Murali not going to Oz

[flanflinger]

Well, I am afraid to say that this is one battle the Australians have won. It is a big shame that Murali is unable to travel because of the tragetting by the Media, the ACB, the players and even the Government.

It is intresting that there will be no sanctions against the ACB for allowing this to happen. It is unlike MacGill who chose not to tour for morale reasons to Zim, this is case where a player feels hounded by one nation.

Who loses out

1. The Aussie public - as they lose the opportunity of seeing the leading wicket taker in action
2. Sri Lanka - as their most potent weapon will not be there
3. Murali - as he will be unable to prove himself against the best
4. Test Cricket, as without Murali Sri Lanka will struggle to bowl Australia out

The winners

1. Australian Cricket Team

[Zeke]

The reason Murali is not touring is because he is ultimately scared of meeting the Australian's on their home turf. His record in tests on Australian soil has psychologically scarred him. 3 wickets at 116.00 from his two tests.

[Rachael]

I'm not sure anyone wins here: I'm sure Hayden, Langer, Ponting and the rest will not think they have - matches won against a depleted side never have the satisfaction of matches won against a full strength opponent... and I suspect the Aussies would have been more "up" for the series had he felt able to play.

The scale of the assault on one of the few bright stars of the modern game beggars belief... and is perhaps beyond what any player could reasonably asked to survive: reminds me of the worst excesses of our newspapers as they hound ministers out of office.

Not sure the Aus-SL series will be worth watching without Murali though: Vaas is going to be left very, very exposed as pretty well the sum total of the attck - not good.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The scale of the assault on one of the few bright stars of the modern game beggars belief...

The scale of degrees of arm straightening that Murali has been allowed to get away with beggars belief...

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Zeke

The scale of degrees of arm straightening that Murali has been allowed to get away with beggars belief...

Difficult to argue with this, IMO.

[Rachael]

Possibly true.. but it's still recognisably a bowling action and not (say) a base-ball pitching action.. and the resulting deliveries provide today's batsmen with a stern examination of their abilities - examinations that no small number (including Mark Butcher) have passed.. and which some players one might expect to pass (including one G. Thorpe) have flunked.

Whilst the guy might be stretching the limits of tolerability a bit and gaining a bit of extra disguise / turn in doing so.. it strikes me that he's not posing questions that Test class batsmen shouldn't face.. not really endangering anyone.... and not so flagrantly stretching those limits (as, say, a team playing a baseball pitcher might) as to distract from the contest on offer.

I can see the case for bio-mechanics people working with him very regularly to encourage good practice... and reviewing video footage for signs of back-sliding... but right now I'd say International cricket needs him more than he needs International cricket: if he's reduced to merely playing where he feels the umpires will not be pressured into making such a peripheral issue headline news then we'll all lose out.

Bottom line: if the umpires and associated bods had been able to handle this discretely from day one (instead of making their thoughts public knowledge) and there had been a blanket ban on currently active cricketers discussing the matter then we wouldn't even be seeing discussions like this: none of us worried about degrees of flex until it was announced that virtually all bowlers flex their arms and that flex of less that 15 degrees was virtually undetectable with the naked eye... and before the current rows about acceptable limits exploded the whole issue across the back pages.

[Occasional Fan]

It's a view, Rachel, but one that I am afraid I wholeheartedly do not share. From the first time I saw him (only with the naked eye and only on TV), I have to say that I have been consistently shocked. I don't think the administrators are doing the game any favours at all in the way they have dealt with the whole issue. I have to be careful with what I say here, but one thing I can say safely is that I personally find it very difficult to stomach that this man is held out by the authorities as the leading wicket taker or a great cricketer. The fact that he continued to send down the doosra even when that was categorically ruled to be beyond the pale only makes me firmer in my view. We'll have to differ on this one, I guess.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I don't think the administrators are doing the game any favours at all in the way they have dealt with the whole issue.

Absolutely with you on that.

I've some sympathy with them as they do have an obligation to work with players wherever possbile, one or two strong-minded umpires have done their damndest to put the administrators between a rock and a hard place.. the bio-mechanics people have opened a huge can of worms... and the internal politics of the ICC have made decisive action with a universal mandate damn near impossible.

With all that said... they've allowed the whole thing to get completely out of hand, becoming hopelessly confrontational, raising passions where none is needed, driving out sympathy where lots is needed and leaving everyone, whatever their view, rather disatisfied.

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

We'll have to differ on this one, I guess.

Don't get me wrong: I've a lot of sympathy with your view. I'm a purist at heart and from a purely selfish point of view would much, much prefer to see a sport in which the highest possible standards are upheld: I'm just conscious that cricket needs to be a broad church to survive.. and that learning to live with compromise is very, very often of greater practical merit than we like to admit.

