Murali Reinstated (1 Viewer)

[budj]

If you've still got that article, provide a link and then tell me where to find:

1. The author of the article and what he's based his claims on

2. Where in the article it says that the findings in that "video" study were used to compare the findings in the Champs Trophy. As far as I'm aware, the 14.8 degrees is his lab result-i.e the ones where he had all that electronic equipment on.

If there's a credible source he's based his claims on-eg. the ACTUAL INVESTIGATION REPORT that hasnt been released to the public yet, then it'd be fair to start talking about "innocence" and clearing. I've gone through the media of pretty much every country in the cricketing world, and this would be a first, so excuse my doubts about the legitimacy of this claim.

Doesnt matter if it's in another language.

Even then man, 14.8 degrees is still under the 15 degree limit which is should be set. Furthermore, uer the previous system it was unfai and unjust to use Murali in the spinners section, because the speed of his arm rotation is just as fast as many fast bowlers/ medium pacers.

 

[Pace Setter]

Bro its from "the observer" i think. It a snippet i have, and do you really want me to spell the name?? lol.

What it basically says is that Murali was trialed using thismethod and it came up with 14 degrees, it didn't go into decimals. Unfortunately i cannot provide the link, and because it is Sri Lankan, chances are that it wont be on the net, or translated.

14.8 degrees rounded to the nearest degree is 15. So let me get this one straight. He goes in a lab and bowls a doosra at 14.8 degrees-no pressure, no nothing. Then he goes out into a do-or-die match and decreases the chucking, consistently? I can "just" accept Murali as being a VERY honest person who bowls the same in a lab for testing as in a cutthroat situation. But mate-even Mother Theresa wouldn't go out of her way to chuck more whilst being tested than in a game that actually matters.

Either way, I'm highly doubtful of what this journo's basing his claims on. Gilchrist and Ponting a few months ago recommended that the chucking limit be raised, as well as getting Murali tested in match conditions. As you know, the limit has been raised, and at least an attempt has been made to rectify the chucking controversy by testing all the players in the Champs trophy. However, out of all the subcontinental, Aussie, kiwi and Pommie media I've read, none have gone so far in saying that MURALI has also been match tested. Rather, he has been video-tested within the lab itself. Now that means two things-

1. He has probably being tested using somewhat similar technology to everyone at the Champs trophy, and
2. It is still not a match scenario.

As far you or I know, he could've been bowling a 60km/h-70km/h doosra that lab, or a 90km/h one. This control on speed was not administered during those tests at Perth. The amount of turn on the doosra and various other matters concerning the ball and the batsmen playing it in the match were of course, also uncontrollable, let alone administered. Of course, don't expect the biomechanic do pick up on any relatively subtle change of speed or anything. He's not that kind of scientist.

 

[Pace Setter]

Well its not as accurate as lab testing thats for sure, but its still pretty much on the money man

When the likes of Mcgrath, Pollock, Giles, etc are only 1 degree away from being classified a non-chucker, a 3-4 degree variation does not make the method "on the money."

I'm referring to that 99% comment. How many players in this year's Champs trophy? I cant be bothered to check, but there's no chance that the number of players there is even near 30% of all bowlers in history, let alone 99%-even with the addition of a handful of all-time greats. Added with the fact that most of the suspected chuckers are borderline(i.e 1 or 2 degrees) under the old rules, and that with an system of testing that's said to vary either way by 3-4 degrees. Without even going into the inaccuracy of the testing method, the lack of the number of bowlers tested renders the "99% of bowlers are chuckers" comment as a media beat up-nothing more.I find it interesting how many gazillion page essays have been written on the "everyone is a chucker" topic when nearly all of it is based on a few generalisations and choice phrases from ex-players and commentators-neither of whom have given adequate information on the intricacies of the testing itself.

 

[budj]

When the likes of Mcgrath, Pollock, Giles, etc are only 1 degree away from being classified a non-chucker, a 3-4 degree variation does not make the method "on the money."

I'm referring to that 99% comment. How many players in this year's Champs trophy? I cant be bothered to check, but there's no chance that the number of players there is even near 30% of all bowlers in history, let alone 99%-even with the addition of a handful of all-time greats. Added with the fact that most of the suspected chuckers are borderline(i.e 1 or 2 degrees) under the old rules, and that with an system of testing that's said to vary either way by 3-4 degrees. Without even going into the inaccuracy of the testing method, the lack of the number of bowlers tested renders the "99% of bowlers are chuckers" comment as a media beat up-nothing more.I find it interesting how many gazillion page essays have been written on the "everyone is a chucker" topic when nearly all of it is based on a few generalisations and choice phrases from ex-players and commentators-neither of whom have given adequate information on the intricacies of the testing itself.

