Sport Today

by **Mike Pric** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 02:21:11

If the doosra gives Murali no advantage as Elliot supposedly claims,
why is he continuing to bowl it and risk ICC action?

If, like most sane people you accept that the ball does give an
advantage, you still have to wonder why he wont put this ONE delivery
away and continue to bowl like he always has been and take wickets.

The only thing I can come up with is that the tests found a greater
than 5% flex on significantly more than just the doosra. Surely no one
would resort to an outrageous rule change suggestion unless more than
a single ball from Murali's arsenal was under threat.

So by this argument, if Murali stops bowling his doosra, he would
effectively be agreeing that any other deliveries that are illegal
should be banned also. It's the only rational argument.

Mike

by **Paul Robso** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 03:00:07

Quote:

> If the doosra gives Murali no advantage as Elliot supposedly claims,
> why is he continuing to bowl it and risk ICC action?

> If, like most sane people you accept that the ball does give an
> advantage, you still have to wonder why he wont put this ONE delivery
> away and continue to bowl like he always has been and take wickets.

> The only thing I can come up with is that the tests found a greater
> than 5% flex on significantly more than just the doosra. Surely no one
> would resort to an outrageous rule change suggestion unless more than
> a single ball from Murali's arsenal was under threat.

> So by this argument, if Murali stops bowling his doosra, he would
> effectively be agreeing that any other deliveries that are illegal
> should be banned also.???It's?the?only?rational?argument.

Maybe. It might be that SL & Murali are so totally confident the ICC
will roll over they think they can get away with anything.

I quite liked the baseball pitch protest idea :)

by **Ananda Wijepal** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 05:32:43

Quote:

> If the doosra gives Murali no advantage as Elliot supposedly claims,
> why is he continuing to bowl it and risk ICC action?

> If, like most sane people you accept that the ball does give an
> advantage, you still have to wonder why he wont put this ONE delivery
> away and continue to bowl like he always has been and take wickets.

I think Murali is very stubborn in this issue and he should immediately stop
bowling doosra until more research is done. Murali thinks he is not chucking
the doosra.

If he continues to bowl doosra despite the advice from SLC they might take
disciplinary action against his and drop him from the team.

Ananda

<snip>

by **Paul Robso** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:38:08

Quote:

>> If the doosra gives Murali no advantage as Elliot supposedly claims,
>> why is he continuing to bowl it and risk ICC action?

>> If, like most sane people you accept that the ball does give an
>> advantage, you still have to wonder why he wont put this ONE delivery
>> away and continue to bowl like he always has been and take wickets.

> I think Murali is very stubborn in this issue and he should immediately
> stop bowling doosra until more research is done. Murali thinks he is not
> chucking the doosra.

Well, it would seem it is likely this is not accurate, as he has been
told the results, and the subsequent behaviour of everyone including the
SLBCC only makes sense if his doosra is illegal.

To continue to assume it is all right requires fairly spectacular self
delusion.

Even if the tolerances are wrong, under the current laws it is a chuck.

Quote:

> If he continues to bowl doosra despite the advice from SLC they might take
> disciplinary action against his and drop him from the team.

I do find it remarkable that DeSilva's advice (Mohan !) which is quite
sensible is possibly being ignored.

by **Rats** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:04:53

Quote:

> I think Murali is very stubborn in this issue and he should immediately
stop
> bowling doosra until more research is done. Murali thinks he is not
chucking
> the doosra.

> If he continues to bowl doosra despite the advice from SLC they might take
> disciplinary action against his and drop him from the team.

You're kidding right?! SL will actually drop Murali cos he's chucking?! Pull
the other one mate!

by **kenhigg** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:52:28

Quote:

> If the doosra gives Murali no advantage as Elliot supposedly claims,
> why is he continuing to bowl it and risk ICC action?

> If, like most sane people you accept that the ball does give an
> advantage, you still have to wonder why he wont put this ONE delivery
> away and continue to bowl like he always has been and take wickets.

> The only thing I can come up with is that the tests found a greater
> than 5% flex on significantly more than just the doosra. Surely no one
> would resort to an outrageous rule change suggestion unless more than
> a single ball from Murali's arsenal was under threat.

> So by this argument, if Murali stops bowling his doosra, he would
> effectively be agreeing that any other deliveries that are illegal
> should be banned also. It's the only rational argument.

Mike, are you seriously putting this forward as 'rational'?

