[jikl]

After the first day in Melbourne Warne has a chance to do something else unique, he is (I believe) now 9 wickets away from 200 test wickets against England with potentially 3 innings left to bowl.

Sean

[Walddk]

jikl, on Dec 26 2006, 10:21 PM, said:

After the first day in Melbourne Warne has a chance to do something else unique, he is (I believe) now 9 wickets away from 200 test wickets against England with potentially 3 innings left to bowl.

Sean

I don't want to take anything away from Warny (who dares?) but his record won't last for decades if Murali stays fit. He has 674 Test wickets to his name and he is only 34.

By his own admission, Muralitharan will not rule out taking 1,000 Test wickets before he retires, but he admits it will be tough.

"I am 34 now and if I go on for another five years without an injury that's possible I guess. But it depends on my form and how I feel and lot of other things. We'll see."

Roland

[jikl]

I don't really want to get into a Murali discussion. He is being investigated yet again and this is after they have changed the laws of cricket for him twice.

Sean

[Walddk]

jikl, on Dec 26 2006, 10:46 PM, said:

I don't really want to get into a Murali discussion. He is being investigated yet again and this is after they have changed the laws of cricket for him twice.

Sean

But even if Murali cheats (throwing instead of bowling), he is no different from Warne. He didn't/doesn't throw but was suspended for 12 months for breaching the ACB Anti-Doping policy.

He even admitted to having used a banned drug.

1-1.

Roland

[jikl]

Yes, he was suspended for 12 months, for using a masking agent that he claimed was to make him look better on TV. He probably should have got 2 years under the WADA policy rather than one year as he recieved. Yes there was a vague gambling scandal involving him and Mark Waugh also in India. Yes he has innumerable tabloid scandals also.

The fact I come down to is that the way he bowls can be taught, it requires no genetic efficiencies or deficiencies. It is pure. No child can be taught the way Murali bowls, and that child may not have the laws of cricket changed for them.

Sean

[jikl]

I have a feeling the test attendance record will not be borken, the test won't last long enough.

Sean

[cherdano]

jikl, on Dec 26 2006, 10:46 PM, said:

I don't really want to get into a Murali discussion. He is being investigated yet again and this is after they have changed the laws of cricket for him twice.

How can you cheat as bowler??

Cricket is yet more weird than I thought.

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Dec 27 2006, 10:26 AM, said:

jikl, on Dec 26 2006, 10:46 PM, said:

I don't really want to get into a Murali discussion. He is being investigated yet again and this is after they have changed the laws of cricket for him twice.

How can you cheat as bowler??

Cricket is yet more weird than I thought.

This is a complex issue. Let me quote from the Laws of Cricket:

24.2. Fair delivery - the arm
For a delivery to be fair in respect of the arm the ball must not be thrown. See 3 below. Although it is the primary responsibility of the striker's end umpire to ensure the fairness of a delivery in this respect, there is nothing in this Law to debar the bowler's end umpire from calling and signalling 'No ball' if he considers that the ball has been thrown.

24.3. Definition of fair delivery - the arm
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.
...

It became more commonly known that there was a modification to the anatomical constraint imposed by Law 24.3 in the 2000 MCC code: that the bowling arm not straighten from shoulder height to ball release. Instead the ICC had now specified an acceptable range of elbow extension tolerance levels, which were dependent on ball release speed.

Fast bowlers were allowed 10° elbow extension, medium pace bowlers 7.5°, and spin-bowlers only 5°.

Now, Murali of Sri Lanka is a spin-bowler and occasionally bowls a so-called 'doosra'. At the University of Western Australia (Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science), three-dimensional kinematic measurements of Muttiah Muralitharan’s bowling arm were taken using high speed cameras while he bowled his doosra.

Murali’s mean elbow extension angle for the doosra delivery was 14°, which was subsequently reduced to a mean of 10.2º with a modified action. Though Elliott et al. (2004) concluded that "Mr. Muralitharan be permitted to continue bowling his doosra at least until a valid data base is collected on the various spin-bowling disciplines", the overwhelming response was that Murali’s doosra contravened the established ICC elbow extension limit of 5º for spinners.

