Re: Stuff on Murali chucking

Larry de Silva wrote:

 >>>it as how YOU think it should be. That is the main difference dude.
> > >
> >
> > Do you ever think it might be you ?
>
> Look sometimes I'm wrong and I happily apologise unlike the others. But when
> I hear absolute bloody shit about Murali chucking when the umpires pass his
> action, YOU look the fool, not me. Have a look at yourself sometime. Dont
> get into this silly whinging.
>
> Laz

Well, the only time I can recall you saying you were wrong about 
anything was the alleged Pom/Aus conspiracy to nobble Murali for WC03 by 
calling Perera (no, readers, it still doesn't make any sense). Even that 
took ages to get out.

You cannot have it both ways. If his action is okay because it is now 
passed, it wasn't okay when it was called. You can't say the umpire is 
right only when it suits you.

There is also a pretty reasonable view that Murali is a protected 
species, given the shit dumped on Hair for trying to do his job. Right 
or wrong, he didn't deserve that.

Throwing seems to be almost permissible, given that Shoaib is allowed to 
bowl for example. Lee and Kirtley are also very borderline, 
occasionally. (I do not think we have any basic chuckers).

I admit I was wrong, incidentally. For a long time I thought Murali 
didn't throw at all (see just about every post which wasn't a wind up 
:)), now I think the stock ball is okay but the toppie is sometimes 
definitely a throw. It was fairly obvious today IMO. I think Murali was 
in all attack mode today, there was a *lot* of variation.

I am not actually whinging. England haven't lost (yet), the match is 
pretty finely balanced, slightly in Englands favour. I suspect if 
Vaughan had been offered at this point in the match 331 and 97/2 knowing 
SL would bat first he'd have taken it.

If I was going to attack Murali on grounds of losing, why didn't I do it 
after (say) the 1998 test where he slaughtered us (16/220). Why do it at 
the mid point of some test where he's taken 2/15 ?

I think you should look at yourself. Your defence of Ruchira Perera at 
Lords just makes you look stupid. The photos I linked to recently are 
not conclusive, but they sure as hell are very suspect, and I would 
expect the umpires to report anyone who was bowling from that position 
in mid-action at pace. Unless you have a Murali-level of bent arm (not 
just a minor deficiency) it is almost certain that an effort ball would 
be thrown. The comments about him are mostly sympathetic, justifiably 
blaming the Sri Lankan coaching process, as no-one with an action like 
that should have ever been playing first-class cricket. But there was no 
doubt in anyone's mind that he was throwing. Given his pretty poor 
record it would seem in England's interest to have him playing, 
incidentally.

As for me, well I've always said Kirtley was dubious, and posted that at 
least one ball I've seen him bowl (I haven't seen him a lot) which 
bowled Nuwan Zoysa was IMO a blatant chuck, and that he shouldn't be 
allowed to play for England until it is sorted out. I believe Mike 
Holmans posted the same thing (about the Zoysa ball) independently at 
the same time. It was blatant. But Perera was "bowling" 3+ of these each 
over.

The impression one gets with you is that however appalling a Sri Lankan 
bowlers action was ever to be you would never admit that it was a chuck.