Havent you heard the 7:30 news etract from the head of biomechanics in Australia bro, i watched it, and their again was the 99% chucker claim.
Well basically it is extrapolation. In the champions trphy, you get a large cross-section of the bowler populous in international standard cricket.

3-4 degree variation does not make the method "on the money."

Where did you get the 3-4 degree variation part from?

But mate-even Mother Theresa wouldn't go out of her way to chuck more whilst being tested than in a game that actually matters.

How do you justify that extra arm bendage constitues a better bowl? Yes i agree it sounds logical but have you actually tried it yourself. With murali's arm speed rotation, axial flexibility of his wrist, fused elbow bone etc, the arm bendage, as quoted again by a biomechanics professor, it wil be a hindrance, and lack potenaial control of the ball, therefore being disadvantageous in a cut-throat match situation

Mother Theresa

Dude you can insult me as much as you like, but not a legend like Mother Theresa. All that she has done for the world, her momory deserves full res p e c t. lol, and why use that analogy? Perhaps if you wanted to make a statement, try pauline hansen, lol, but not Mother Theresa...

Of course, don't expect the biomechanic do pick up on any relatively subtle change of speed or anything. He's not that kind of scientist.

bio MECHANIST. MECHANIST... Ofcourse he will be checking the speed. remember, bio MECHANIST. It is a field of research which combines the study of biology in conjunction with physics. Mechanics is a special field of hysics, if you do four unit, or have studied the old physics course, or engineering studies, deals with circular motion, angular velocity, etc. Therefore they are that kind of scientist that measure speed, along with other phenomenon previouslymentioned within this thread, and another thread stated "Murali".

 

[Pace Setter]

Havent you heard the 7:30 news etract from the head of biomechanics in Australia bro, i watched it, and their again was the 99% chucker claim.
Well basically it is extrapolation. In the champions trphy, you get a large cross-section of the bowler populous in international standard cricket.

And it doesnt take away from the fact that 99% is JUST an assumption/estimation-based on an unreliable testing method. I've got no problem if you or anyone else says "99% of bowlers POSSIBLY chuck". I also have no problem if you say "99% of bowlers PROBABLY chuck."(although I may also call you patriotic if you say this). But saying that "99% of bowlers DO/DEFINITELY chuck...and there's no two ways about it," etc, whilst quoting it like a statistic is either being ignorant, dumb or an assumer (which I'd say is the worst thing to be.) Here's an irrelevant but interesting fact; the bowlers found with the least amount of angle were legspinners-i.e Sarwan, who was found with no arm-bend at all and Giles, who failed the 5 degree limit, but only marginally like so many other alleged chuckers. I might also repeat that Warne wasnt tested. Just about anyone who claims the 99% to be gospel are also types who like to ignore facts, laugh at umbrella logic based on facts, and worship generalisations that sound good. Yes I'm also generalising here, but you get the point.

Where did you get the 3-4 degree variation part from?

From a quote in a couple of articles when this new saga began. Honestly I've gone through so many articles and unofficial reports on this that I cant find the source. I dont think it was the aussie mainstream media though, as they were more intent on telling everyone that "the chucker's being freed" rather than the nature of the testing itself-which requires more comprehensive testing. They can't wait for that. My very rough estimate is that it's from a Pommie news source-but that's an extremely rough guess. Keep in mind here that it was a quote, rather than a media headline aka generalisation.

How do you justify that extra arm bendage constitues a better bowl? Yes i agree it sounds logical but have you actually tried it yourself. With murali's arm speed rotation, axial flexibility of his wrist, fused elbow bone etc, the arm bendage, as quoted again by a biomechanics professor, it wil be a hindrance, and lack potenaial control of the ball, therefore being disadvantageous in a cut-throat match situation

For starters I'm quite sure that when you have more leeway to bend/straighten your arm, you have better control of the ball. With a greater angle, greater pace also results, I think. The clearest example is the doosra itself. It requires a much greater angle than his stock delivery. Heck, if the extra angle resulted in less control, he could always bowl at his previous, non-chucking angle. So tell me why he would bowl a ball with less control, at a GREATER angle, when he knows he's been tested for chucking in the lab?

