.

[Chuck Palumbo]

They accept it because they have to accept it- But deep down everyone knows its ridiculous- Even Alan Donald and Ian Botham said so.

[R W S]

Those that disregard the scientific evidence out of hand are those that believed the world was flat. Whether you like the science or not you struggle to make a coherent arguement by allying yourselves to prophets (no matter how revered they are).

Argue that the rules are wrong but you cant argue that if a player abides by the rules his achievements are less worthy than another player that also abides by the rules.

I would pick two spinners in my 'greatest' team of all time - an offie and a leggie - but if the pitch meant you'd be better playing only one I'd pick the slimmer of the year.

[Hondo]

Originally Posted by Chuck Palumbo

They accept it because they have to accept it- But deep down everyone knows its ridiculous- Even Alan Donald and Ian Botham said so.

They accepted because the results showed them they were wrong. They don't have much credibility on what they much anymore. They are embarrased by what they said before the studies were carried out. They now look like fools.

[Paoli]

Matty Hayden laughed off suggestions McGrath, Lee and Dizzy chuck...

Truth is, Murali just wants to be in company

[Hondo]

Lol... so becasue Mathew Haydne laughed, all the evidence isn't true... hahhaha

[Paoli]

As Chuck said, I'd trust a bunch of cricketers and umpires rather than a computer that knows not a thing about cricket or a scientist who would know as much as the computer.

[Maranello]

Wise words RWS. This is an emotive subject, so I will be careful in my wording.

It is obvious that there are two camps on the two great spin bowlers of our time. The first view, often, but not exclusively, held by Anglo-Saxons, is that Murali is a "chucker", a "cheat", and his records are meaningless. In response, there is a second camp, often comprising Indians and Sri Lankans, who believe Warne to be a "drug-cheat", a "beach bum" and a peroxide blonde whose talents lie in the bedroom, not on the cricket field. Though based on fact, the second view is as much a caricature of the truth as the first one. Warne may indeed have become a "beach bum" and a "drug addict", had he not for the past 12 odd years been one of the greatest leg spinners of all time - as it is, he has been fairly punished for his misdemeanours in more ways than one, and is still an all-time great.

Murali's critics, the 'flat-earth brigade', would disregard all scientific evidence that proves most bowlers break the rules, and many do it more than chuckers. These 'blind followers' of opinions over fact would disregard all scientific evidence about Murali's personal deformity and the surrounding mitigating circumstances.

However, it would be unfair to accuse all Australians of being 'flat-earthers', only a few, such as Darrell Hair or the PM John Howard appear to be motivated by blind bias and other motives. One may believe the rest to be misguided, but they have a right to their opinions. Not everyone in Australia agrees with these opinions anyway; after all, the greatest Australian sportman of them all, the Don himself derided some of his fellow country-men for their blind attitude towards Murali.

Let me re-introduce Bradman's comments on Murali, for the edification of those who prefer the opinions of ex-cricketers to facts and evidence.

Originally Posted by Bradman on Murali's greatness

"Murali, for me, shows perhaps the highest discipline of any spin bowler since the war. He holds all the guile of the trade, but something else too. His slight stature masked a prodigious talent, and what a boon he has been for cricket's development on the subcontinent."

"His is the stuff of our greatest slow bowlers, and for me is one, like O'Reilly, Warne or Trumble; who are game-breakers. They detect and then imagine the batsman's weakness, perhaps in an over or two. What a weapon for any captain: to have the discipline to contain and bamboozle."

Originally Posted by Bradman on Murali's critics

Bradman went on to object to Murali being no-balled during the Boxing Day Test of 1995: "It is with this in mind, and with the game's need to engage as a world sport, that I found umpire Darrell Hair's calling of Murali so distasteful. It was technically impossible of umpire Hair to call Murali from the bowler's end. Why was his eye not on the foot-fall and crease?
"I believe Hair's action - in one over - took the development of world cricket back by ten years. For me, this was the worst example of umpiring that I have witnessed, and against everything the game stands for. Clearly Murali does not throw the ball. No effort in that direction is made or implied by him. His every effort is to direct the ball unto the batsman. Murali wants to bamboozle, to trick through flight and change of pace.

Similary, there are more current and ex-crickters who support Murali, then the few (mostly Australian) players who don't support his action.

It is also unfair to characterise the new rule changes as a sell-out by the ICC to favour Murali alone. As mentioned earlier, the evidence and the facts are clear - almost all bowlers "chuck", most more than Murali. In addition, though some short-sighted observers oppose the changes because they cannot handle change, many seasoned commentators have supported the new rules, including John Buchanan, the Australian coach (here).

[Hondo]

Well said Maranello. I hope all those people that had doubts about Murali take a look at all the facts before mouthing off from now.

[Beny]

The scientific evidence say's that Murali dos'nt chuck and thats good enough for me although my anglo-saxon instincts still get the better of me sometimes ... Now on to the real subject of whose the better bowler.

It is easy of course to simply say their as good as each other but really, thats weak . Let's look at some stats to start off with.

Shane Warne:
Average: 25.50
Economy: 2.57
S/R: 59.4

Murali:
Average: 22.86
Economy: 2.34
S/R: 58.5

It would appear that statisticly Murali is the better bowler, however we must take into account the fact that Murali also plays more cricket against the 'minnows' and also more cricket at home in a spinners dreamland and on the subcontinent.

Warne apeared to me to be a better bowler than Murali on the recent tour of Sri-lanka when they both bowled supurbly but Warne came out with the better figures (it was warne's comback tour). It's also imporant to remember that Warne plays in a fantastic bowling line up where he dosen't always get as much of a bowl as he would like and certinly not as much as Murali does.