Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12th March 2017, 14:40   #41
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedon View Post
Perhaps, but I don't see how, as that would literally amount to banning every spin bowler and every spin "bowler" in the world.
I think that's more or less what happened. Slow bowlers were only allowed if they didn't spin it.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2017, 21:19   #42
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think that's more or less what happened. Slow bowlers were only allowed if they didn't spin it.
Are you implying that England's selection policy with regards to spin bowling is related to Giles Clarke's secret dealings with James Sutherland and N.Srinivisan a few years back?
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 03:39   #43
elven highlord
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,255
Muttiah Muralitharan is the only acceptable answer for me. Several fast bowlers sit at the top of the tree with similar statistics, but he is peerless among spin bowlers. His outstanding performance over an enormous workload is unparalleled in cricket history. No individual player in my lifetime has skewed contests the way he did.
elven highlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 07:03   #44
thedon
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think that's more or less what happened. Slow bowlers were only allowed if they didn't spin it.
Your conspiracy theory could have merit.

An equally plausuble possibility is that the ICC has suddenly developed some wierd aesthetic phobia of the javelin, or of anything that could resemble a set square.
__________________
carpe diem quam minimum credula postero
thedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 07:10   #45
thedon
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Nice one.

"Cornswaggle" is a new one on me. Is its meaning at all to do with what may be produced, in their own self-interest, by those wishing to bamboozle others?
Urban dictionary defines it as a poorly thought out or unconvincing scam. Though as a made up slang word with no real definition it probably only needs context to give it meaning anyway. lol.
__________________
carpe diem quam minimum credula postero
thedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 12:18   #46
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 9,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by elven highlord View Post
Muttiah Muralitharan is the only acceptable answer for me. Several fast bowlers sit at the top of the tree with similar statistics, but he is peerless among spin bowlers. His outstanding performance over an enormous workload is unparalleled in cricket history. No individual player in my lifetime has skewed contests the way he did.
Also, no other bowler was allowed to get away with such an action over such an extended period of time.

Warne is probably the best spin bowler of recent times.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 15:34   #47
thedon
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 984
Whatever the reason for the ICC now clamping down on chuckers (Aus conspiracy lol), it's a good thing IMO. It does seem unfair after they let others do it recently, and it is holding bowlers to different standards than they would have been not too long ago, but there is an obvious reason for that. It looks like the "injury/deformity" bs clause was only temporary, and should never have been there to begin with. You either chuck or you don't.
__________________
carpe diem quam minimum credula postero
thedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 16:31   #48
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 9,305
The obvious reason being to avoid a schism in world cricket and for the people at the ICC to hang on to their jobs.

It's quite surprising how many people were taken in by the ICC's "independent" report at the time.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 18:40   #49
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 875
Warne
Murali
Roberts
Holding
Marshall
Botham
Hadlee
Lillee
McGrath
Akram
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 19:59   #50
billyguntheballs
County Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by elven highlord View Post
Muttiah Muralitharan is the only acceptable answer for me. Several fast bowlers sit at the top of the tree with similar statistics, but he is peerless among spin bowlers. His outstanding performance over an enormous workload is unparalleled in cricket history. No individual player in my lifetime has skewed contests the way he did.
Murali truly is one of the upper tier greats and you are right, his work load in a very mediocre bowling line up was immense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Also, no other bowler was allowed to get away with such an action over such an extended period of time.

Warne is probably the best spin bowler of recent times.
Once again, Murali had a hyperextension of the elbows which even medical science can not fix. He was gievn an exemption due to that. You can keep twisting it however you like but facts are facts.
__________________

I can accept failure...I can not accept not trying again.
billyguntheballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 19:59   #51
billyguntheballs
County Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedon View Post
Whatever the reason for the ICC now clamping down on chuckers (Aus conspiracy lol), it's a good thing IMO. It does seem unfair after they let others do it recently, and it is holding bowlers to different standards than they would have been not too long ago, but there is an obvious reason for that. It looks like the "injury/deformity" bs clause was only temporary, and should never have been there to begin with. You either chuck or you don't.
Why not? If someone is born with a partciular issue or has an accident causing it, they should not be allowed to work any longer?
__________________

I can accept failure...I can not accept not trying again.
billyguntheballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 20:43   #52
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 9,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyguntheballs View Post
...Murali had a hyperextension of the elbows which even medical science can not fix. He was gievn an exemption due to that. You can keep twisting it however you like but facts are facts.
Except when they are not.

