budj said:
Bro, people have done video testing on Murali aswell, and as I said, he was cited to be under limit (15 degrees for doosora). Therefore he would be tested under the same likes of Glen Mcgrath, and hence we can compare those test results. As stated by those results, it is evident that both Mcgrath and Murali have chucked, and that the current rule neds drastic refurbishment
Further, you say that a few ex-players...claims..., THe head of biomechanics supports this evidence and the need to revamp the rule. Yes he may of played cricket, thus making him an ex-player, but he does have a lot of validity about him.
There may have once been video testing on Murali, but video testing is inaccurate-hence they use lab results instead. Are you aware of how the "99% of bowlers are chuckers" comment came about? A spokesman for the testing team suggested that in THIS year's champion trophy, it was found that a few of the cleaner bowlers like Mcgrath and Pollock were over the existing limit. They then took out 30 year old tapes of Dennis Lillee and Co. and estimated that some of the more purer bowling actions of the time were also over. Based on this anecdotal kind of claim, some media mogel spread the 99% rumour around.
Now note, Murali did not participate in the Champion's trophy, and thus wasnt tested in this case. So where did the 14.8 come from? Dont ask me. They havent released the report yet. But I can take a good guess and say it was from lab testing, which is accurate, rather than video footage of ANOTHER series, which is inaccurate, and also a procedure that hasnt been taken for other bowlers who didnt bowl in the champion's trophy. SHANE WARNE for example. So I think that's a good guess. Of course, if that is the case, then there has been an inconsistency-not necessarily in the report or the testing-but in the media. For all you know, Murali could've have came in at 22 degrees had he played in the Champ's trophy. Or perhaps he may have miraculously bowled a couple of 3 degree non-chucking doosras had he been tested the same way as the other "99%"
(a figure which should actually lie closer to 1%).
budj said:
The ICC are highly likely to change the rule, therefore allowing Murali to bowl his doosora. No matter what is said on this thread. Further, it is more than likely that Muirali is going to overake warnie in wickets, thus being the better spin bowler.
And again, what if the ICC decide to review the level of straightening of every bowler in every match from now on, and find Murali bowling a 20 degree effort-doosra?
Without going into an argument on who's better, the amount of wickets alone doesnt consititute a better bowler. Surely your not saying that Warnie is the greatest bowler of all time right now, at least until Murali gets a couple more wickets, regardless of what opposition he bowled to? That's oversimplifying things, which I'm sure you'd agree.
budj said:
But as an aside, canyou all imagine warnie and Murali bowling in tandem in a team together. The best offie ever and the best leg spinner ever. Man that would kick.
But Murali is still the better bowler, and still the better person, thus culminating to him being the better cricketer
Although Warnie's getting a bit long in the tooth, I'm sure that could happen in a "best team V rest of the world" game.(i.e the one happening next september) Un/fortunately Australia is no.1 at the moment, so unless we lose 3-0 to Pakistan and 5-0 to England next year, with a loss to some minnow along the way, un/fortunately not.
Better Bowler + Better Batsmen + Better Fieldsmen, etc = Better Cricketer