Quote:

> Mike

Surely Elliott was saying that the above 10% flex that Murali uses for
his doosra doesn't give him an advantage, not that the doosra itself
gives no advantage?

Surely any 'rational' person with half an inkling about cricket is
aware that part of the armoury of any bowler, fast or slow, is the
ability to mix things up a bit; keep the batsman guessing.

Why do people, who purport to paint themselves as rational or sane,
need to resort to such tactics to push their own agenda and discredit
anyone who even vaguely says something supportive of Murali?

H

by **Mike Pric** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:44:08

Quote:

>Mike, are you seriously putting this forward as 'rational'?

>> Mike

>Surely Elliott was saying that the above 10% flex that Murali uses for
>his doosra doesn't give him an advantage, not that the doosra itself
>gives no advantage?

The above is quite possibly the most self contradictary statement I
have ever read on Usenet and I have been posting since 1993.
Congratulations!

Are you really this stupid or are you just being facetious?

According to Elliot:

Murali can't bowl the doosra without a 10% flex.

the 10% flex gives no advantage

What is the Doosra if not an advantage of the 10% flex since he cannot
bowl it without it?

Your agument is like saying

"Surely Mr Smith was saying that it was the steroids the runner used
for building up his speed that gave him no advantage, not the running
speed itself giving no advanrage"

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:08:41

Quote:

> >Mike, are you seriously putting this forward as 'rational'?

> >> Mike

> >Surely Elliott was saying that the above 10% flex that Murali uses for
> >his doosra doesn't give him an advantage, not that the doosra itself
> >gives no advantage?

> The above is quite possibly the most self contradictary statement I
> have ever read on Usenet and I have been posting since 1993.
> Congratulations!

It made perfect sense to me. Perhaps it appears self-contradictory to you
because you introduced a new assumption ("According to Elliot ...Murali
can't bowl the doosra without a 10% flex") only after Ken had replied.

Incidentally, do you have a source for Elliot saying that, or does it come
from Charlie Austin's paraphrasing of a leaked report?

<snip>

Andrew

by **Ken Higg** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:42:06

Quote:

> >Mike, are you seriously putting this forward as 'rational'?

> >> Mike

> >Surely Elliott was saying that the above 10% flex that Murali uses for
> >his doosra doesn't give him an advantage, not that the doosra itself
> >gives no advantage?

> The above is quite possibly the most self contradictary statement I
> have ever read on Usenet and I have been posting since 1993.
> Congratulations!

Eh?

Are you also unable to read?

Did you miss the bit about variety being an important part of a bowlers
armoury?

Or does the term 'variety' mean nothing to you in a cricketing sense?

Quote:

> Are you really this stupid or are you just being facetious?

> According to Elliot:

> Murali can't bowl the doosra without a 10% flex.

the limit for spinners is currently 5%).

Quote:

> the 10% flex gives no advantage

yup

Quote:

> What is the Doosra if not an advantage of the 10% flex since he cannot
> bowl it without it?

Are you genuinely thick, or do you just put it on for show when on rsc?

Elliott is clearly (and has clearly) said that Murali bowls his doosra
above the 10% threshold, but gains no advantage from it.

ie he's saying that whilst the doosra is outside of the current guidelines,
he (Murali) gains no advantage from that (I'm no biomechanist, but I'd
assume it goes along the lines of not imparting any extra spin-after all,
isn't this what all the fuss is about? Murali gains an unfair advantage
because he chucks. By chucking, he gains more spin than 'normal' bowlers)
and he *recommends* that the limit for spinners be increased *for all
deliveries*.

Quote:

> Your agument is like saying

> "Surely Mr Smith was saying that it was the steroids the runner used
> for building up his speed that gave him no advantage, not the running
> speed itself giving no advanrage"

I've met some dills on this group, but today you're handsomely ahead.

You do realise, don't you, Mike, that Elliott agrees with me?
The likes of Sad Hamish, Colin Crackpot and AlveyTroll agree with you.
Even if Elliott were of below the intelligence required to tie shoelaces,
I'd still comfortably agree with him in preference to the tribe you've
thrown your hat in with.

H

by **Mike Pric** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:35:11

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:08:41 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"

Quote:

>It made perfect sense to me. Perhaps it appears self-contradictory to you
>because you introduced a new assumption ("According to Elliot ...Murali
>can't bowl the doosra without a 10% flex") only after Ken had replied.

