The Johan Botha saga made us page Bishen Bedi, without any response. And then came a fantastic idea to contain this contagion, yes we want the ICC to equip the umpires with protractors to effectively measure the delivery angle of every bowler. No, not (Mike) Proctor, the one we are referring is the drafting instrument that used to form part of our secondary school geometry boxes.
To start with we studied a couple of pictures, just that moment as the bowling hand is about to release the ball. As I think this might be a little controversial, I am not going to pass any judgement. I would leave it open to the bored members and the bored readers to form their own opinion and probably have a discussion.
What we would do here is to just give you a couple of pointers about what we see in the pictures. Excuse me if you thought we are stirring up the hornets nest again. That is not the intention. Personally speaking I am a great fan of one of the two guys we are talking about here while I haven’t watched much of the other.
Exhibit 1: Muralidaran at practice with Chennai Superkings.
1. He is about to deliver what seems like a possible doosra
2. Look at how upright and (almost) straight his body is
3. Look at the left hand and the left leg, almost firmly pivoted at 80-85 degrees
4. Look at the bowling arm, it seems like it is cocked at 40 degrees
Now the question, do you think if this is the position you are anchored at you would manage to deliver within the mandated 15 degrees?
Now can you take a ball in your hand and try replicating this position and then releasing the ball? Do you feel like your bowling arm might twist badly if you wanted to straighten it (the normal delivery style)?
So what do you think about this action?
Exhibit 2: Botha in action during the recent ODI series against Australia
1. He seems like he is going to deliver a conventional
off-spinner or may be a faster one (more likely it is actually a faster one, if you look at how well he is using the crease and how close he is to the stumps).
2. Look at his body, it is at 70-75 degrees, aligned with his pivotal left leg
3. Now look at where his left hand is anchored, it is completely aligned with his bowling arm (elbow). At 30-35 degrees.
The question, do you think he would deliver the faster one within the stipulated 15 degree bend of the arm?
Why don’t you try this now with a ball in your hand?
This action is a little easily correctable. But the problem is that if you try to correct yourself after cocking up into this position, most probably the ball you deliver is going to bisect (even a squarish) third man and the backward point fielder for a perfect 5.
I am not trying to pass any judgment here as I had mentioned earlier. What is right for some could be wrong from someone else. What is a perfect 6/6 for someone might be short sight for another.
Bored devils bored advocate…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
raja...must say...you have presented your case very nicely...
its easy to see also that who's action is correctable...but one must not forget that murli's albow (if my memory serves me right) has some problem which gives the illusion of bending more than it is...which i think they took in consideration...
again this is not to support or oppose individual but presenting another angle or fact to carry the debate fwd...
SP... Just a minor correction in what you have said. Murali has a bent elbow and it is a medical problem.
But I couldn't quite agree with the illusion bit. This is a pretty black or white case, either your arm is bent (because of a medical problem in Murali's case) or it is not.
Illusion is what the ICC is creating using this issue. Coming out with judgments time and again increasing a degree or two on how much your arm can bend.
If I am not wrong it all started with 9 degrees or something and now we have it at 15. Now imagine a person who has a problem more acute than Murali, with a 20 degree bend. What would the ICC do?
a. Declare that this person can't play the game of cricket?
b. Revise the regulations again to include a 20 degree bend?
Now Imagine (b) happens, then what is the guarantee that I wouldn't model my action on this person and cheat the world when I have no medical history?
So in my opinion more than playing on this illusion card, the ICC has the duty to clarify. They have to say if you are a normal person (read without a medial history) then "x" degrees of bend is the threshold. If you have a deformity then that would be assessed by the ICC medical panel and decide on a case to case basis.
So, on this issue I would partly agree with Bedi, just to the extent that I would also blame the ICC for their stand on this issue. For they have the obligation to clarify what is right and what is not.
agree that icc should come clear on this issue...and i am of the opinion that some allowance must be given to the person who has some medical problem...
besides i have always wondered how can one chuck and flight the ball at the same time...? :)
SP... It's pretty simple... As we all know, Murali has a deformity and hence he does flight the ball as it is his natural action.
Now model yourself like a Murali, you don't have a medical history but you can still "act" like a Murali and more or less bowl like him !!
It is easier said than done, but on the other side they also say no pain, no gain. I am sure you might have heard about his Gujarat kid, some 17-18 who apparently is a mirror image of Murali. I remember reading somewhere that this kid doesn't have any medical problem, but is simply feigning one to play cricket.
That is exactly why ICC has to intervene immediately and differentiate between these two cases, deformity and a replica
i think the kid you are talking about is parmar...last heard he is been sent to nca under the guidance of prassana i think...
i think the kid you are talking about is parmar...last heard he is been sent to nca under the guidance of prassana i think...
Monish Parmar... Yes.
Here we go... It is Mohnish Parmar and not Monish as I mentioned earlier...
More here
http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/30/stories/2009013060272100.htm
If you read this story, you would understand that people like him mushroom because of the regulator apathy. In his case it is the BCCI.
One line in this report is striking and I quote "Parmar feels he would lose the doosra if he changes the action". One must appreciate his courage for saying so.
My verdict for him... For this one line "Pehla, cricket needs to lose him"
What say?
thanks for the link...
he seems unwilling to change his action but i think here the authority should step in authoritatively... :)
either he sort out his action of he wont play...should be the message but on the other hand if there is an obvious talent you can't also discard it like that...
SP... See that I think is the difference between the anti-establishmentarian me and you !!
I would say ban him even if he's got talent, a bundle of it. The thiefs and dacoits are extremely talented, do we allow them to thrive because they are talented?
We need to let them (in this case a Parmar) choose the right way or the highway. And not get carried with phrases such as talent etc.
any progressive society do accept even dacoits etc...if they are willing to mend their ways...and that's what we have made rehabilitation centers for...isn't it...
SP... Point well taken. But we read about his concern of losing his doosra.
This is a guy who went for a rehab under Venkatraghavan at NCA, but still is bowling the same way he used to previously.
Now tell me what our progressive society should do with this guy.
one can help only to an extent...if he is not willing to mend his way...he can go highway...as simple is that... :)
Thanks many SP, finally you came my way... The anti-establishmentarian way... Inquilab Zindabad !!
Post a Comment