Murali v Warne

[mattfb]

You still haven't told me how you define throw properly. Your definition is recursive. "Throwing is when you throw it!" That doesn't make sense. Please define it.

Of course it does.
Oh wait, sorry. I forgot thats not what it says in the dictionary, it cant be right.

Since when did instinct count as common sense? Common sense is something that everyone agrees on regardless of instinct. Instinct is when someone thinks "I think it might rain today so I'll take a umbrella". That's not common sense.

Ok take away instinctivly bit. Its common sense to know when someone is chucking.

Did you just fail to watch the India-Australia battles over the years? Sachin picked him off for 5 BOUNDARIES, if I remember correctly, in an over, not just runs. Warne retaliated by bowling a bouncer. If you've watched subcontinent cricket at all, you will realize why Murali is a legend. Murali, for one, has unravelled India on numerous occasions, while Warne looks helpless against them.

Excatly 1 over, which means it wasn't conistently. Oh and im sorry, i forgot that a spinner dominating on flat pitches favouring pace bowlers against England, SA, Pakistan and all the top teams is easier the growing up on Rusty, spinner friendly pitches and dominating there agaisnt lower ranked teams.

 

[sohum]

Why do I find it supsicious? It all goes back to Warne vs Murali, you guys hate Warne because what he has done to shame them over and over again. I don't have that "Your an Aussie who hate Murali because he is going to pass Warne's record" tag on me because it's not about Warne with me - its about this guy who has been throwing for 15 years and should have 700 run outs next to his name. To allow a man bowl like that is a disgrace to the ICC and shows they are a bunch of pussies who don't have balls like Darrel Hair and Ross Emerson to actually call him, see, they called him because he threw not by making the decision off biomechanical tests - I can make that judgement to.

Obviously I don't hate Warne. I enjoy watching Warne bowl and I especially enjoy seeing him smashed around the park by Tendulkar and Laxman.

You say its a pointless argument, then fuel it again.

For God's sakes, does everything have to be scientifically proven or in a dictionary for you to believe? Then good luck to you in life then, because you need to see stuff to believe it. A throw is when you are bowling, but then chuck with a crook in your arm then extend it, like shotput or baseball style. And don't come back and say, no, that isn't a throw - a throw is when you extend your arm over x amount of degrees - because then I can ask, well how was Darel Hair able to call him no ball? I would love to see you umpire Murali and watching him throw, you would call the third umpire and a protractor right? Because you can't just no-ball someone without scientific evidence right? Funny how you haven't defended the way those 2004 tests were taken....

It's clear you cannot define a throw. It's clear you refuse to agree that optical illusions occur when they are clearly possible. If you are going to by stubborn and claim that Murali appearing to throw is not an optical illusion, you are welcome to do it, but I wish you good luck in life... you who are naive as to conceive seeing is believing. You see "ghosts" in Halloween----so is seeing believing? There's far more to believing than just seeing.

How was Darrell Hair able to call him no-ball? Perhaps because he was busy not doing his job at looking at the line to see if Murali was over-stepping? Perhaps because he did not realise, like you, that Murali's action was an optical illusion and his arm was actually straighter than it appeared.

Besides... you still haven't defined throw non-recursively. This, in itself, leads me to believe that you will change the definition of throw whenever it is convenient for you.

Of course it does.
Oh wait, sorry. I forgot thats not what it says in the dictionary, it cant be right.

It's obvious that the dictionary doesn't come into play here.... because the dictionary is not precise enough. Besides, by the dictionary's definition of throwing, every bowler (even your beloved Australian ones) are chuckers. The fact is that it is impossible to do anything substantial with a cricket ball if you're going to keep your arm straight through your run-up and delivery stride. So if you define chucking as bending your arm.... every international Australian bowler in the line-up today is a chucker.

Ok take away instinctivly bit. Its common sense to know when someone is chucking.

It obviously isn't.... why do you think we are having this discussion, genius?

Excatly 1 over, which means it wasn't conistently. Oh and im sorry, i forgot that a spinner dominating on flat pitches favouring pace bowlers against England, SA, Pakistan and all the top teams is easier the growing up on Rusty, spinner friendly pitches and dominating there agaisnt lower ranked teams.

Yet, Warne has a worse record against every team except South Africa (I believe this is the team?), when compared to Murali on average and strike rate? Or are you going to bring up the point that Warne had world-class bowlers on his team to counter the obviously sufficient counter-argument to your argument? Do you even read the thread? Besides, how do you analyze that Warne has been absolutely horrific when compared to Murali against the side that is traditionally the best against spin--India?

 

[mattfb]

You see "ghosts" in Halloween----so is seeing believing? There's far more to believing than just seeing.

