murali is a cricket king.
imetal
Diggler
> how any body saying against murali he is remarkable bowler of cricket.
correction - thrower
Ian Thorpe
"Diggler" <dnarm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b67863c-215e-4e17...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 3, 12:13 pm, imetal <imetal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> how any body saying against murali he is remarkable bowler of cricket.
>
> correction - thrower
Andrew Flintoff and Brett Lee are Blatant Chuckers - Peter Roebuck
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527941557.html
Action must be fixed
October 2, 2004
Unless Andrew Flintoff alters his action, he will be thrown into an
avoidable fracas, writes Peter Roebuck.
Andrew Flintoff's bowling action is provoking concern. His action has
deteriorated since he returned from his latest injury and now contains an
unmistakable jerk.
Before long, the roughness of his style is bound to attract the attention of
observers prepared to remove their eyes from a harmless tweaker suspected,
at worst, of reverse-throwing at a mild pace.
It is extraordinary that so much fuss has been made about a spinner at a
time when heads are being clattered and wickets taken by men whose menace
goes beyond an ability to turn the ball at right-angles. The delivery that
felled Brian Lara in Hampshire was the clearest throw since the ball that
removed Marcus Trescothick in Perth not so long ago.
Cricket is trying to find its way through the scientific and legal quagmire
that illegal bowling has become. Not that the issue was any more
satisfactorily dealt with in the past.
Such is the prevailing confusion that the danger arises that bowlers of all
sorts will feel free to send the ball down without taking heed of the
restraints supposedly imposed by the rules of the game.
Every country has strong opinions about all bowlers except their own, a
habit also detected during the outbreak of corruption that bedevilled the
game a few years ago. But then, corruption is not merely a matter of money
and, as usual, the International Cricket Council is left holding the baby -
an overrated activity.
Flintoff's action requires attention. Of course, he might not be conscious
of the roughness that has crept in over the course of a few months during
which his career has caught fire in the manner of an Olympic flame.
The suggestion that bowlers with illegal actions are culprits to be put
alongside hijackers, greedy politicians and men rubbing mint into the ball
is unkind. Still, footage is taken of every over bowled in a match and shown
to players in the evenings, so cricketers are not without information.
Accordingly, it is hard to believe that no one in the England camp is aware
this issue might crop up.
Flintoff is an important member of an emerging England side. Besides his
buffeting batting, he is a "strike" bowler in the sense that he is used in
short bursts and given the task of upsetting an innings.
He bowls fast and with hostility and favours the short-pitched delivery.
Armed with the old ball, he opens his chest even more and tries to cut the
ball away from the bat, the celebrated "reverse" swing of recent discovery.
In short, he is a handful.
Injuries have threatened to curtail his career as a bowler, a circumstance
bound to inhibit a swashbuckling style of batting that has emerged after a
long period underground.
Subsequent to his breakdowns, desperate to retain his menace and anxious to
protect his body without losing pace, the Lancastrian has put greater
emphasis on the use of chest, wrist and arm to hurl the ball down.
Unfortunately, the elbow also has come into play, as is almost inevitable
when wrist and shoulder are pushed to their limits. His raggedness is more
obvious when he moves around the wicket and bends the ball away from
left-handers.
Flintoff may remain within the leeway of 10 per cent that has been permitted
to fast bowlers since slow-motion film revealed that, otherwise, hardly
anyone would pass muster. Alternatively, he may stray outside that range. By
and large, the 10 per cent allowance reflects the capabilities of the naked
eye, which remains the surest guide in these affairs.
Since Flintoff's straightening of the elbow can be seen from a distance, he
might contravene even the amended rules. In that case, the matter must be
drawn forthwith to the attention of responsible officials so that it can be
confronted before it is too late.
At least it is possible nowadays to realise matters of this sort without
feeling that a player's position is thereby put in peril. Flintoff's action
requires the cricketing version of surgery. Otherwise, it will be raised
again by those persuaded that authorities omit to treat every ball upon its
merits.
imetal
hey how come he is thrower u have to
remember it he do test 3 time so u can,t disrespect any
sportsman like murali or shoaib because ICC certify them
so no debate them at all as animate person u give u,r compliment
for any great player.
imetal
> "Diggler" <dnarmstr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
ICC rules if u see now in this modern cricket u can,t blame any
international bowler as a chucker.
IVAR
"imetal" <imet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7daebfbc-75f2-49da...@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
If I posted exactly the same comments like you did, Andrew Dunford
would have welcomed me to his killfile.
He wont do it to you since you are attacking Murali.
Lucky you imetal786 the new troll on rsc.....
Ian Thorpe
Ian Galbraith
The proof is the ICC had to change the rules to accommodate Murali.
