Re: Stuff on Murali chucking

"Paul Robson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.


WRONG!! Murali was called under the OLD law which was totally crap and led
to many umpiring errors.AT IS WHY the ICC changed the law. I criticised
these errors for sure.


> 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.


I thought Suresh Perera chucked dude.
Anyway, I think its silly to accuse Murali of chucking but I cant stop you
from being silly now, can I??

Laz


>
>