Hyperextension is nothing to do with flexing, or straightening, of the lower arm at the elbow after it reaches the level of the shoulder (contrary to the laws of the game). It describes what happens after it becomes straight.

The hyperextension thing was a ruse designed to avert a crisis at the ICC and the myth lives on, I see.

Last edited by D/L : 13th March 2017 at 21:05.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 20:53   #53
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,721
Murali actually has a fixed flextion deformity of his elbow (his arm is permanently bent at the elbow). Not sure where you got hyperextension from, which is an almost opposite phenomenon where there is excess movement in the elbow joint so that it straightens beyond the normal with the arm then actually bending back on itself (so moving further than normal the other way). Fixed flexion gives the illusion of chucking, because the eye sees a bend and assumes it will straighten later in the action, whereas hyperextension makes throwing more likely, as the arm straightens beyond the err straight position.

As usual on this topic, there's a lot of stating of positions that are more fixed even than Murali's elbow joint and little attempt to appreciate the actual evidence, which is quite complicated and nuanced.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde

Last edited by Fatslogger : 13th March 2017 at 21:20.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 21:39   #54
Bestie
International Material
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 1,478
I hyperextended my knee once playing football. Puffed up loads and looked very dramatic. Certainly was nothing like Murali's arm.
Bestie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 21:51   #55
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestie View Post
I hyperextended my knee once playing football. Puffed up loads and looked very dramatic. Certainly was nothing like Murali's arm.
Does the anatomy lesson have to extend to the difference between arms and legs?
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2017, 01:42   #56
thedon
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyguntheballs View Post
Why not? If someone is born with a partciular issue or has an accident causing it, they should not be allowed to work any longer?
If they chuck because of it, yes.

If you can't bowl because of accident or deformity, that's a shame, but it's still not an excuse to chuck. Read up on Meckiff who also claimed similar deformity. In Murali's instance whether he chucked had nothing to do with any deformity and more to do with intentional straightening/flexing of the arm as part of his action (as opposed to bowling with the intention of keeping the arm rigid). The deformity was largely irrelevant and became part of the cornswaggle. No different to Ajmal, only he was treated differently.

Wonder why Meckiff was "no balled" out of the game, deformity 'n all?

Quote:
Generating his pace from an unusual bent-arm action which involved a flick of the wrist
__________________
carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

Last edited by thedon : 14th March 2017 at 03:01.
thedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2017, 03:18   #57
thedon
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 984
ps. Another thing that is often overlooked where a certain bowler is concerned, is that the Umpires who were and still are much maligned by certain fans for the "no ball" calls, were shown to be completely correct in their application of the rules at the time. Subsequent testing of the action involved, vindicated their on field assessment.
__________________
carpe diem quam minimum credula postero
thedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2017, 13:10   #58
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 9,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedon View Post
ps. Another thing that is often overlooked where a certain bowler is concerned, is that the Umpires who were and still are much maligned by certain fans for the "no ball" calls, were shown to be completely correct in their application of the rules at the time. Subsequent testing of the action involved, vindicated their on field assessment.
I didn't know that. Good to hear. Pity it didn't happen in time to prevent the blighting of their careers.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2017, 15:43   #59
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,847
Here are all the bowlers so far suggested in this thread, arranged in descending order of average wickets per match:

Muralitharan 6.02
Ajmal 5.09
Lillee 5.07
Hadlee 5.01
Steyn 4.91
Warne 4.88
Bond 4.83
Kumble 4.69
Marshall 4.64
Herath 4.63
Asif 4.61
Donald 4.58
McGrath 4.54
Garner 4.47
Roberts 4.30
Younis 4.29
Swann 4.25
Harris 4.19
Chandrasekhar 4.17
Holding 4.15
Ambrose 4.13
I Khan 4.11
Akram 3.98
Walsh 3.93
Pollock 3.90
Akhtar 3.87
Anderson 3.83
Botham 3.75
Hoggard 3.70
Willis 3.61
Underwood 3.45
Z Khan 3.38
Flintoff 2.86
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2017, 16:35   #60
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 852 Cummins 156 Wagner 152 TCurran 27 SCurran 16
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,222
I had to scroll back to see who had picked Flintoff 2.86. Must have chosen him on the 2 years, 2004 and 2005, when he picked up 111 in 27 Tests 4.11.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:05.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org