You cant tell me that one his deliveries bowled at 60-70km/h requires less of an angle than a delivery at 90km/h. My hope is that next test series he plays, they make sure the match isnt fixed, then fix 100 cameras on the boundary angled in at his arm. If he doesnt cross 15 degrees that test match, you can start burning anyone who still reckons he's a chucker. If he gets over, say 18-19 degrees, I think someone owes a few batsmen some apologies.

Dude you can insult me as much as you like, but not a legend like Mother Theresa. All that she has done for the world, her momory deserves full res p e c t. lol, and why use that analogy? Perhaps if you wanted to make a statement, try pauline hansen, lol, but not Mother Theresa...

How did I insult her? I needed an example of someone who was renowned for a high sense of morals.

bio MECHANIST. MECHANIST... Ofcourse he will be checking the speed. remember, bio MECHANIST. It is a field of research which combines the study of biology in conjunction with physics. Mechanics is a special field of hysics, if you do four unit, or have studied the old physics course, or engineering studies, deals with circular motion, angular velocity, etc. Therefore they are that kind of scientist that measure speed, along with other phenomenon previouslymentioned within this thread, and another thread stated "Murali".

1. a. A Car Mechanic is involved in field of fixing other people's cars, which can involve the engine, suspension, breaks, etc. When you take your car to the mechanic give them a certain amount of cash to fix/check your engine, they dont usually bother with suspension, breaks etc, especially when they dont LOOK to the naked eye to be too bad.

b. Adam Gilchrist is a cricket player who plays for Western Australia. Eventually he's going to retire from International cricket and most likely play there. He's involved in wicket-keeping and batting. However, WA has two other reasonable keepers in Campbell and Ronchi, who are arguably better keepers than Gilchrist. Although Gilchrist is fairly accomplished behind the stumps, when he goes back to Wa, there is a likely chance that he'll only be asked to bat, regardless of his other talent in his game.

Anyway I've gone way over the top. The point is, the biomechanic expert was asked to assess whether Murali chucked his stock ball and doosra. It's unlikely he's much of a cricketing fanatic, (although that's still possible) and thus wouldnt have had too many suspicions on whether Murali was bowling slower or not, especially when the change was only subtle as compared to what can be seen on TV. Furthermore, he was not asked to utilise his skill in this area. In addition,

2. Measuring the difference between a 60-70km/h ball and a 90km/h ball without a speed gun(which incidentally was the case) is a bit difficult, even if you're the most qualified and skilful biomechanic expert in the world. Dont assume that he utilised machinery to check his speed-it wasnt in any article or report that I've, and most likely you've read. That kind of evidence on his speed being "normal" during lab testing (i.e 90km/h?) has also failed to surface from anyone else in the "pro-Murali" camp I've come across. Show me information that refutes this- or at least say that you've read an official report saying exactly that.

 

[blackfriday]

i think the murali lover has lost

 

[TruthIsOutThere]

I think the Aussies are just cry-babies, they can't heck it when someone bowls well and rip their batting line-up apart.. everytime that happens, they either accuse the curator making the pitch unbattable or the bowler being a chucker...

Why go through all these accusations of chucking, just play the game and settle things on the field. Stop whining!!

 

[budj]

Just about anyone who claims the 99% to be gospel are also types who like to ignore facts, laugh at umbrella logic based on facts, and worship generalisations that sound good.

THe 99% of chuckers is essentially a quote aswell, as is the 3-4 variance part, therefore according to your analysis, it is sam standard.

And it doesnt take away from the fact that 99% is JUST an assumption/estimation-based on an unreliable testing method. I've got no problem if you or anyone else says "99% of bowlers POSSIBLY chuck". I also have no problem if you say "99% of bowlers PROBABLY chuck."(although I may also call you patriotic if you say this). But saying that "99% of bowlers DO/DEFINITELY chuck...and there's no two ways about it," etc, whilst quoting it like a statistic is either being ignorant, dumb or an assumer (which I'd say is the worst thing to be.) Here's an irrelevant but interesting fact; the bowlers found with the least amount of angle were legspinners-i.e Sarwan, who was found with no arm-bend at all and Giles, who failed the 5 degree limit, but only marginally like so many other alleged chuckers. I might also repeat that Warne wasnt tested. Just about anyone who claims the 99% to be gospel are also types who like to ignore facts, laugh at umbrella logic based on facts, and worship generalisations that sound good. Yes I'm also generalising here, but you get the point.

lol you know what is funny, (without attacking you opersonaly), i get hammered by my pub cricket team saying that anybod who bends their arm a little bit are chuckers. lol, then the 99% rule will stand clear do you agree?

