Comments on: Bowled, Shane

By: Rafe Champion

Rafe Champion — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 04:54:58 +0000

Speaking as an offspinner (three or four more men on the leg boundary if you don’t mind captain) I would like to remind everyone that however many wickets Shane Warne might take, offspinners remain the gentlemen of the game.

This sentiment would have been echoed by the late Sir Peter Medawar and also by the living legend Frank Devine.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:48:03 +0000

In other news, Glenn McGrath will also be retiring after the Sydney Test, although he’s sticking around for the World Cup.

By: yobbo

yobbo — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:11:09 +0000

You’re kidding yourself Mr Bartlett. Everyone knows the rules were changed for Murali. The only argument is whether they should have been or not.

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:49:18 +0000

I shall hunt for the link sometime, but I have a recollection that the slow-motion filming and biomechanical analysis that can be done these days showed that there were more bowlers than Murali that were technically ‘chucking’ under the old rules, even though it didn’t look it to the naked eye. This was a valid part of the reasons why the definition of chucking was modified.

It’s a variation on the video umpire in a way - more precise and not relying on the naked eye which can be deceiving.

Anyway, I reckon Ian Meckiff got even more of a raw deal.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:11:32 +0000

If you control for the minnows, Andrew, I don’t think you’ll get those results.

And I think Scott has a point. In days gone by, the rules have changed to accommodate a large class of players (the transition from underarm to roundarm to overarm, for example). AFAIK, they’ve never been changed to accommodate a single individual.

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:01:19 +0000

Of course Murali’s a valid cricketer Scott. Unless it was somebody else with that name who just got a(nother) ten wicket haul against New Zealand last week. He plays with the same rules and the same umpires as everyone else. Also see above quote from John Reid (at #70).

whisiitso, I don’t disagree with your comment. Warne appears to have more menance, and be a greater entertainer. It was interesting that Warne said that was how he wished to be remembered - as an entertainer. Perhaps people have a broader interpretation of the word than I do, but I figure when people are talking about who is the ‘best’ bowler, they’d go by results not entertainment value.

By: whyisitso

whyisitso — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:43:26 +0000

Statistics don’t convey the difference between Warne and Murali. Warne has the potential (and so often actual) menace to batsmen that Murali lacks. I’m with Helen. You gotta watch both. I know who I’d rather watch bowling!

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:37:42 +0000

I’ve been watching the NZ vs Sri Lanka games in NZ (they are playing a 20/20 game at the moment and NZ are wearing their 1992 World Cup outfit) and it was a hoot watching Murali get spanked for a couple of sixes.

To pick the doosra, watch for an extra ‘wobble’ in Murali’s wrist that is not there when he bowls the standard off-spinner.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:33:09 +0000

I haven’t had anyone rock up to the bowling crease with that sort of action. Yet. If someone did, I’d think seriously about taking the team off (mind you I’m only captain of the vice).

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:28:17 +0000

If you accept that Murali’s a valid cricketer, as Andrew seems to do, then there is a valid case to say that Murali could be better then Warne. It is an arguable case, but you can make a case.

However, for those of us that do not accept that Murali is a valid cricketer, there’s simply no comparison between Warne and any contemporary bowler.

Imagine giving one specific person a legal right to steal from banks, and then entering that person in Australia’s richest person’s list. It would be nonsense to compare him to the stock of the mill billionares, because he has an unfair advantage. This is why a great many cricket fans do not accept Murali’s stats as valid, regardless of what they are.