Maurice Holmes - English Murali

[ParkedTheBus]

You probably haven't heard much of Maurice Holmes, a little magician who turns the ball both ways. But Ricky Ponting has. Ponting first came across him in the indoor nets at Kent. And, like every other batsman facing Holmes for the first time, he had a little trouble telling the wrong'un from the right'un. "I've never seen anything like that," Ponting said after they were done. The second time they met was in Sydney, when Holmes was playing grade cricket for St George. "Oh," Ponting said when he saw Holmes standing at the far end of the nets. "Not you again."

Like a lot of us, Holmes first learned to play cricket with his brothers in the back garden. The difference between Maurice and you, me, and pretty much everyone else, was that he was a natural. He blessed with a talent that can't be taught, not for batting, or bowling fast, but for the most mercurial and elusive of skills ? spinning the ball. And not just any old how. He was born with wrists that can bend in all sorts of different directions, and his shoulder blades, he has been told, are "physiologically in the wrong place". He started bowling off breaks with a cocked elbow and a curled wrist. Back then he couldn't have told you what he was doing, or how he did it, but Maurice had learned to bowl the doosra.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/nov/06/maurice-holmes-english-murali-spin

It is a shame , really. The precise reason why many dislike English Cricket. No one is allowed to be different.

 

[NoLeName]

Interesting read. I've never actually heard of the bloke but sounds like he would've been a great find for England.

 

[ethybubs]

He has an awesome batting average that is matched only by his strike rate.

Maurice Holmes | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[blockerdave]

Thanks @Davoo... really interesting read, and just sums up why the ECB stinks.

 

[grkrama]

He has an awesome batting average that is matched only by his strike rate.

He is certainly a blocker going by his SR

 

[ethybubs]

...Or he can't get bat on ball

 

[blockerdave]

...Or he can't get bat on ball

as he is averaging less than 3 i'd go with this one.

 

[IceAgeComing]

England always need someone with an average of less than 5 in their test team: if only for the fact that it makes things interesting. Who didn't love watching Monty save two test matches with the bat!

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

he has actually come up on here before in discussions about the doosra. so the lesson is maybe if some of you took the time to wade through the boring, impenetrable walls of text me and @War create when arguing you might learn something.

 

[War]

he has actually come up on here before in discussions about the doosra. so the lesson is maybe if some of you took the time to wade through the boring, impenetrable walls of text me and @War create when arguing you might learn something.

Ye Holmes is old news..

 

[cricket_icon]

I've heard whispers about Holmes for years, fact is, he has failed numerous tests and seems to be bowling the doosra illegally, much like Pakistan's Shoaib Malik, who has spent the better part of a decade unable to bowl it in international cricket.

When the doosra is done right, it is an art and does not require explicit bending of the arm, Saq and Saeed Ajmal are priem examples, as was Murali, who was sadly hounded by many Australians, even after his action was cleared.

Failing multiple tests tells us that Holmes doesn't have the necessary legal tools to bowl the doosra. He has clearly tried to change his action, run up and pace in the testing arena. Maybe he can ball again at the highest level without the doosra but I doubt it.

 

[War]

^^

I don't know anything about Ajmal, Murali or any bowler in cricket history other than Saqlain bowling the doosra legally.

Their is no creditable evidence to suggest it is, like the D/L method cricket fans just have accepted that notion blindly over the years. Fact is more cricket fans/media/past player think the doosra can't be bowled legally.

 

[cricket_icon]

^^

I don't know anything about Ajmal, Murali or any bowler in cricket history other than Saqlain bowling the doosra legally.

Their is no creditable evidence to suggest it is, like the D/L method cricket fans just have accepted that notion blindly over the years. Fact is more cricket fans/media/past player think the doosra can't be bowled legally.

War we've been over this a million times, you definitely have an anti-doosra bias, I dunno why.

Like I've said before, all the names you've mentioned have been tested and are innocent, that is all that matters. The reason that a 15 degrees angle is used as a cut off point is because, after rigorous testing by people who are experts in this field, it is the point at which the naked eye first notices a bent arm. Murali and Ajmal do not bend their arm to that degree, so under the laws of cricket, it is not in any way shape or form an illegally delivery.

End of.

 

[War]

War we've been over this a million times, you definitely have an anti-doosra bias, I dunno why.

Like I've said before, all the names you've mentioned have been tested and are innocent, that is all that matters. The reason that a 15 degrees angle is used as a cut off point is because, after rigorous testing by people who are experts in this field, it is the point at which the naked eye first notices a bent arm. Murali and Ajmal do not bend their arm to that degree, so under the laws of cricket, it is not in any way shape or form an illegally delivery.

End of.

Of course I'm anti-doosra, but it is not a bias ideological. Since I have looked at the problem for years, read all the expert views & I have come to the conclusion IMO, their is no evidence to suggest it is delivery that can be bowled legally.

You have concluded the otherwise, so you are in no position to say "End of", since the topic clearly has many detractors in world game. Arguably more than people like yourself that believe its a legal delivery.

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/cricket-discussion/state-off-spin-bowling-suspect-actions-doosra-bowlers-worldwide-87179-2.html

I'm not alone on planetcricket - check recent comments from other posters from the above thread that share similar views. Including comments from players such as James Tredwell & Ashwin & commentator - Martin Crowe & writer Sirdath Monga in recent times

- Press Conference : Australia v India, World T20, Group 2, Mirpur | 'Why should I lag behind in the advantage' - Ashwin | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

- India Cricket Features: R Ashwin: Nothing to hide | ESPN Cricinfo

- Match Point : India news | Crowe: Everyone capitalising on 15-degree rule | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

- James Tredwell questions doosra legality - The Times of India

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

there is evidence to suggest it can be bowled legally, most of the evidence comes from people that are experts in bio-mechanics and have written extensive papers about how the eye can be mistaken. it's just that this evidence is harder to come by because it's in scientific journals and not given the platform of an internationally famous ex-cricketer.

if Warne stands up and says something related to spin bowling and a guy called Dr. Aginsky contradicts it, even providing hard evidence, figures and facts, the media would still give far more weight and importance to Warne's views.

whilst I think the opinions of professional cricketers certainly counts, I wouldn't write off the opinion of someone that has played the game for 20 years at the highest level, the opinions of people that can offer more detailed scientific explanations also count as well.

it's a tricky issue as the arm straightening rule is quite unique in sport (the only thing remotely similar I can think of is in swimming where strokes are given different classifications and in certain races your movements have to conform to an agreed standard) and for all the scientific evidence provided it's arguable whether the rules of a sport, which are relatively arbitrary in nature, are required to take into account the results of extreme scientific scrutiny.

BUT, there is evidence.