For starters I'm quite sure that when you have more leeway to bend/straighten your arm, you have better control of the ball. With a greater angle, greater pace also results, I think. The clearest example is the doosra itself. It requires a much greater angle than his stock delivery. Heck, if the extra angle resulted in less control, he could always bowl at his previous, non-chucking angle. So tell me why he would bowl a ball with less control, at a GREATER angle, when he knows he's been tested for chucking in the lab?

You cant tell me that one his deliveries bowled at 60-70km/h requires less of an angle than a delivery at 90km/h. My hope is that next test series he plays, they make sure the match isnt fixed, then fix 100 cameras on the boundary angled in at his arm. If he doesnt cross 15 degrees that test match, you can start burning anyone who still reckons he's a chucker. If he gets over, say 18-19 degrees, I think someone owes a few batsmen some apologies.

Okay have you ever watched the cricket with Murali playing and bowling his dosara? If you compare this with his stock bowl, ou will see that the speed of the ball reduces say about 15 km/h pretty consistently.

Obviously you do not know the degree of control with with murali can flex/ rotate his wrist. It is phenomenal. And at greater speed, hte extent of this, in couple with the faster arm rotation speed, converts to lesser control ovr the ball. So what i am saying is that for you, like you sy to me, do not judge based upon generilisation, unless supported by scientific thruth/ merit.

About mother theresa, I'm not going to go further with tis, but what i can tell you is to read your reply carefully and judge for yourself whether you haveinsuyltde her memory. Read the thread carfeully.

1. a. A Car Mechanic is involved in field of fixing other people's cars, which can involve the engine, suspension, breaks, etc. When you take your car to the mechanic give them a certain amount of cash to fix/check your engine, they dont usually bother with suspension, breaks etc, especially when they dont LOOK to the naked eye to be too bad.

A car mechanic is totally different from a bio mechanics professor. For instance, thy are not as highly qualified, and an other, they are not aptly trained in the sciences as are these professionals.

Bio mechanists are highly trained in their field of research. They do not disregard facts just because,to thenaked eye, they don't look bad, as is the case you were alluding towards, rathre, they use thescientific method, as does any qualified scientist, to test the hypothesis in place, i.e. {murali throws his doosara}, and tests it rigorously, with a degree of repeatability to add reliability to fast hand data collected.

Anyway I've gone way over the top. The point is, the biomechanic expert was asked to assess whether Murali chucked his stock ball and doosra. It's unlikely he's much of a cricketing fanatic, (although that's still possible) and thus wouldnt have had too many suspicions on whether Murali was bowling slower or not, especially when the change was only subtle as compared to what can be seen on TV. Furthermore, he was not asked to utilise his skill in this area. In addition

Obviosly in the scientific method you have to control all necessary variables, and you have to impose controls. It therefore must be {but you can say it is an assumption}, that they have indeed tested murali's bowling speed, because obviously he can vary it t suit his degree of angle, which the Australian bio mechanics professo, would of noted.

Remember, "Australian" biomechanics professor. THerefore it is highly likely that he knows about the game of cricket as much as you or me.

2. Measuring the difference between a 60-70km/h ball and a 90km/h ball without a speed gun(which incidentally was the case) is a bit difficult, even if you're the most qualified and skilful biomechanic expert in the world. Dont assume that he utilised machinery to check his speed-it wasnt in any article or report that I've, and most likely you've read. That kind of evidence on his speed being "normal" during lab testing (i.e 90km/h?) has also failed to surface from anyone else in the "pro-Murali" camp I've come across. Show me information that refutes this- or at least say that you've read an official report saying exactly that.

The ICC are not a corrupt body or organisational hierachy which some people on this thread make him out to be {n.b. i do not include yourself pace setter, in this lemma}. THey are cricketing experts and therefore know a fair bit about it. It dosen't just include subcontinental members, rather, from each test playing nation their is a contingent. Obviosly they have thoroughyly analysed the data, (which has not been released in the official report- and i don't think it will ever be released for the public's scruitiny) and they are not stupid.

They would also have read the media outlets, and formulated viewpoints regarding this contencious issue. ...