Thats completely different, when you think you see a ghost you go "What's that!" But when you see Murali bowl you dont go "What did i just see!?" Instead you say '"No-Ball!" because you know what you saw

How was Darrell Hair able to call him no-ball? Perhaps because he was busy not doing his job at looking at the line to see if Murali was over-stepping? Perhaps because he did not realise, like you, that Murali's action was an optical illusion and his arm was actually straighter than it appeared.

Umpires move the eyes downwards to see if someone is overstepping and you can obviously see the bowlers arm at the top of your eyesight. Besides Hair bent down when umpiring which helps see whether its a overstep No-ball without focusing your full attention there.

It's obvious that the dictionary doesn't come into play here.... because the dictionary is not precise enough. Besides, by the dictionary's definition of throwing, every bowler (even your beloved Australian ones) are chuckers. The fact is that it is impossible to do anything substantial with a cricket ball if you're going to keep your arm straight through your run-up and delivery stride. So if you define chucking as bending your arm.... every international Australian bowler in the line-up today is a chucker.

"To throw with a quick motion*, usually short distance"

*- Muralidaran

 

[sohum]

Thats completely different, when you think you see a ghost you go "What's that!" But when you see Murali bowl you dont go "What did i just see!?" Instead you say '"No-Ball!" because you know what you saw

I don't. Which means that you are obviously banking on opinion rather than fact. Seeing is not believing. There are so many things that you believe without seeing. When you type things in your keyboard, do you see the electronic impulses traveling through the circuitry to eventually reach the central processing unit which accordingly converts it into a ASCII byte that eventually displays on your screen? No, you don't. Does that change the fact that an "a" will show up on your screen when you press that key? You don't need to "see" science to believe it. Most people don't because they respect the fact that people smarter than them have come up with many things that allow them to live more comfortably than they would have otherwise.

Umpires move the eyes downwards to see if someone is overstepping and you can obviously see the bowlers arm at the top of your eyesight. Besides Hair bent down when umpiring which helps see whether its a overstep No-ball without focusing your full attention there.

Bending down doesn't change the fact that the umpire is still meters away from the crease and hence needs to look at the line to call the no-ball. There is a reason that the square-leg umpire was assigned that job, and that is because it is almost impossible to accurately call a no-ball if you're going to be staring at the bowler's arm.

"To throw with a quick motion*, usually short distance"

*- Muralidaran

Ahh... so throwing is "to throw with a quick motion"? Great job defining it to someone who doesn't know what throwing means. The real point here is that you will need to have some hard limits to determine what throwing is--you cannot just set that limit as what YOU see as fit because there will obviously be people in disagreement with you.

 

[mattfb]

Ahh... so throwing is "to throw with a quick motion"? Great job defining it to someone who doesn't know what throwing means. The real point here is that you will need to have some hard limits to determine what throwing is--you cannot just set that limit as what YOU see as fit because there will obviously be people in disagreement with you.

Lol sorry, thats what it said under chuck

 

[Sureshot]

Why do I find it supsicious? It all goes back to Warne vs Murali, you guys hate Warne because what he has done to shame them over and over again. I don't have that "Your an Aussie who hate Murali because he is going to pass Warne's record" tag on me because it's not about Warne with me - its about this guy who has been throwing for 15 years and should have 700 run outs next to his name. To allow a man bowl like that is a disgrace to the ICC and shows they are a bunch of pussies who don't have balls like Darrel Hair and Ross Emerson to actually call him, see, they called him because he threw not by making the decision off biomechanical tests - I can make that judgement to.

When those umpires called Murali for no ball only the square leg umpire was allowed to call a bowler for a 'throw', yet both Hair and Emerson where at the bowlers end. Show's their competence.

Again I re-iterate the point that the naked human eye cannot accurately judge a bowler for throwing. Did you think Botha and Ahmed were chuckers? I didn't think "Dodgy action!".

 

[Skater]

I don't hate Warne because of the amount of times he has destroyed the England innings. He was one of the most entertaining bowlers ever and I am not using bias in this argument at all.

You say I labelled this as a pointless argument then fuelled it. That's not true, I said, yes, this is a pointless argument, but the fact, the reality, is that Muralidaran's bowling action is legal and he has every right to use it in international cricket.

You keep giving your own definitions of a throw or a chuck too, and relating those to Muralidaran's action. Remember, it doesn't matter what you think is a throw or a chuck, it only matters what is written about it in the laws of the game he plays. Those laws state his action is legal.

 

[Hooper]

When those umpires called Murali for no ball only the square leg umpire was allowed to call a bowler for a 'throw', yet both Hair and Emerson where at the bowlers end. Show's their competence.

Again I re-iterate the point that the naked human eye cannot accurately judge a bowler for throwing. Did you think Botha and Ahmed were chuckers? I didn't think "Dodgy action!".

Botha's looked bad to me, didnt see Ahmed's.