Are you confused, Arend? I don't blame you! If you want to read a splendid scientific article on this topic, go to ...

http://coachesinfo.c...ry/cricket/351/

Roland

[jikl]

There are other ways to cheat as a bowler but this is the one we aretalking about. The other way to cheat as a bowler is to modify the ball (tamper) in a non-legal fashion. The definition of illegal on this one is even more confusing

Sean

[cherdano]

Thanks Roland, I knew I could count on you. I am certainly confused, but my confusion is buried deep inside a building of excitement, curiosity and fascination about a whole world that I didn't even know it existed.

For starters, "The Association of Cricket Statisticians & Historians." is mildly amusing, but certainly not surprising to anyone who has spent some time in England. But then, there is the "world’s leading research on elbow angle in cricket bowling". Apparently an entire research field that I have never heard of, worse yet, I had never even suspected its mere existence! I have to admit pure ignorance about the "elbow angle excursion slope" vs "elbow extension angle"-debate, but I will read up on it and give it prominent place in my small-talk repertoire. Maybe "The Straight Arm Myth" could imake for good chat-up lines, even?

In some ways, I loath the times and days of my ignorance, though. Explaining cricket was difficult enough already, but at least until this very morning I could say s.th. along the lines of "The bowler throws the ball towards the batter, trying to hit the wicket." Now I have to explain that he has to throw the ball, but without actually throwing it, no he has to bowl it. "What is the difference, you ask? Well, some recent research suggests...What? You think offside is easy?"

Arend

P.S.: I also derived some pleasure from the study of the following data:

Table 1: Percentage of legal bowlers according to MCC Law 24.3 (2000 code).
Fast Fast/med Medium Slow Spin
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[Walddk]

The game of cricket isn't easy to explain to a foreigner (outsider if you like). You may find the following amusing, but deep down it is the truth and nothing but the truth:

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. That happens when the captain of the batting side decides to declare the innings.

When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice* after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!

* occasionally a side can win a match although they have only been in and out once!

Easy, isn't it?

Roland

[Walddk]

Walddk, on Dec 27 2006, 02:53 PM, said:

* occasionally a side can win a match although they have only been in and out once!

Easy, isn't it?

All too easy. England humiliated with two days to spare. The victory was Australia's 11th win in a row, their 15th out of 16 (with one draw) since the 2005 Ashes, and the team will regroup in the New Year needing one last win at Sydney to become the first side since Warwick Armstrong's Australians in 1920-21 to achieve an Ashes whitewash (5-0).

My prediction before the series was 4-0. I granted England one draw. Now I don't know why I was that generous.

Roland

[jikl]

If Australia wins the Sydney test it will be 12 in a row, but what a different side it might be. Australia don't play a test until October 2007 or so.

Sean

[the saint]

Well, all I can say is that I am glad I have been asleep through most of this winter's shenanigans. Unfortunately, so have the England team. The World Cup will be a disaster as we don't have anything even remotely resembling a bowling attack. Fletcher will have to go and then maybe we can make a fresh start. Lessons must be learned from the debacle of the last year and a bit.

[jikl]

Have you heard that someone accidentally left a photocopy of the bowling plans to all Australian batsmen in the MCG members area?

Sean

[nickf]

I don't believe it. It certainly didnt look like the poms had any plan.

nickf
sydney

[the saint]

Although if the umpires had given good (Hawkeye showed a lot were hitting that weren't given) lbw shouts against both Hayden and Symonds then the Aussies would have been bowled out for less than us and the match would have been totally different. Its a shame. I had Aleem Dar down as the best umpire around...

[nickf]

/gloat

nickf, on Nov 23 2006, 10:14 AM, said:

not me, I'm hoping for a 5-0 drubbing.

nickf
sydney

/endgloat

5 Jan 2007
Obituary
English Cricket
Died (again) 5 Jan 2007
The body will be cremated and the ashes gratefully reclaimed by Australia.

nickf
sydney

[Walddk]

Congratulations Australia on a superb performance throughout! And although it's always sad to leave the sport you love so dearly, it must be a wonderful feeling for Langer, McGrath and Warne to have called it a day while they are on top of their game.

We will all miss you!

England? Nothing much to say other than they need to put the debacle behind them and regroup. Although a whitewash has left a deep scar, they will come back from this humiliation.

They are not bad cricketers; they were merely outclassed in all aspects of the game. It's no disgrace to lose to a much better team.

Roland

[keylime]

Bring on the World Cup in March!