It must be noted that this case has been thoroughly analysed, and what I am saying is that if the experts (biomechanics, cricketing players etc), define murali as non-chucking, then they must have legitimacy to their claims. I do not intend to questionupon the basis of their testing because the fieldwork regarding biomechanicalanalysis, and video footage methods are beyond the reach of my level. Going beyond the topic, that is why I do not intend to question the big bang theory ithout for myself, thoroughly understanding the mechanics of such a theory, the mathematical rigour of its hypthesis etc.

 

[budj]

i think the murali lover has lost

lol you are pathetic. If you don't have anything valuable to contribute to this thread, then dont post again herewith, unless you can argue a case for the affirmative or the negative.

 

[Pace Setter]

THe 99% of chuckers is essentially a quote aswell, as is the 3-4 variance part, therefore according to your analysis, it is sam standard.

For starters the 3-4 degree quote relates to a technical aspect of the game-i.e testing, it has not yet been refuted or proven incorrect. The 99% quote is a comment that can be refuted-by the fact alone that not close to 99% of bowlers have yet been tested. There's this thing in science- it goes something like this- "A theory is true until it's basis has been proven incorrect." With the 3-4 degree quote, I've got no idea what they're basing it on. It could be a hard fact that a camera 50-100 metres away from the bowler's arm tends to be alittle inaccurate, or it could just be an estimate. On the other hand, the 99% quote is based on an estimation-i.e there is no solid base for it's claim. In summary, neither quote as I know has been completely proven incorrect, one quote's base is unknown to probably most on this forum, whilst the other's base is known, and is understood to be less than reliable.

Either way, you realise the fault in preaching "99% of bowlers are chuckers" as if it were a statistic, yes?

lol you know what is funny, (without attacking you opersonaly), i get hammered by my pub cricket team saying that anybod who bends their arm a little bit are chuckers. lol, then the 99% rule will stand clear do you agree

That's a ridiculous claim. We all know that if they're chucking at less than 10 degrees it's within acceptable limit in the old rules. (for a fast bowler)

Okay have you ever watched the cricket with Murali playing and bowling his dosara? If you compare this with his stock bowl, ou will see that the speed of the ball reduces say about 15 km/h pretty consistently.

Obviously you do not know the degree of control with with murali can flex/ rotate his wrist. It is phenomenal. And at greater speed, hte extent of this, in couple with the faster arm rotation speed, converts to lesser control ovr the ball. So what i am saying is that for you, like you sy to me, do not judge based upon generilisation, unless supported by scientific thruth/ merit.

Who said that his doosra was faster than his stock ball? All that's been said is the undisputed fact that he requires a significantly greater arm angle to bowl his doosra than his stock delivery. And at his supposed doosra angle (14.8 deg.), he is able to bowl something which he does not have the ability to do at a much smaller arm angle. That's what I call extra control.

Either way, here's what you seem to be saying. At 75km/h you reckon he bowls the doosra at, say 14.8 degrees. Then down at 60km/h, because he has lesser control of the ball, he needs to bowl at greater than 14.8 degrees to keep bowling straight? And at 40km/h, he's going be literally sending them down baseball-style because he's got absolutely no control of it at 14.8 degrees? No, dont compare the speed of the doosra to the speed of the stock ball. I'm comparing the arm angle of a slower doosra which I think he bowled during testing, to a faster, 75km/h (?) doosra in a test match/ODI. Mate, if you can get a scientist to prove that he has to increase his arm angle the slower his doosra gets, I'll send to your house a cheque of $200 with the words "Murali is God" on the back of it.

About mother theresa, I'm not going to go further with tis, but what i can tell you is to read your reply carefully and judge for yourself whether you haveinsuyltde her memory. Read the thread carfeully.

Perhaps you should, also. i reiterate-even someone with personal standards as high as Mother Theresa(if she played cricket), would not go in a lab and start deliberately trying to chuck when tested for chucking, and then go back into a real game and start bowling normally again. Not every sentence that doesnt call her a "legend" is an insult to her.

A car mechanic is totally different from a bio mechanics professor. For instance, thy are not as highly qualified, and an other, they are not aptly trained in the sciences as are these professionals.

Bio mechanists are highly trained in their field of research. They do not disregard facts just because,to thenaked eye, they don't look bad, as is the case you were alluding towards, rathre, they use thescientific method, as does any qualified scientist, to test the hypothesis in place, i.e. {murali throws his doosara}, and tests it rigorously, with a degree of repeatability to add reliability to fast hand data collected.