 

[nuffa]

I don't hate Warne because of the amount of times he has destroyed the England innings. He was one of the most entertaining bowlers ever and I am not using bias in this argument at all.

You say I labelled this as a pointless argument then fuelled it. That's not true, I said, yes, this is a pointless argument, but the fact, the reality, is that Muralidaran's bowling action is legal and he has every right to use it in international cricket.


You keep giving your own definitions of a throw or a chuck too, and relating those to Muralidaran's action. Remember, it doesn't matter what you think is a throw or a chuck, it only matters what is written about it in the laws of the game he plays. Those laws state his action is legal.

exactly!! it doesn't matter what others think what matters is th rules of the game..

 

[stereotype]

Warne probably means i am biased but i think the great difference in the averages comes from the fact that murali performs on pitches very much suited to him at home, in fact away from home the difference in the averages is less an 1....a figure that could close further if Murali bowls on the non spinner friendly track of hobart

two places Warne hasnt always succeed is India and West Indies averaging 43 and 39...Murali though also has similar problems averaging 63 in Australia and 39 in India...

 

[aussie_ben91]

Yet, Warne has a worse record against every team except South Africa (I believe this is the team?), when compared to Murali on average and strike rate? Or are you going to bring up the point that Warne had world-class bowlers on his team to counter the obviously sufficient counter-argument to your argument? Do you even read the thread? Besides, how do you analyze that Warne has been absolutely horrific when compared to Murali against the side that is traditionally the best against spin--India?

Maybe you should go read my arguements earlier in the thread which no one seemed to want to argue against.

Murali has played 81 Tests in the Subcontient.
Warne has played 69 Tests in Australia.

What mainly contributes to Murali having better records against all countries is because he has bowled against them all on TURNING SURFACES while Warne has bowled on FLAT SURFACES that hardly offer much for the spinners. Not to mention that bowling in the subcontient is less suited to the pace bowlers and bowling in Australia is more suited towards the pace bowlers; hence a better opportunity for Murali to take more wickets then Warne, especially when Warne's bowling with a quality pace attack & Murali's bowling with an average one.

You see, the difference in difficulty in bowling in Australia to bowling in the Subcontient has proven huge that if Murali didn't have allot better statistics then Warne then they probably wouldn't be so closely comparable and saying Warne is the better bowler would be a no brainer.

An example would be as a spinner having a bad Test in Australia may result in you ending with figures of 0/150 whilst bowling in Sri Lanka / Pakistan / India having a bad Test you'll probably still end up with figures of 2/80 hence why Murali's average & statistics haven't suffered as much as Warne's have.

 

[manee]

Warne probably means i am biased

Not really since you gave some very valid reasons.

 

[sohum]

Maybe you should go read my arguements earlier in the thread which no one seemed to want to argue against.

Murali has played 81 Tests in the Subcontient.
Warne has played 69 Tests in Australia.

How do you describe the fact that Murali has played better against every test country except a couple, than Warne? It doesn't matter that Murali has played X tests here and Y there because his very average suggests that he is going to level it out eventually, anyway.

What mainly contributes to Murali having better records against all countries is because he has bowled against them all on TURNING SURFACES while Warne has bowled on FLAT SURFACES that hardly offer much for the spinners. Not to mention that bowling in the subcontient is less suited to the pace bowlers and bowling in Australia is more suited towards the pace bowlers; hence a better opportunity for Murali to take more wickets then Warne, especially when Warne's bowling with a quality pace attack & Murali's bowling with an average one.

You see, the difference in difficulty in bowling in Australia to bowling in the Subcontient has proven huge that if Murali didn't have allot better statistics then Warne then they probably wouldn't be so closely comparable and saying Warne is the better bowler would be a no brainer.

If you're going to be that subjective, than what about the fact that Warne has ALWAYS had a battery of support bowlers to back him up while Murali has only had a bit of Vaas at any given time? Surely that eases the pressure on Warne to bowl more attacking deliveries than only bowl ones that keeps the runs down? The difference in bowling in the subcontinent is more than made up by Murali when you consider the team he bowls with. Besides the fact that Murali has been far more successful against subcontinental teams IN the subcontinent than Warne. This in itself shows that Warne may not be as effective on turning tracks as you suggest.

An example would be as a spinner having a bad Test in Australia may result in you ending with figures of 0/150 whilst bowling in Sri Lanka / Pakistan / India having a bad Test you'll probably still end up with figures of 2/80 hence why Murali's average & statistics haven't suffered as much as Warne's have.

If you're going to keep pulling figures out of your ass, I'm going to be happy to ignore you. I mean, there are just so many things up to subjective opinion in your statement that is no use trying to objectively argue them.

 

[stereotype]

Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe combined

Warne- 3
Murali- 23

 

[sohum]

Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe combined

Warne- 3
Murali- 23

What is your frikking point? Murali has the better average and strike rate than Warne against almost every test playing nation!