General Cricket Discussion

[Satan666]

"I Think He Was Better Than Me": Muttiah Muralitharan On Shane Warne | Cricket News

Muttiah Muralitharan and Shane Warne ended their careers as arguably the two greatest spinners to grace the game of cricket, and their records back up that claim.

sports.ndtv.com

No sh*t Sherlock! Warne bowl and you bloody throw!

 

[CerealKiller]

"I Think He Was Better Than Me": Muttiah Muralitharan On Shane Warne | Cricket News

Muttiah Muralitharan and Shane Warne ended their careers as arguably the two greatest spinners to grace the game of cricket, and their records back up that claim.

sports.ndtv.com

No sh*t Sherlock! Warne bowl and you bloody throw!

Care to prove it?

 

[Satan666]

Care to prove it?

Just posting some details from the top of my head, will edit some links to confirm the details a bit later.

ICC had altered the laws (bending of arm) to accomodate Murali illegal action, think they had increased it to 15 degrees. All this after an independent studies indicated the bending of his arm was an optical illusion. Moving on they eventually ban his doosra delivery, or one of his special chuckers….this wouldve been early 2000s now, he was first called up in ‘95 I think.

Why was he protected because the BCCI were on the brink of their world domination and they werent at their full evil strenght just yet they needed the important Asian block to support them by voting major decisions etc.

 

[CerealKiller]

ICC had altered the laws (bending of arm) to accomodate Murali illegal action, think they had increased it to 15 degrees.

Because literally 95% of bowlers were found to be exceeding the old limit, so it became clear that the old limit was nonsensical.

 

[Satan666]

Because literally 95% of bowlers were found to be exceeding the old limit, so it became clear that the old limit was nonsensical.

Yes you are correct in this but was it proven at the time? Were independent studies also carried out in WA and HK universities?

 

[CerealKiller]

Yes you are correct in this but was it proven at the time? Were independent studies also carried out in WA and HK universities?

Yes, of course it was proven, that’s why the rules were changed. Not to accommodate Murali. But of course that doesn’t fit your narrative.
Murali never chucked.

Bending The Rules: When The ICC Discovered Almost Every Bowler In Cricket History Had An lllegal Action

In 2004, the ICC made a shocking discovery: almost every bowler in cricket history had bowled with an illegal action

wisden.com

 

[Bevab]

Yes, of course it was proven, that’s why the rules were changed. Not to accommodate Murali. But of course that doesn’t fit your narrative.
Murali never chucked.

Bending The Rules: When The ICC Discovered Almost Every Bowler In Cricket History Had An lllegal Action

In 2004, the ICC made a shocking discovery: almost every bowler in cricket history had bowled with an illegal action

wisden.com

Ah mate I remember the same discussion the last time around featuring this fella between you two before he was banned. All that he’ll do is say that he’ll consider your argument and that you have some valid points, come back a few days later with yet another bombastic statement on the same topic and argue like the previous debate never happened.

 

[Satan666]

Yes, of course it was proven, that’s why the rules were changed. Not to accommodate Murali. But of course that doesn’t fit your narrative.
Murali never chucked.

Bending The Rules: When The ICC Discovered Almost Every Bowler In Cricket History Had An lllegal Action

In 2004, the ICC made a shocking discovery: almost every bowler in cricket history had bowled with an illegal action

wisden.com

Fair enough. Though by then after the antics a couple years before 2004 by the BCCI, the ICC were clearly compromised at that point.

His use of the doosra though?

 

[CerealKiller]

His use of the doosra though?

What about it

 

[Satan666]

What about it

Apologies, was the doosra delivery he had been called up for leading to those investigations. Though I am thinking some other delivery was questioned even after the 15 degree rule. Got to research it before going forward. Been a long time.

 

[Satan666]

@CerealKiller

You are absolutely correct in your argument put forward. Given all the existing data available I must admit that at present I cannot continue labelling Murali as a chucker!

I refuse to post the way I did before and consider myself in a better place when to admit I am wrong.

However there will always be an argument that the ICC were compromised and bent the rules primarily to accomodate Murali’s ‘illegal action’. Though in the end it made it a bit more in the favour of all bowlers, and since the game after the 80s were heavily sided with batsmen, perhaps it was a good thing the rule change to 15 deg was made.

Again I apologise to you and the others here that I may have engaged with in the past on Murali’s action. The facts is the facts and I have no choice but to agree that Murali was a bonafide bowler.

 

[CerealKiller]

 

[Paranoid Kendroid]

ICC playing conditions tweaks. The main changes are:​

New batter takes strike: This rule was announced as early as March this year, stating that irrespective of whether the two batters cross before a catch is taken, the batter that walks in at the fall of the wicket will take strike.

Saliva ban made permanent: The pandemic forced cricket to be played within bio-bubbles and with restrictions such as the ban on the usage of saliva to shine the ball. After a two-year period when Covid-19 has had a big impact on the world, the ICC has decided that the ban on the usage of saliva would be made permanent, even as bio-bubbles aren't mandatory anymore.

Running out the non-striker: Running out the non-striker for backing up too far has often attracted spirit-of-the-game debates. This method of affecting a dismissal has now been moved from the 'unfair play' section to the 'run out' section. The mode of dismissal, often referred to as 'Mankading', will now be considered a regular run out.

Timed out in ODIs and Tests: Previously in ODIs and Tests, a batter had three minutes to walk out at the fall of a wicket and take strike. That timing has been shortened, and a new batter is required to take strike within two minutes of a dismissal in the two formats. The threshold of 90 seconds in T20Is remains unchanged.

Five-run Penalty for unfair field movement: Any unfair or deliberate movement by the fielding side when the bowler is running in to bowl could now lead to a five-run penalty awarded to the batting team as well as the ball being called dead.

Over-rate penalty: In January 2022, an in-match penalty was introduced in T20Is. As per this, a fielding side must be in a position to bowl the first ball of the final over of the innings by the scheduled or rescheduled time for the end of the innings. If they are not in such a position, one fewer fielder will be permitted outside the 30-yard circle for the remainder of the innings. This rule will now be adopted in ODIs as well, after the completion of the ICC Men's Cricket World Cup Super League 2023.

No-ball for venturing out of the pitch: If a batter moves beyond the confines of the pitch to play a delivery, it will be deemed a no-ball. Some part of the batter or the bat is needed to remain within the pitch.

Source: Cricbuzz

 

[CerealKiller]

No-ball for venturing out of the pitch: If a batter moves beyond the confines of the pitch to play a delivery, it will be deemed a no-ball. Some part of the batter or the bat is needed to remain within the pitch.

What? So a batter can move outside the pitch deliberately and get a no ball and free hit?

 

[wasteyouryouth]

ICC playing conditions tweaks. The main changes are:​

Running out the non-striker: Running out the non-striker for backing up too far has often attracted spirit-of-the-game debates. This method of affecting a dismissal has now been moved from the 'unfair play' section to the 'run out' section. The mode of dismissal, often referred to as 'Mankading', will now be considered a regular run out.

1000 test wickets for Ashwin