Obviosly in the scientific method you have to control all necessary variables, and you have to impose controls. It therefore must be {but you can say it is an assumption}, that they have indeed tested murali's bowling speed, because obviously he can vary it t suit his degree of angle, which the Australian bio mechanics professo, would of noted.

Remember, "Australian" biomechanics professor. THerefore it is highly likely that he knows about the game of cricket as much as you or me.

And at the end of all the testing, the claim that they came up with something like "Murali CAN bowl a doosra without chucking," "Our technology is state of the art in determining chucking"-not exact quotes of course. He was asked by the relevant authorities to do exactly that, to see if Murali COULD bowl a doosra. Now so far I've read the grand total of ONE report that includes anything about the speed he was bowling at. An aussie-centric source said he was bowling at around 40-45 miles/h which is only about 60 something km/h. Either way, I dont believe this source, considering the fact that nowhere have I seen a report saying that speed guns or any kind of speed controls were administered during the testing. And I'm not going to start assuming, that just because he's a scientist with credibility in measuring speed, that he would administer this form of control when his job in testing Murali's doosra does NOT, as far as I've read, require ANYTHING other than to test whether there's such thing as a legal doosra or not.

Just because the biomechanic is Aussie doesnt mean he follows cricket. There are a bit over 20 million Australian citizens, and nowhere near all of them know much about cricket past the mainstream media headlines. Saying that he does follow cricket is certainly a possibility, but saying that it's a certainty is about as accurate as saying "99% of bowlers chuck."

The ICC are not a corrupt body or organisational hierachy which some people on this thread make him out to be {n.b. i do not include yourself pace setter, in this lemma}. THey are cricketing experts and therefore know a fair bit about it. It dosen't just include subcontinental members, rather, from each test playing nation their is a contingent. Obviosly they have thoroughyly analysed the data, (which has not been released in the official report- and i don't think it will ever be released for the public's scruitiny) and they are not stupid.

They are not stupid? I don't see what the problem is in releasing the official report, now that they've called the likes of Mcgrath and Pollock chuckers. I guess they're real smart in that they've been quick to puiblicly find so many players guilty in breachnig the rules, yet are hesitant/unwilling to release any credible evidence against them.

I heard that there's this new video out that proves Murali is clean, and proves it so comprehensively that any Murali hater would be converted instantly. The funny thing is here is that hardly any non-ICC member/ex-players have seen it. The ICC's a funny organisation. Not necessarily corrupt. Not necessarily money-driven. Just funny. They keep telling everyone that they've got such clear-cut evidence and such definitive proof as to clearing Murali forever, in the minds of both umpires, players and fans alike. Yet no-one outside they're administration and close links are "worthy" enough to see it!.

It must be noted that this case has been thoroughly analysed, and what I am saying is that if the experts (biomechanics, cricketing players etc), define murali as non-chucking, then they must have legitimacy to their claims. I do not intend to questionupon the basis of their testing because the fieldwork regarding biomechanicalanalysis, and video footage methods are beyond the reach of my level. Going beyond the topic, that is why I do not intend to question the big bang theory ithout for myself, thoroughly understanding the mechanics of such a theory, the mathematical rigour of its hypthesis etc.

The biomechanics have done the job they were asked. This never included whether Murali had ever chucked in a match or not, only whether he was CAPABLE of not-chucking in regards to the rules in place.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the Big Bang, but doesnt the "multi-world" theories, etc refute the "big bang was the beginning of everything" hypothesis if proven to be correct? The basis of science is to always question your own and other's theories, always believing that somewhere out there, somewhere in the lab, you will find the evidence to disprove your own or any other theory in place. Accepting the Big Bang as gospel without understanding it to a relatively competent degree is the same crime as dismissing it as wrong without knowing anything about it, which similarly is an equal crime to accepting a theory on everyone chucking without a relatively high degree of knowledge. Accepting something without all or at least most of the facts is not called "following science," it's called RELIGION.

 

[Skip]

I couldn't be bothered reading all your posts Pace Setter. What's your stance on all this?

 

[zahid]

i think the murali lover has lost

I think you should SHUT THE FUCK UP.

 

[budj]

lol skip, tat cricket web forum site, thats pretty much the BoS layout isnt it? lol

 

[Pace Setter]

I couldn't be bothered reading all your posts Pace Setter. What's your stance on all this?

