Who was better?

Top Contributors
Re: Who was better?

id have to say warnie
the things he did with the ball were just simply amazing he could turn the ball a mile on concrete
though murali is also a good player alot of his wickets were on spinners pitches and also againts the minnow nations
 
Re: Who was better?

BabyBlues;307317 said:
You seriously think a still photo can capture something like that? How about video of Murali bowling with an arm brace that didn't allow his arm to change its angle? Murali isn't a chucker, it's an optical illusion, and it's been proven as such.
.
Click to expand...

That test was hardly an accurate test. Had a cricket mate who watched this being done and Murali was virtually walking up and sending the ball down at ridiculous slowness and had hardly any of his spin that he generates.

If he was sending them down in the 90kph and turning them, while still having a cast on his arm them maybe just maybe.

Never enjoyed watching the minnow basher bowl even if he is a nice guy.
 
Re: Who was better?

D.K;307481 said:
That test was hardly an accurate test. Had a cricket mate who watched this being done and Murali was virtually walking up and sending the ball down at ridiculous slowness and had hardly any of his spin that he generates.

If he was sending them down in the 90kph and turning them, while still having a cast on his arm them maybe just maybe.

Never enjoyed watching the minnow basher bowl even if he is a nice guy.
Click to expand...

Not in the video I saw. In the video I saw, he was still bowling at a similar pace, with a similar amount of spin. It's backed up by slow motion video of his bowling action during games, which also shows that his arm doesn't flex. Besides which, the whole point of the video was not to show that Murali can bowl perfectly with the cast on (after all, it would also weigh down his arm, and ruin his run in). The point was to show that the suspect look of his action is still there even when wearing the cast. His arm still looks like it straightens, even when he bowls with the brace. It is an optical illusion, not dissimilar to when you wobble a pen between your thumb and index finger, and it looks like it's made of rubber or something.

His arm is bent, but he was born like that. He doesn't straighten it, which is the issue. Therefore, he gets no advantage.
 
Re: Who was better?

Sure maybe he can sneak the Doosra in with the law bowling a couple of overs fresh at 80% pace. Do you think that this might deteriorate after bowling 20 overs in 40 degree heat?
 
Re: Who was better?

Certain to be a question that will be asked for many many years, the main problem being the, at times, questionable action and the teams he has played (although you can only bowl the players in front of you.

Whilst I may be biased I am 100% WARNE.

Could he be the answer to take on the soap dodgers in a few months. Yes its ridiculas but it would be great to see him clean them up (pun intended)
 
Re: Who was better?

southern sledge;308367 said:
Thats the problem, he does straigten it
Click to expand...

Saying it doesn't make it so. The sky is wicked. Coca Cola is fussy. Sunglasses are noisy.

Murali's arm doesn't straighten at all. It can't. He was born with a defect that means he physically can't straighten it. Yes, his arm is bent, but that only gives an advantage when it straightens from that bend. It is an optical illusion, and has been proven as such.

I'd love to rant on about how he's a cheater and a chucker, and when I was younger I used to, because if he was, then Warne would have a moral right to the highest wicket-taking record, but it's simply not the case.
 
Re: Who was better?

southern sledge;309068 said:
99% of the cricketing public in Australia recken he chucks, Warne is the best spinner ever.
Click to expand...

Cool non sequitur. Warne has nothing to do with whether Murali chucks. Neither, for that matter, does the misguided, jingoistic, beer-fuelled, arrogant opinions of the Australian public.

Ask the scientists that tested him whether he chucks. You'll get your answer.
 
Re: Who was better?

BabyBlues;309059 said:
Murali's arm doesn't straighten at all. It can't. He was born with a defect that means he physically can't straighten it. Yes, his arm is bent, but that only gives an advantage when it straightens from that bend. It is an optical illusion, and has been proven as such.
Click to expand...

Who cares if it can't fully straighten it with a deformed arm? It's the movement where he bends it beyond between the 15 degrees that matters. Yet he wouldn't take up the offer to be checked during a Test match.
 
Re: Who was better?

BabyBlues;309100 said:
Cool non sequitur. Warne has nothing to do with whether Murali chucks. Neither, for that matter, does the misguided, jingoistic, beer-fuelled, arrogant opinions of the Australian public.

Ask the scientists that tested him whether he chucks. You'll get your answer.
Click to expand...

Yeah Warne played only 3 games against Zim + Bang,Murali's played plenty + his records no where near as good as Warnies if take both their stats against those 2 teams away............Scientists know nothing about cricket bud!!!!!!!!!:eek:................and we've got a right to be arrogant after being the best in the world by a mile for 15 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Re: Who was better?

southern sledge;309068 said:
99% of the cricketing public in Australia recken he chucks, Warne is the best spinner ever.
Click to expand...

But if Murali were Australian and Warne were Sri Lankan I am sure they would be singing a different tune.
 
Re: Who was better?

grapedo;309582 said:
But if Murali were Australian and Warne were Sri Lankan I am sure they would be singing a different tune.
Click to expand...

You have gone missing grapedo? Where you been in the BCFCL?
 
Re: Who was better?

Tongs;309584 said:
You have gone missing grapedo? Where you been in the BCFCL?
Click to expand...

he said he was gonna go away for a month or so then come back maybe for the new season if he can get back posting make a decent impresion and get picked back up.
 
Re: Who was better?

Edge;309595 said:
he said he was gonna go away for a month or so then come back maybe for the new season if he can get back posting make a decent impresion and get picked back up.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of ifs in there though Edge. :D
 
Re: Who was better?

hussler;309495 said:
Yeah Warne played only 3 games against Zim + Bang,Murali's played plenty + his records no where near as good as Warnies if take both their stats against those 2 teams away............Scientists know nothing about cricket bud!!!!!!!!!:eek:................and we've got a right to be arrogant after being the best in the world by a mile for 15 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

This is about whether Murali chucks or not. And I think the scientists that tested him would know a thing or two about that.
 
Re: Who was better?

Kram81;309132 said:
Who cares if it can't fully straighten it with a deformed arm? It's the movement where he bends it beyond between the 15 degrees that matters. Yet he wouldn't take up the offer to be checked during a Test match.
Click to expand...

But he doesn't bend it beyond 15 degrees. His arm is bent, but only ever as bent as it naturally is. The reason why "chucking" is illegal is that extra pace/spin/whatever can be attained by the straightening of a bent arm. Murali's arm is bent, but it doesn't straighten. He gets no advantage. I have no problem with it.

How do you suppose he would be checked in a Test match without seriously interfering with his game? He doesn't want to compromise his performance, and that is fair enough. There's plenty of footage of him bowling in Tests, there's no reason that can't be used.
 
Re: Who was better?

Well as far as I am concerned The ICC have ruled that his bowling action is legal and that is final.

Everyone who calls him a chucker or yells out "NO BALL" when he bowls just suffer from tall poppy syndrome I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top