budj said:
Like I said pace settler. Murali has been video tested alot, even more so recently.
What part of "they didnt use those results in comparison with the other testing" dont you understand/agree with? They can stick a camera next to him 24 hrs a day. It's nothing when they still use the lab results. And no, they have not yet tested him publicly like all the other bowlers/chuckers.
budj said:
Have a read (though u prolly cant understand singhalese) the news headlines about him. You'l prolly say that they are biased. Of course, every media outlet is iased man. Check the aus news headlines regarding murali, they tend to flow down your line of thought.
Too many assumptions there mate. I dont consider any media biased-just devoid of reliable information. The Aussie news reckon the whole thing is a scheme to get Murali free, although at the same time still acknowledging that unreliable video testing caught a lot of bowlers at the champs. trophy chucking. And here comes assumption number two. I dont agree with them. This media is just as guilty as any other I've seen so far in missing the fact that the investigation report hasnt even been released yet! They ramble on about who's a chucker, what's going to happen, etc etc-without even bothering about the testing/investigation itself. Right now I dont care whether Murali's a chucker or not. What's pissing me off is that everyone's assuming this, claiming that, based on evidence that isnt there. Be it the Aussie, Sri lankan, indian, pommie or kiwi media. Anything definitive that's said about anyone being a chucker is nothing more than rubbish and speculation-simply because that's all the information that's out there right now-i.e rubbish.
When Hair called Murali, a good proportion of the anti-Murali camp were guilty of assuming he was guilty, regardless of what science came up with. But I'd say the shoe's on the other foot now. Assumptions based on headlines; headlines about science-not the actual testing itself, method of testing, or consistency of method.
budj said:
But if the ICC do find Murali chucking like you said, then full respect to you man and I take all my comments back. But like i said, it is highly unlikely to happen.
Well as long as they use the same method of testing consistently on everyone I couldn't care less whether he was a chucker or not. However, if he gets found out chucking and banned I think it's going to tear a hole apart in cricket, and I'd say it would create more controversy than him staying. Regardless, chucker or not, I'd rather have us batting against him the next time we go to SL rather than just a one man bowling attack in Vaas-it'd be better for some of our flat-track bullys to get that kind of practise-whether it be legal or illegal.
budj said:
you say Murali is a drig cheat, an alcoholic (someone said that in their replies), bull shit. This is just some cock an bull Aus story to cover up the pain with Warnes pedopphilia, phone sex scandals, book making etc. Oh, and warne and his mum...lol the stories keep comming
That's a little bit rich coming from someone with such compassion for another singled-out spinner. Here's a brief summary of the major media stories behind these two in the recent past.
Popular opinion 1- "Murali is a blatant chucker who's too scared to bowl normally because he knows he'll get smashed"
Popular opinion 2- "Warnie is a pedophile/gigolo/smoker/gambler/cheat/druggie/all-round dickhead who blames his mum for everything."
Not so Popular opinion 1- "It's just an optical illusion, he's born with it, etc."
Not so Popular opinion 2- "He's actually an all-round top bloke once you meet him. He was trying to lose weight-he was honest about not knowing that diuretics were banned."
So what's it going to be? Stick with the popular opinions or the not-so-popular? Or does what country you come from matter now?
budj said:
Better wickets and better average does equate to a better bowler my brother.
The equation for a better cricketer at international level
Ambasador status + better bowler + better batter + better fielder = better cricketer
That's still oversimplifying. Quality of opposition, conditions played in, and amount of opportunity to bowl are also important factors.
And being an "ambassader" doesnt make you any better a cricketer in my books. Cricket's just a sport.