Sitting on the fence with one eye opened a bit wider than the other

 

[blackfriday]

I think you should SHUT THE FUCK UP.

well the evidence is against murali and even the prime minister thinks he chucks. common sense would dictate that murali is a chucker and should be the only one ever to bowl like that if we cant ban him.

 

[ZeGoat]

I think you should SHUT THE FUCK UP.

yeh shutup tim

 

[RUB!X]

shit zegoat and budj are a nasty combination ... this threads gonna get ugly EDIT: uglier ...

 

[Seraph]

well the evidence is against murali and even the prime minister thinks he chucks. common sense would dictate that murali is a chucker and should be the only one ever to bowl like that if we cant ban him.

Yea and the fucken prime minister knows all about cricket.. he should shut the fuck up and stick to running the country. What a dipshit.

lowest political tactic ever my god..


and no this does not reflect my view of Murali.... uhh anyway you can get back to this issue -_-

 

[budj]

For starters the 3-4 degree quote relates to a technical aspect of the game-i.e testing, it has not yet been refuted or proven incorrect. The 99% quote is a comment that can be refuted-by the fact alone that not close to 99% of bowlers have yet been tested. There's this thing in science- it goes something like this- "A theory is true until it's basis has been proven incorrect." With the 3-4 degree quote, I've got no idea what they're basing it on. It could be a hard fact that a camera 50-100 metres away from the bowler's arm tends to be alittle inaccurate, or it could just be an estimate. On the other hand, the 99% quote is based on an estimation-i.e there is no solid base for it's claim. In summary, neither quote as I know has been completely proven incorrect, one quote's base is unknown to probably most on this forum, whilst the other's base is known, and is understood to be less than reliable

Yes I agree it isn't 100% reliable, but by analysing the bowling in the champions trophy, simple extrapolation should dictate. In many scientific endeavours, one cannot check all possible objects to fit in. Like testing whether all cats have, say, certain enzyme. THat would be impracticable. Furthrmore, like you have said to me before, we will have to wait until the official report is released to know the legitamacy about the 3-4 degree variation factor.

That's a ridiculous claim. We all know that if they're chucking at less than 10 degrees it's within acceptable limit in the old rules. (for a fast bowler)

Its not a ridiculous claim if you analyse my quote completely in the context that it was argued.

I won't bring the mther theresa topic to surface again but if you want to know why it is an insult to her memory i can pm you.

[/QUOTE]Who said that his doosra was faster than his stock ball? All that's been said is the undisputed fact that he requires a significantly greater arm angle to bowl his doosra than his stock delivery. And at his supposed doosra angle (14.8 deg.), he is able to bowl something which he does not have the ability to do at a much smaller arm angle. That's what I call extra control.

Either way, here's what you seem to be saying. At 75km/h you reckon he bowls the doosra at, say 14.8 degrees. Then down at 60km/h, because he has lesser control of the ball, he needs to bowl at greater than 14.8 degrees to keep bowling straight? And at 40km/h, he's going be literally sending them down baseball-style because he's got absolutely no control of it at 14.8 degrees? No, dont compare the speed of the doosra to the speed of the stock ball. I'm comparing the arm angle of a slower doosra which I think he bowled during testing, to a faster, 75km/h (?) doosra in a test match/ODI. Mate, if you can get a scientist to prove that he has to increase his arm angle the slower his doosra gets, I'll send to your house a cheque of $200 with the words "Murali is God" on the back of it.

You seem to have misunderstood my reasoning. I am saying that, due to murali's flexibility. axial rotation capabilities of his wrist, his arm speed (being equal to and greater than a med. pacer), it is idiotic for him to bowl a doosara at high speeds (say 90 kn.h), which deviates from his match average speeds. {considering into account what you say about an effot bowl being bowledat a much faster speed}. therefore what i am saying is that the faster the delivery he intends to bowl at, the less control murali has, therefore the hihgher degree of arm bendage needed.

And at the end of all the testing, the claim that they came up with something like "Murali CAN bowl a doosra without chucking," "Our technology is state of the art in determining chucking"-not exact quotes of course. He was asked by the relevant authorities to do exactly that, to see if Murali COULD bowl a doosra. Now so far I've read the grand total of ONE report that includes anything about the speed he was bowling at. An aussie-centric source said he was bowling at around 40-45 miles/h which is only about 60 something km/h. Either way, I dont believe this source, considering the fact that nowhere have I seen a report saying that speed guns or any kind of speed controls were administered during the testing. And I'm not going to start assuming, that just because he's a scientist with credibility in measuring speed, that he would administer this form of control when his job in testing Murali's doosra does NOT, as far as I've read, require ANYTHING other than to test whether there's such thing as a legal doosra or not.