Nod, I see what you are saying. I wills tand corrected on that one. I
guess it is probably best to wait and see exactly what the report
says, although from what we have been "told" so far, it would appear
that Murali can't bowl the doosra without the 10%ish flex, otherwise
why would be be advised to shelve it by DeSilva?

Quote:

>Incidentally, do you have a source for Elliot saying that, or does it come
>from Charlie Austin's paraphrasing of a leaked report?

True. I'll agree with you there. I think I will wait and see what
the actual report says.

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:42:29

Quote:

> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:08:41 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"

> >It made perfect sense to me. Perhaps it appears self-contradictory to
you
> >because you introduced a new assumption ("According to Elliot ...Murali
> >can't bowl the doosra without a 10% flex") only after Ken had replied.

> Nod, I see what you are saying. I wills tand corrected on that one. I
> guess it is probably best to wait and see exactly what the report
> says, although from what we have been "told" so far, it would appear
> that Murali can't bowl the doosra without the 10%ish flex, otherwise
> why would be be advised to shelve it by DeSilva?

> >Incidentally, do you have a source for Elliot saying that, or does it
come
> >from Charlie Austin's paraphrasing of a leaked report?

> True. I'll agree with you there. I think I will wait and see what
> the actual report says.

To be fair to you, there must be a distinct likelihood the report's
conclusions will match what you wrote. Perhaps not "can't bowl", but
"doesn't bowl".

My guess is that Elliot thinks Murali isn't gaining an unfair advantage
because he suspects other spin bowlers would produce similar results when
tested using the same method.

Andrew

by **Spamwise Gang** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:05:33

Quote:

> The only thing I can come up with is that the tests found a greater
> than 5% flex on significantly more than just the doosra. Surely no one
> would resort to an outrageous rule change suggestion unless more than
> a single ball from Murali's arsenal was under threat.

I don't think it is necessarily an "outrageous" rule change. If you
accept the notion of tolerance levels, then surely these tolerances
must be set at viable, sustainable rates.

What is a bit rich, is SLC calling for revisions to the tolerances
only *after* their star bowler has failed a test.

Quote:

> So by this argument, if Murali stops bowling his doosra, he would
> effectively be agreeing that any other deliveries that are illegal
> should be banned also. It's the only rational argument.

There's no such thing as a rational argument when Murali is involved.

by **Paul Robso** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:28:44

Quote:

> Why do people, who purport to paint themselves as rational or sane,
> need to resort to such tactics to push their own agenda and discredit
> anyone who even vaguely says something supportive of Murali?

Largely because Larry accuses everyone of racism, and seems less reasonable
than the worst of the anti-Murali camp. Ananda and Linus, both big Murali
fans (shall we say) seem to be being far more rational about it.

Elliott probably should have shut up IMO, rather than apparently leaking
bits of the report. It is not fair to Murali.

Murali should have the brains to figure out that it's not in his personal
interest at present to bowl the doosra - maybe he has. I doubt it
personally.

by **Paul Robso** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:31:03

Quote:

>> >Mike, are you seriously putting this forward as 'rational'?

>> >> Mike

>> >Surely Elliott was saying that the above 10% flex that Murali uses for
>> >his doosra doesn't give him an advantage, not that the doosra itself
>> >gives no advantage?

>> The above is quite possibly the most self contradictary statement I
>> have ever read on Usenet and I have been posting since 1993.
>> Congratulations!

> It made perfect sense to me.??Perhaps?it?appears?self-contradictory?to?you
> because you introduced a new assumption ("According to Elliot ...Murali
> can't bowl the doosra without a 10% flex") only after Ken had replied.

> Incidentally, do you have a source for Elliot saying that, or does it come
> from Charlie Austin's paraphrasing of a leaked report?

It's not unreasonable to wonder if the doosra can be bowled without the
flex though. It's rather like the SLGP comments about chucking spinners
being of no advantage.

Given that it is a reasonable view that in the tests Murali would be
trying to minimise the flex while still bowling the doosra, maybe he
simply can't.

by **Paul Robso** » Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:32:15

Quote:

> My guess is that Elliot thinks Murali isn't gaining an unfair advantage
> because he suspects other spin bowlers would produce similar results when
> tested using the same method.

And this is Saqlain and who else ?

Saqlain's doosra is much less of a leg break than the new Murali ones.

Sport Today

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?

Why isn't Murali putting away this non-advantage-giving Doosra?