The fact that some degree of flex is now turning out to be pretty well ubiquitous.. somewhat tainting the whiter-than-white image of all who have gone before.. leaves us in a pickle: the purists option of zero flex might be possible in theory... and might be developed in practice if every youngster who learnt the game had access to facilities like the new academy.. but in the real world... it looks like flex is here to stay,

On that basis.. we're on to drawing lines.... and that strikes me as something that's always going to be a messy business and one that's going to take time to really address properly. In the mean time I worry that Muralitheran could end up being a victim of circumstance: it wil be no use to him if, 4-5 years down the road, following an enforced premature retirement that denied him his chance to shine, his action is moved within re-defined "acceptable limits" - better to tolerate him, let him weave his magic, let today's batsmen have a chance to prove themselves... and just revise the records further down the line at whatever point we finally sort out some sort of sustainable framework that can win near-universal assent.

I appreciate this course wouldn't be ideal.. and if the action posed mortal threat to the safety of another player (as it might if he were a fsat bowler) then I'd perhaps change my tune... but I can't see the bio-mechanics people and the administrators putting this issue to bed in a hurry... and feel we need to be patient in the interim.

[R W S]

Murali to fly to Sydney for promotional event

Wisden Cricinfo staff

June 21, 2004







Muttiah Muralitharan: off to Australia, but not to play cricket © AFP


After opting out of the two-Test series in Australia, Muttiah Muralitharan has revealed that he will tour Australia after all, but instead of playing cricket, he will be posing for the cameras and signing autographs. According to AAP, Kushil Gunasekara, Muralitharan's manager, confirmed that Murali would fly to Sydney to take part in a promotional event at around the same time that the Sri Lankan cricketers would be involved in the Test series.

"He has to go there and sign a photograph projecting him and [Shane] Warne as the spin twins of the 500-wicket club," Gunasekara was quoted as saying in Daily News, a Sri Lankan newspaper. "It is a promotional thing which is normally done in Australia during a Test series."

The series had earlier been touted as a clash between the two best spinners in the world, but Muralitharan has since pulled out due to personal reasons, while Warne's participation is also in doubt after he broke a bone in his left hand during a county game for Hampshire. Warne has since rated his chances as better than 50-50. If he does play, Warne, currently on 519 Test wickets, will have a good chance of going past Muralitharan's world record of 527.

© Wisden Cricinfo Ltd

[Occasional Fan]

Rachel - I appreciate the points you are making, but I have a feeling here that one of the factors which has at least contributed to the pickle which we have today is the over-use of technology (and I know that comment will raise hackles of some contributors to the board, but the main objector left us some weeks ago, so I'll let it stand). If the issue of determining illegal actions were left with the field umpires rather than being handed over to people with all sorts of "benefits" which the umpires can never have - by which I mean slo-mo replays and all the measuring equipment which the bio-mechanics people have - I think it would still be the case that Muralitharan gets no-balled a bit more often than some others. There may be many other bowlers in the game today who flex their arms a bit - perhaps there always were: however, if the umpire can't see it, and neither can the batsman or the spectators, then it is at least arguable that in those cases there is no problem to deal with. This is not quite the same as arguing that a tree falling in an empty forest makes no noise - I'm just arguing that, in this case, the umpire's (or batsman's or spectators') hearing is not acute enough to detect the noise. And if it's not detected and, as you put it, no-one comes to any harm, then I would say that there's no issue to deal with.

In Muralitharan's case - and he is not alone here - the umpires clearly have seen something amiss. I don't think that there is necessarily any discrimination against him just because he gets no-balled occasionally and A N Other does not: it could simply be that his action has something about it which looks odd and is just more visible than the problem's with A N Other's action. I think that is the case.

I accept your point that the administrators are required to work with players where problems are identified. This, in my view, is absolutely right. For the continuation of the game, it is essential that people who are playing (at any level) receive assistance to get within the laws if they are somehow straying outside them. The alternative is that players who have problems just leave the game, which can only be to the game's detriment if the problem is correctable. However, players must also take their share of responsibility, in particular by demonstrating a willingness to be helped. I am very disappointed when a test bowler, offered help (admittedly with a heavy hand), effectively tells the cricket world where to stick it by coming out and continuing to throw down the very balls which have been shown to be illegal. Somewhere else, I suggested to a poster than Muralitharan does not help himself sometimes, and the continued doosras are exactly what I had in mind when I said that. Any school coach would pretty soon give up with a schoolboy bowler who refuses to listen, and in the extreme case there is a possibility that the game's administrators will give up with Muralitharan.

I agree that cricket needs to be a broad church, but there is no one player who is bigger than the game, and I am getting irritated with the way the ICC seems to be changing the rules (or at least the interpretations) for one person. They are clearly comfortable with the laws as they stand - indeed they have said that they will not interfere with the laws themselves - so effectively, by putting out an interpretation, they are making one set of rules for the village green/club/school match and another for the game which, curiously in the context of this matter, we still refer to as "first-class". The line which you refer to has already been drawn - it's in the laws and requires no flex - and the ICC has stepped straight across it in my view.