Of course they would have had to check the legitamacy of the dosara. That is wy the ICC wanted the investigation. AS you said / implied, can & will have very different meanings. I have too rad reports which state that murali's bowling action, for the doosara is legit. They seem to be reliable as they quote scientific data to support their claims, which we are forced to assume true.

Just because the biomechanic is Aussie doesnt mean he follows cricket. There are a bit over 20 million Australian citizens, and nowhere near all of them know much about cricket past the mainstream media headlines. Saying that he does follow cricket is certainly a possibility, but saying that it's a certainty is about as accurate as saying "99% of bowlers chuck."

If you read what i have written completey, you would have noted i said, highly likely. I have been living in Aust for nearly 15 years now, and I know Aussies love sport, and sicnce cricket is pretty much the major summer sport occuring, therefore it is highly likely, that a biomechanist testing Murali, would have a background of pretty sufficient knowledge of the game, and more particularly, of bowling technique.

They are not stupid? I don't see what the problem is in releasing the official report, now that they've called the likes of Mcgrath and Pollock chuckers. I guess they're real smart in that they've been quick to puiblicly find so many players guilty in breachnig the rules, yet are hesitant/unwilling to release any credible evidence against them.

I heard that there's this new video out that proves Murali is clean, and proves it so comprehensively that any Murali hater would be converted instantly. The funny thing is here is that hardly any non-ICC member/ex-players have seen it. The ICC's a funny organisation. Not necessarily corrupt. Not necessarily money-driven. Just funny. They keep telling everyone that they've got such clear-cut evidence and such definitive proof as to clearing Murali forever, in the minds of both umpires, players and fans alike. Yet no-one outside they're administration and close links are "worthy" enough to see it!.

How many official body's never ever release official reports on their findings? THeir are millions and millions. There are rules governing sch release of data into public scrutiny,which must be analysed before releasing. Even so, have you ever read an official report (and by official can you clarify what exactly you are saying. Does it have to be endorsed and signed by the relevant organisations involved?)

Again , there will be a shit load of video footage of Murali, and data analysis. They could release any amount of this to help my case from the "pro murli camp", if you like.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the Big Bang, but doesnt the "multi-world" theories, etc refute the "big bang was the beginning of everything" hypothesis if proven to be correct? The basis of science is to always question your own and other's theories, always believing that somewhere out there, somewhere in the lab, you will find the evidence to disprove your own or any other theory in place. Accepting the Big Bang as gospel without understanding it to a relatively competent degree is the same crime as dismissing it as wrong without knowing anything about it, which similarly is an equal crime to accepting a theory on everyone chucking without a relatively high degree of knowledge. Accepting something without all or at least most of the facts is not called "following science," it's called RELIGION.

Perhaps i should make my self much more clearer when replying to you pace setter, since you seem to read thoroughly what I have written. (i did not expand my self inmm any places due to the confinements of time), anyay, i do not accept the big bang as gospel, and No i have not heard of the multi world theories. What i m saying s that we have to go with he data presented ( for the laymen especially, not for trained scientists, or those with a high intellectual capacity such as Einstein and the likes of newton), with what experts in their related field are saying about the issue concered. Latlely i watched the documentary about string theory, relating intricately the big and the small. have no clue whats going on, in terms of fully understanding the topic, but rather, I do not want to question it, YET, as I lack the sufficient knowledge, data analysis techniques, etc, to support any negative claims against such hyopothesis.

..which is similarly a crime to accepting the 3-4 degree variation without understanding error magnitudes of data gathering techniques in place. which is a similar crime to...I cn go on forever man...

In physics we study relativity. We assume it is correct, without going into the details greatly. Similarly i am assuming that the statements by biomechanispreffessors are correct, and the TV interview reports by players and ICC officials witnessing such events is also correct.

 

[ZeGoat]

shit zegoat and budj are a nasty combination ... this threads gonna get ugly EDIT: uglier ...

lol its good to kno that ppl still remember me.... but im gonna stay out of it for a while yet...... got to many assessment task at da moment to keep comin a nd replyin every 5mins or so...:/