--
"The Mennonites are even better but if you copy the recipes you have to
understand they were intended for people who do a lot of difficult farm
work every day. Mr. 'I sit at a desk all day' eats that stuff
and soon a one legged man is hunting him with a harpoon." - James Nicoll
Chan
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:50:49 -0800 (PST), imetal wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 11:38 pm, Diggler <dnarmstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 3, 12:13 pm, imetal <imetal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> how any body saying against murali he is remarkable bowler of cricket.
>
> >> correction - thrower
>
> > hey how come he is thrower u have to
> > remember it he do test 3 time so u can,t disrespect any
> > sportsman like murali or shoaib because ICC certify them
> > so no debate them at all as animate person u give u,r compliment
> > for any great player.
>
> The proof is the ICC had to change the rules to accommodate Murali.
>
Read this before disseminating your "proof" any further:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2220802,00.html
- Chan
Chan
Do you think that Shaun Pollock and Jason Gillespie are chuckers too
Diggler? If not, why not?
- Chan
Rats
> Do you think that Shaun Pollock and Jason Gillespie are chuckers too
> Diggler? If not, why not?
>
> - Chan
C'mon Chan. You've been around this newsgroup a long time and you and
I both know that Muralicheat is a chucking cheat. So what is your
point about Pollock and Gillespie?
James Farrar
Chan
What you said about Murali unfortunately applies to them too, by their
own admission. I've posted the url here many times.
- Chan
Ian Galbraith
You think thats new evidence?
--
"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational
in order to prove that you care, or indeed why it should be necessary to
prove it at all." - Blakes 7
Diggler
> Do you think that Shaun Pollock and Jason Gillespie are chuckers too
> Diggler? If not, why not?
>
> - Chan
When I see Gillespie or Pollock bowl - I can watch them as closely as
I possibly can and I can only detect a minimal amount of arm-bending.
These blokes pretty much keep their arm almost completely straight
during their delivery, like most cricketers are taught to do. I watch
Murali bowl in slow motion and his elbow straightens significantly
before he releases the ball. It flexes and pushes forward, providing
extra pace and bite on the ball that other bowlers have, earlier in
their careers, taught themselves not to be tempted to do because it is
potentially breaking the rules.
I read the article but it failed to mention that Murali was tested in
laboratories. The last game I watched wasn't played indoors in
contrived conditions, it was played in a competitive environment where
testing conditions would actually be valid. Once he's tested in a
game then the issue can be put to rest.
Chan
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:41:50 -0800 (PST), Chan wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 10:03 pm, Ian Galbraith <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:50:49 -0800 (PST), imetal wrote:
> >>> On Dec 2, 11:38 pm, Diggler <dnarmstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 3, 12:13 pm, imetal <imetal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> how any body saying against murali he is remarkable bowler of cricket.
>
> >>>> correction - thrower
>
> >>> hey how come he is thrower u have to
> >>> remember it he do test 3 time so u can,t disrespect any
> >>> sportsman like murali or shoaib because ICC certify them
> >>> so no debate them at all as animate person u give u,r compliment
> >>> for any great player.
>
> >> The proof is the ICC had to change the rules to accommodate Murali.
>
> > Read this before disseminating your "proof" any further:
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2220802,00.html
>
> You think thats new evidence?
>
No. You provided an old argument, I provided old evidence.
- Chan
Ærchie
any sense had already left town. Yet Chan was standin' in the doorway
saying:
>On Dec 3, 1:32 pm, Ian Galbraith <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:41:50 -0800 (PST), Chan wrote:
>> > On Dec 2, 10:03 pm, Ian Galbraith <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:50:49 -0800 (PST), imetal wrote:
>> >>> On Dec 2, 11:38 pm, Diggler <dnarmstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Dec 3, 12:13 pm, imetal <imetal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> how any body saying against murali he is remarkable bowler of cricket.
>>
>> >>>> correction - thrower
>>
>> >>> hey how come he is thrower u have to
>> >>> remember it he do test 3 time so u can,t disrespect any
>> >>> sportsman like murali or shoaib because ICC certify them
>> >>> so no debate them at all as animate person u give u,r compliment
>> >>> for any great player.
>>
>> >> The proof is the ICC had to change the rules to accommodate Murali.
>>
>> > Read this before disseminating your "proof" any further:
>>
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2220802,00.html
>>
>> You think thats new evidence?
>>
>
>No. You provided an old argument, I provided old evidence.
>
>- Chan
You left out the word "discredited" before "evidence"!
Ærchie
--
Don't visit my blog, it is private property!
http://archiearchive.wordpress.com/
Latest Post - Gravity, Reversed!
CricketLeague
"Ærchie" <arch...@pphotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98k9l3lbqc0hp67d6...@4ax.com...
Erchie,
You are the same low iq aussie racist who asked where Lee was mentioned.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/a95347bdfd7459a9
Go back to school and enroll in some English reading and comprehension
courses.
Your aussie cricket fans are nothing but perpetual whining and whingeing
losers.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/f4a5548d974eb414